Eschatology From An Adventist Perspective

ESCHATOLOGY
from an Adventist Perspective
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH

I N T E R N AT I O N A L B I B L E C O N F E R E N C E
R O M E , J U N E 11 – 2 0 , 2 0 1 8
Eschatology from an
Adventist Perspective
Proceedings of the Fourth International Bible

Conference Rome, June 11–20, 2018
Editors
Elias Brasil de Souza
A. Rahel Wells
Laszlo Gallusz
Denis Kaiser
Consulting Editor
Ekkehardt Mueller
Managing Editor
Marly Timm
Biblical Research Institute Sta

Kwabena Donkor
Frank M. Hasel
Ekkehardt Mueller
Clinton Wahlen
Copy Editor
Schuyler Kline
Inside Layout
Nancy Reinhardt
Joel Iparraguirre
Cover Design
Trent Truman
ESCHATOLOGY
from an Adventist Perspective
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH

I N T E R N AT I O N A L B I B L E C O N F E R E N C E
R O M E , J U N E 11 – 2 0 , 2 0 1 8
EDITORS
Elias BRASIL DE SOUZA • A. Rahel WELLS
Laszlo GALLUSZ • Denis KAISER
Biblical Research Institute
Silver Spring, MD 20904

2021
Copyright © 2021, by Biblical Research Institute
Silver Spring, Maryland
www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org
Scripture quotations marked ASV are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®,
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked CEB are taken from the Common English Bible © 2011 Common
English Bible.
Scripture quotations marked ESV are taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®,
copyright® 2016 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
Scripture quotations marked HCSB are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Holman Christian
Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible
Publishers. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked LXX are taken from the Septuaginta: Editio altera / Revised Edition
© 2006 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked NASB are taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright
© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by
permission.
Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ All rights reserved worldwide. Used by
permission.
Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright ©
1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, copyrighted, 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the
Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Scripture quotations marked WEB are taken from the World English Bible, Public Domain, 1997.
Eschatology from an Adventist Perspective: Proceedings of the Third International Bible

Conference, Rome, June 11–20, 2018
[edited by] Elias Brasil de Souza, A. Rahel Wells, Laszlo Gallusz, and Denis Kaiser
1. Eschatology—Conferences 2. Seventh-day Adventists—Doctrines—Congresses
BX6155.42.E83 2020
Printed in the U.S.A.
ISBN 978-0-925675-32-3
Contents
Contributors ix
Abbreviations xvii
Preface xxi
Editor's Introduction xxv
Biblical Studies
Chapter 1
Presence of the Future: The Existential
Dimension of Eschatology 3
—Jacques B. Doukhan
Chapter 2
Why Care for the Earth If It Is All Going to Burn?
Eschatology and Ecology 17
—A. Rahel Wells
Chapter 3
Eschatological Focus in Job: Resurrection Imagery as a
Life-Death Antithesis 33
—Eriks Galenieks
Chapter 4
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13: Narrative Flow and Chronological
Relationships as Eschatological Indicators of Temporality 55
—Roger Ruiz
Chapter 5
God's People of the Eschaton: The Reversal of the Role of Daniel
as Prophetic Characterization of the End-Time Saints 77
—Paul B. Petersen
vi Contents
Chapter 6
When Did the 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14 Begin and End?
Fresh Evidence from Scripture, Chronology, and Karaite History 95
—Richard M. Davidson
Chapter 7
“The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord”: The Power of Emotions
and Emotive Language in Biblical Apocalyptic Texts 123
—Chantal J. Klingbeil and Gerald A. Klingbeil
Chapter 8
The Progression in the Signs of the Parousia in the
Eschatological Speeches of Jesus 139
—Jan Barna
Chapter 9
Eschatology and Every Life: How Paul Brings Home the
Last-Day Message to Our Daily Life 161
—Thomas R. Shepherd
Chapter 10
Israel in Prophecy from a New Testament Perspective 181
—Clinton Wahlen
Chapter 11
“Shaking the Heaven and the Earth”:
Daniel and the Eschatology of Hebrews 201
—Félix H. Cortez
Chapter 12
Is Eschatology a Threat to Science? 2 Peter 3 and God's
Action in History 223
—Ronald Nalin
Chapter 13
The Hastening of the Parousia in 2 Peter 3:12 239
—Eike Mueller
Chapter 14
Challenges of Futurism to the Adventist Prophetic
Interpretation of Revelation 263
—Ranko Stefanovic
Contents vii
Chapter 15
How Soon is “Soon”? Reading the Language of Eschatological
Imminence in the Book of Revelation 279
—Laszlo Gallusz
Chapter 16
The 1260 Days in the Book of Revelation 295
—Jon Paulien
Chapter 17
The Apocalypse and Ethics: Eschatology and Moral Imagination
in the Book of Revelation 323
—Larry L. Lichtenwalter
Theological and Historical Studies
Chapter 18
What Is Adventist Eschatology? 359
—Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
Chapter 19
Reflections on Historicism and Eschatology 377
—Ekkehardt Mueller
Chapter 20
Theistic Evolution and Its Implications for Adventist Eschatology 399
—Kwabena Donkor
Chapter 21
The Three Angels' Messages as the Teleological Principle
of the Adventist Theological System 429
—Dan-Adrian Petre
Chapter 22
Theodicy and Contrasting Eschatological Visions:
The Investigative Judgment and the Problem of Evil 457
—Anthony MacPherson
Chapter 23
“The Footsteps of an Approaching God”: Reflections on
Ellen G. White's End-Time Eschatology 477
—Alberto R. Timm
viii Contents
Chapter 24
The Flexibility and Fixedness of the Parousia in
Ellen G. White's Writings 501
—Denis Kaiser
Chapter 25
The Theological Necessity of the Investigative Judgment:
Albion Ballenger and His Failed Quest to Subvert the Doctrine 519
—Darius W. Jankiewicz
Chapter 26
Calculating the 1260 Year-Prophecy 559
—Nicholas P. Miller
Index of Biblical References 575
Index of Extrabiblical References 592

Contributors
Jan Barna, Ph.D., is principal lecturer in systematic and biblical
theology at Newbold College of Higher Education (Bracknell, United
Kingdom). He has a doctorate in systematic theology and hermeneutics
from Trinity College, University of Bristol (Bristol, United Kingdom). In
2012 he published his work Ordination of Women in Seventh-day Adventist
Theology: A Study in Biblical Interpretations. He has written popular and
scholarly articles for various journals and magazines. His latest book, The
Day of the Lord and Its Events: A Systematic and Biblical Overview of a
Misunderstood Topic, was published in the Czech language in 2017.
Félix H. Cortez, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament

literature at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews
University. He was chair of the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles Section
of the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature from
2010 to 2016 and has contributed many articles to scholarly journals
and academic books. He is also the author of “Within the Veil”: The
Ascension of the Son in the Letter to the Hebrews, and the commentary
on Hebrews for the forthcoming Seventh-day Adventist International
Bible Commentary.
Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D., is professor of Old Testament inter-

pretation at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews
University. He has a PhD in religion from Andrews University. He is
the author of numerous articles in theological journals and other publica-
tions, and has published many books, including Typology in Scripture: A
Study of Hermeneutical τὐπος Structures, Hermeneuticã biblicã, Love Song
for the Sabbath, In the Footsteps of Joshua, and his magisterial work Flame
of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament.
Kwabena Donkor, Ph.D., is an associate director of the Biblical

Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adven-
tists. He earned his doctorate in systematic theology from Andrews
University. In 2003 he published his work Tradition, Method, and Contem-
porary Protestant Theology. He has written scholarly articles for various
journals and magazines and contributed to Reclaiming the Center:
x Contributors
Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, edited by

Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor.
Jacques B. Doukhan, D.Heb-Lett., Th.D., is professor emeritus of

Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis at the Seventh-day Adventist Theo-
logical Seminary at Andrews University (Berrien Springs, Michigan) and
director emeritus of the Institute of Jewish-Christian Studies at Andrews
University. He received a doctorate in Hebrew language and literature
from the University of Strasbourg (France), and a ThD in biblical stud-
ies and systematic theology from Andrews University. In addition to
numerous published articles and reviews, Doukhan has written more
than fifteen books. He is general editor for the Seventh-day International
Biblical Commentary (forthcoming).
Eriks Galenieks, Ph.D., is a director of PhD program for religion

and Master of Arts in Biblical a Theological Studies programs at Adventist
University of Africa (Ongata Rongai, Kenya). He earned his doctorate
in Old Testament theology and exegesis from Andrews University. His
publications include The Nature, Function, and Purpose of the Term Sheol
in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings: An Exegetical-Intertextual Study (pub-
lished by the Adventist Theological Society); A Daily Devotional Book
for African Readers; and a number of various book chapters and dic-
tionary and encyclopedia articles. He also edited two books for the
Adventist Theological Society: The Sabbath and The Bible, and The Trinity
and the Bible.
Laszlo Gallusz, Ph.D., is senior lecturer of New Testament stud-

ies at Newbold College of Higher Education. He earned his doctorate
in 2011 at Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church (Budapest,
Hungary). He has published four books and a number of scholarly arti-
cles in English, Hungarian, and Serbian. The revised version of his dis-
sertation is published by T&T Clark as The Throne Motif in the Book of
Revelationin the Library of the New Testament Series. His research in-
terests are New Testament exegesis and theology, primarily in the book
of Revelation.
Darius W. Jankiewicz, Ph.D., currently serves as the field and min-

isterial secretary for the South Pacific Division of Seventh-day Adventists
in Australia. Previously he was professor of historical theology and chair
of the Theology and Christian Philosophy Department at the Seventh-
day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He has
published a number of book chapters and articles in theological
Contributors xi
journals and other publications. He is co-editor of Salvation: Contours

of Adventist Soteriology, published by Andrews University Press in 2018.
Denis Kaiser, Ph.D., is assistant professor of church history at the

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He
earned his doctorate in Adventist studies from Andrews University. He
serves as the annotation project editor of The Ellen G. White Letters &
Manuscripts with Annotations, vol. 2 (1860–1863), and subeditor of the “His-
tory of Theology and Ethics” section of the Encyclopedia of Seventh-day
Adventism. In 2019 he published his work Trust and Doubt: Perceptions of
Divine Inspiration in Seventh-day Adventist History.
Chantal J. Klingbeil, Ph.D. candidate, is an associate director of

the Ellen G. White Estate at the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists (Silver Spring, Maryland). A native of South Africa, she
served as a university professor in South America (Peru and Argentina)
and Asia (Philippines) before coming to the United States in 2009. She
is currently writing a dissertation on value transmission and social me-
dia in memes at the Department of General Linguistics at Stellenbosch
University, and has published a number of articles and chapters in peer-
reviewed and popular magazines. In 2010 she co-authored with Gerald
the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide and the companion volume
Illuminating Shadow Figures of the Bible. Chantal’s major focus in her
work at the Ellen G. White Estate is children, youth, and young adults.
Gerald A. Klingbeil, D.Litt., is an associate editor of Adventist Review

and Adventist World magazines and research professor of Old Testament
and ancient Near Eastern studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological
Seminary at Andrews University. He holds a doctorate in Ancient Near
Eastern Studies from Stellenbosch University (Stellenbosch, South Africa).
An avid writer, Klingbeil has authored or edited more than a dozen books
and hundreds of academic and popular articles, dictionary and lexica
entries, and book chapters. He is married to Chantal, with whom he
often collaborates in writing and preaching projects.
Larry L. Lichtenwalter, Ph.D., is president of Middle East University

(Beirut, Lebanon) and has a PhD in Christian ethics from Andrews
University. He is a professor, ethicist, theologian, pastor, and preacher
who has authored numerous articles in theological journals and other
publications. His published works include several books on biblical
characters as well as the books of Ecclesiastes and Revelation. Christian
xii Contributors
personal ethics, the book of Revelation, and Adventist perspectives on

Islamic studies are focus areas of his research, teaching, and publication.
Anthony MacPherson, Ph.D., is currently a lecturer in systematic

theology for Avondale Seminary at Avondale University College (Coranto,
Australia). From 2016 to 2019 he was head of theology at Fulton Adventist
University College (Nadi, Fiji). His PhD examines the great controversy
as a theodicy response to the evidential problem of evil. He has also au-
thored scholarly and popular articles for various journals and magazines.
Nicholas P. Miller, Ph.D., is professor of church history at the

has a BA in theology from Pacific Union College (Angwin, California),
a JD from Columbia University (New York, New York), and a PhD in
American religious and legal history from University of Notre Dame
(Notre Dame, Indiana). He has taught courses on church history, reli-
gious liberty, and Adventist theology for more than fifteen years. He has
written or edited several books, including The Religious Roots of the First
Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2012); Homosexuality, Marriage
and the Church (Andrews University Press, 2012); and The Reformation
and the Remnant: The Reformers Speak to Today’s Church (Pacific Press,
2016).
Eike Mueller, Th.D., is associate professor for New Testament stud-

ies at Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies (Silang,
Philippines). He received his doctorate at Andrews University, explor-
ing purity issues and in Mark. He has presented at numerous conferences
and published several articles on the New Testament in journals and
books. In addition to his own research, he serves as assistant editor of the
Seventh-day Adventist Biblical-Theological Dictionary.
Ekkehardt Mueller, D.Min., Th.D., is an associate director of the

Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists. He holds a ThD in biblical exegesis and theology from An-
drews University. He has written numerous articles for scholarly books,
journals, and magazines, as well as several books in English and German,
including The Letters of John, and Der Erste und der Letzte: Studien
zum Buch der Offenbarung (“The First and the Last: Studies on the Book
of Revelation”). A number of these have been translated into various
languages.
Contributors xiii
Ronald Nalin, Ph.D., is the director of the Geoscience Research In-

stitute (Loma Linda, California) and adjunct professor of geology at
Loma Linda University. He earned his doctorate in earth sciences at the
University of Padua (Padua, Italy). His research interests revolve around
stratigraphy and sedimentology of shallow marine deposits, with an em-
phasis on carbonate sedimentary products. He has published several pa-
pers on these subjects in international journals of sedimentary geology.
Jon Paulien, Ph.D., is professor of religion and the former dean of

the School of Religion at Loma Linda University. He is the author of more
than thirty books and more than two hundred articles in Adventist
Review, Ministry, Journal of Biblical Literature, Biblical Research, Andrews
University Seminary Studies, and others; scholarly papers published by
the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago Society for Biblical Research,
and others; and other publications. He is a specialist in the study of the
Johannine literature in the New Testament (Gospel of John and Book of
Revelation) and in the intersection of faith with contemporary culture
Paul B. Petersen, Ph.D., is from Denmark, where he worked as an

ordained pastor as well as president of the Danish Union. He is a Can-
didate of Philosophy in religion from the University of Copenhagen
(Copenhagen, Denmark), with a thesis in the book of Revelation, and
he wrote his doctoral dissertation at Andrews University on the topic
of prayers in the book of Daniel. From 2000 to 2009 he served as field
secretary and director of biblical research for the South Pacific Division.
From 2010 to 2017 he was professor of the Hebrew Bible at Andrews
University and chair of the Department of Religion. His books and
scholarly articles include topics like the Trinity, prayer, and issues in the
book of Acts. He is an assistant editor of the Seventh-day Internation-
al Biblical Commentary (forthcoming). He is now back in his home
country, serving as a pastor.
Dan-Adrian Petre, Ph.D. candidate (Adventist International In-

stitute of Advanced Studies), hails from Romania. He is completing his
doctorate in theological studies from Romania, at the Adventist Inter-
national Institute of Advanced Studies. He has been teaching theology
classes at Adventus University (Cernica, Romania) since 2010. He has
published several articles in TheoRhēma and the Journal of Asia Adventist
Seminary.
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, Th.D., is the retired director of the Biblical

Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
xiv Contributors
and continues to work part-time for the Institute. He also served as

pastor, academy teacher and director, theology professor and academic
vice president at Southwestern Adventist University (Keene, Texas) and
Antillean Adventist University (Mayagüez Arriba, Puerto Rico), and
president of the latter. He has published over twelve books, numerous
pamphlets, and hundreds of articles in books, journals, and magazines.
Among his books are Esther: A Theological Approach, Future Glory: The
8 Greatest End-Time Prophecies in the Bible, and Jewelry in the Bible. He is
editor of the Biblical Research Institute Studies in Adventist Ecclesiology
series.
Roger Ruiz, Ph.D. candidate (Andrews University), is professor of

biblical Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis at Universidad Adventista de
Centro América (Alajuela, Costa Rica). He also teaches summer courses
on the Old Testament for the Inter-American Adventist Theological Sem-
inary. He studied biblical Hebrew at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem,
Israel. He is the author of various articles on the topic of eschatology in
the book of Daniel.
Thomas R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Dr.PH., is professor of New Testament

interpretation at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at
Andrews University. He earned his DrPH in 1976 from Loma Linda
University, School of Public Health (Loma Linda, California), and his
PhD in religion in 1991 from Andrews University. He is the editor of The
Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the New Testament
(forthcoming). He has published various scholarly articles and edited
several books. His scholarly work focuses on the book of Mark and he
has been in the leadership of groups studying the Gospel of Mark in the
national Society of Biblical Literature for twenty years.
Ranko Stefanovic, Ph.D., is a professor of New Testament at the

holds a PhD from Andrews University. In addition to numerous articles
in scholarly journals and other publications, he has authored Revelation
of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, a standard text-
book in many Adventist colleges and universities; Plain Revelation: A
Reader’s Introduction to the Apocalypse; commentaries on 2 Thessalonians
and Revelation for the forthcoming Andrews Bible Commentary; and
the commentary on Romans for the Seventh-day International Biblical
Commentary (forthcoming).
Contributors xv
Alberto R. Timm, Ph.D., is a specialist in the development of

Seventh-day Adventist doctrines and theology. Director of the multi-
campus Latin-American Adventist Theological Seminary from 2007 to
2011, he is currently an associate director of the Ellen G. White Estate at
the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He has published
extensively in English, Portuguese, and Spanish.
A. Rahel Wells, Ph.D., is associate professor of Hebrew Bible in the

Department of Religion and Biblical Languages at Andrews University.
She is passionate about God’s word and God’s world, having completed
graduate degrees in religion and biology from Andrews University and
a PhD in biblical and theological studies from Wheaton College. Her
current research areas include God’s care for animals, metaphor in the
Old Testament, bioethics, and the books of Deuteronomy and Habakkuk.
Along with multiple academic presentations, her publications include
various journal articles and book chapters, and three book projects in
progress.
Clinton Wahlen, Ph.D., is an associate director of the Biblical

Research Institute at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
He received his PhD in New Testament from University of Cambridge
(Cambridge, United Kingdom) and is the author of numerous articles
and several books, including Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Syn-
optic Gospels, Women’s Ordination: Does It Matter? (coauthor), and “What
Are Human Beings That You Remember Them?” (editor/contributor). Most
recently, he wrote the commentary on the Gospel of Luke for the Andrews
Bible Commentary.
Abbreviations
Bible Versions
ASV American Standard Version

CEB Common English Bible
ESV English Standard Version
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
LXX Septuagint
NKJV New King James Version
NASB New American Standard Bible
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
WEB World English Bible
Books of the Bible
Old Testament
Gen Genesis
Exod Exodus
Lev Leviticus
Num Numbers
Deut Deuteronomy
Josh Joshua
Judg Judges
Ruth Ruth
1 Sam 1 Samuel
2 Sam 2 Samuel
1 Kgs 1 Kings
2 Kgs 2 Kings
1 Chr 1 Chronicles
2 Chr 2 Chronicles
Ezra Ezra
Neh Nehemiah
xviii Abbreviations
Esth Esther
Job Job
Ps (Pss) Psalm (Psalms)
Prov Proverbs
Eccl Ecclesiastes
Song Song of Songs
Isa Isaiah
Jer Jeremiah
Lam Lamentations
Ezek Ezekiel
Dan Daniel
Hos Hosea
Joel Joel
Amos Amos
Obad Obadiah
Jonah Jonah
Mic Micah
Nah Nahum
Hab Habakkuk
Zeph Zephaniah
Hag Haggai
Zech Zechariah
Mal Malachi
New Testament
Matt Matthew
Mark Mark
Luke Luke
John John
Acts Acts
Rom Romans
1 Cor 1 Corinthians
2 Cor 2 Corinthians
Gal Galatians
Eph Ephesians
Phil Philippians
Col Colossians
1 Thess 1 Thessalonians
2 Thess 2 Thessalonians
1 Tim 1 Timothy
2 Tim 2 Timothy
Titus Titus
Abbreviations xix
Phlm Philemon
Heb Hebrews
Jas James
1 Pet 1 Peter
2 Pet 2 Pet
1 John 1 John
2 John 2 John
3 John 3 John
Jude Jude
Rev Revelation
Hebrew Transliteration
Consonants
xx Abbreviations
Vowels
Greek Transliteration
Preface
This preface expresses gratitude to those who, in some way or an-
other, made possible the realization of the Fourth International Bible
Conference (Rome, June 11–20, 2018), which explored the topic of escha-
tology and eventually gave rise to the present volume. Several persons
and institutions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church deserve mention
for their support and active role in the process. A debt of gratitude must
be expressed to Elders Ted Wilson, G. T. Ng, and Juan Prestol of the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for supporting the real-
ization of the conference and providing indispensable financial support.
Thanks is also due to Elder Dan Jackson of the North American Divi-
sion for a significant financial donation toward the conference budget.
Special thanks are also due to Elder Artur Stele, Chair of the Biblical
Research Institute Committee, for his unwavering support throughout
the planning, organization, and realization of the event.
In the years and hectic months that preceded the conference, invalu-
able help was provided by several individuals. Jiří Moskala and Darius
W. Jankiewicz, both from Andrews University, and Ekkehardt Mueller,
my colleague at the Biblical Research Institute, as members of the orga-
nizing committee played an active role in outlining the basic contours
of the conference. Kwabena Donkor, Frank Hasel, and Clinton Wahlen,
also colleagues at the Biblical Research Institute, were very helpful with
a number of tasks indispensable for the outcome of the event. Gerhard
Pfandl should also be recognized for preparing the guide for the study
tours in Rome. However, much of what was accomplished would have
been impossible without the untiring efforts of Marly Timm, who worked
tirelessly in the difficult weeks preceding the event to make sure every
detail was in place for the comfort of the attendees. Sheri Clemmer, as
General Conference event organizer, lent her invaluable experience to the
conference. All of the above individuals also worked tirelessly through-
out the event and took active part in daily debriefing meetings to make
sure every mistake could be corrected in time and our attendees could
xxii Preface
have the best possible experience. Mention should also be made of

Marlene Bacchus and Chris Meier, who gave invaluable help in several
aspects involving the preparation of the conference.
Indispensable support was also provided by several people related
to the Inter European Division (EUD) where the conference took place.
Mario Brito, president of EUD, was supportive all along. Special thanks
must go to Corrado Cozzi, communication director of EUD, who worked
tirelessly to provide indispensable logistic support in Rome. Two other
special people from Rome offered invaluable help prior to and during
the conference: Pastor Daniele Calà and his wife Mariarosa Cavalieri.
Their commitment and gracious support, along with the group of vol-
unteers they recruited, made the realization of the conference possible
with much less weight on our shoulders. In addition, thanks are also
due to Stefano Paris, president of the Italian Union, who also lent his
support for the event to take place in his union territory.
Obviously, a conference cannot be held without speakers and attend-
ees. So thanks are due to all attendees. I also recognize the valuable
contribution of those who presented papers and devotionals, chaired ses-
sions, and helped with a number of other activities indispensable for the
positive outcome of the conference. Special reference should be made
to the administrators of the thirteen divisions and attached fields of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. Their support in promoting the event
among their institutions and providing for travel and other expenses of
their respective delegates made it possible for attendees from all over the
world to attend and enjoy the conference.
Last but not least, and indeed, most importantly, we must recognize
God’s blessings over the entire process. Logistics of the conference in-
volved not only academic and other presentations within the premis-
es of the Ergife Hotel, but also study tours. On certain days eight buses
transporting about four hundred participants drove from one histori-
cal site to another, in and around Rome. Such circumstances, along with
international travel by the delegates representing the global Adventist
community, created all kinds of potential risks and dangers. But in all
these complex processes involving travel, organization, and implementa-
tion of the conference and its related activities, we felt God’s protective
hand over everything. Thus, with gratitude we give to Him all the honor,
glory, and praises.
This volume represents a sample of the many stimulating papers and
presentations delivered at the conference. As an academic publication,
the ideas and suggestions expressed in these chapters are that of the re-
spective authors. However, they contain important reflections that may
help the Adventist Church grow in its understanding of God’s Word,
Preface xxiii
especially in the area of eschatology. I’m thankful for the work done by
my co-editors A. Rahel Wells, Laszlo Gallusz, and Denis Kaiser. Thanks
are also due to Marly Timm, Joy Brondo, and Yuriem Rodriguez for help
in the process that brought this volume to existence. Last, but not least,
I would like to thank Keldie Paroschi, whose meticulous revision of the
manuscript saved the book from many mistakes. Imperfections that may
remain are my own responsibility.

Director, Biblical Research Institute
Editors’ Introduction
This volume consists of essays that were originally delivered as papers
at the Fourth International Bible Conference (Rome, June 11–20, 2018) or-
ganized by the Biblical Research Institute. For the benefit of the reader,
we offer the following overview of the studies included in this volume.
In chapter 1, “Presence of the Future: The Existential Dimension of
Eschatology,” Jacques B. Doukhan examines and discusses the existen-
tial dimension of the eschatological and apocalyptic revelation. He shows
how wisdom, ethics, hope, worship, and the joy of life are part of the
eschatological message, and how a neglect of this connection could lead
to fanaticism, mental imbalance, dangerous behavior, and distorted views
of the eschatological message. Doukhan’s arguments are supported and
illustrated by apocalyptic-eschatological texts (notably Daniel, Revelation,
and Ecclesiastes, with an incidental revisit of the three angels’ messages),
and the dramatic testimony of historical cases.
In chapter 2, “Why Care for the Earth If It Is All Going to Burn?
Eschatology and Ecology,” A. Rahel Wells addresses the relationship
between eschatology and ecology. As she points out, assumptions that
God will renew the earth anyway often translate, unfortunately, into ne-
glecting the environment. This inaccurate understanding overlooks the
clear descriptions of God’s care for the earth and human ecological re-
sponsibility in the original creation, the new earth, and all laws for the
present. Eschatological passages include a picture of earth restored and
rejuvenated, rather than annihilated and recreated from nothing. Even
the images of fire burning at the end of time do not imply that the earth
will be totally consumed. Eschatology presupposes and necessitates eco-
logical care in the present; it does not oppose it.
In chapter 3, “Eschatological Focus in Job: Resurrection Imagery
as a Life-Death Antithesis,” Eriks Galenieks counters the view that the
eschatological perspective, whether individual or general, is absent from
the Hebrew Scriptures, which leads to the belief that resurrection was
unknown to the Old Testament people. Galenieks turns to the oldest
book in the Bible, the book of Job, to show that the most fundamental
xxvi Editors’ Introduction
questions—namely, life and death—are indeed addressed in the Hebrew

Scriptures.
In chapter 4, “Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13: Narrative Flow and Chron-
ological Relationships as Eschatological Indicators of Temporality,”
Roger Ruiz explores Daniel 11, one of the most challenging chapters of
the Bible, from a linguistic perspective. In a detailed study, he explains
the relationships among some very crucial expressions of eschatologi-
cal time—“time of the end,” “that time,” and “the end of the days”—
used in the final section of the book of Daniel: they are temporal expres-
sions of the fourth prophetic outline of Daniel.
Paul B. Petersen contributes chapter 5, “God’s People of the Eschaton:
The Reversal of the Role of Daniel as Prophetic Characterization of the
End-Time Saints.” He shows that the focus in Daniel itself is less on the
details of the eschaton and more on the nature of the people of God
during this final period of earth’s history. Petersen explores the eschato-
logical teachings in the book of Daniel regarding the characteristics of
the people of God during the “appointed time of the end” and argues
that the major key for such a characterization is the often-overlooked
significance of the reversal of Daniel’s role—from hero of the narrative
in Daniel 1–6 to troubled visionary in Daniel 7–12.
In chapter 6, “When Did the 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14 Begin and
End? Fresh Evidence from Scripture, Chronology, and Karaite History,”
Richard M. Davidson addresses the thorny issue of chronology in or-
der to establish secure dates for the longest prophetic period recorded in
Scripture. After a detailed investigation of the evidence, Davidson con-
cludes that the time period of the prophecy certainly begins in the
autumn (not spring) of 457 BC—probably on the Day of Atonement,
October 30—and ends on the Day of Atonement in AD 1844, which, ac-
cording to the biblical reckoning, almost certainly fell on October 22
that year, not September 23.
In chapter 7, “‘The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord’: The Pow-
er of Emotions and Emotive Language in Biblical Apocalyptic Texts,”
Chantal J. Klingbeil and Gerald A. Klingbeil show the power of emotions
and emotive language in biblical apocalyptic literature, focusing on se-
lected texts from Daniel and Revelation. Tracking categories of emotions
in biblical texts, they offer a summary and interpretation of the pres-
ence of the emotive language in eschatological texts based on three cat-
egories: 1) negative emotional responses, 2) positive emotional responses,
and 3) anticipated reader responses.
Shifting the focus to the New Testament, Jan Barna explores the “The
Progression in the Signs of the Parousia in the Eschatological Speeches
of Jesus” in chapter 8. According to Barna, Jesus’ eschatological speeches
Editors’ Introduction xxvii
about His second coming, recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, highlight

particular signs that are indicative of the time of the end. Although most
of the signs are well known even in larger society and have been dealt
with by many Christian interpreters, Barna contends that there is an
underlying literary and thematic framework of progression from “be-
ginning,” through “urgency,” to “immediacy” of the parousia that has
largely been overlooked.
Thomas R. Shepherd continues the focus on the New Testament
in chapter 9, “Eschatology and Everyday Life: How Paul Brings Home
the Last-Day Message to Our Daily Life.” He notes that the apostle Paul
has much to say about eschatology, particularly the eschatological sig-
nificance of Jesus’ resurrection. Showing that Paul links the eschatolog-
ical truth of Jesus’ resurrection to his own life and ministry and to the
everyday life of the Christians to whom he writes, Shepherd illustrates
this feature of Pauline theology by mapping the everyday themes that
arise from Paul’s discussion of the resurrection in his letters.
In chapter 10, Clinton Wahlen deals with the topic of “Israel in
Prophecy from a New Testament Perspective.” He argues that although
many prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Israel have had no
obvious fulfillment, New Testament writers consistently speak of proph-
ecies fulfilled. Wahlen shows how a sifting within Israel in response
to the proclamations of John the Baptist and Jesus results in Israel’s “res-
toration” in relation to Jesus as its messianic King. By examining the
relevant terminology, together with a detailed consideration of crucial
New Testament passages concerning Israel (Acts 15, Romans 9–11, and
passages in Revelation), Wahlen exposes the inadequacy of a strictly eth-
nic definition of Israel in light of God’s intention that “all Israel” be saved.
Félix H. Cortez contributes chapter 11 with a study titled “‘Shaking
The Heavens and the Earth’: Daniel and the Eschatology of Hebrews.”
He investigates an allusion to Daniel 7:18 in Hebrews 12:28 and explores
the role that the allusion to Daniel 7:18—a chapter dealing with the pre-
advent judgment—plays in the argument of Hebrews. He shows that while
in the expository sections of Hebrews the author is primarily interested
in discussing the achievements of Christ in the past, his hortatory argu-
ment looks to the future and its most important concern is to prepare
believers for the judgment they will face.
In chapter 12, “Is Eschatology a Threat to Science? 2 Peter 3 and
God’s Action in History,” Ronald Nalin shows that eschatology does not
need to represent a threat to science, provided that our understanding
of the relation of the present to the past and future acknowledges: 1) the
reality of God the Creator as preexisting and distinct from His creation;
2) that there have been divinely caused processes in the past, when
xxviii Editors’ Introduction
God intervened in nature; and 3) these past divine interventions warrant

the possibility of a future one.
Addressing “The Hastening of the Parousia in 2 Peter 3:12” in chap-
ter 13, Eike Mueller notes that on the basis of the translation of the
participle speudontas some have taken this passage to mean that hu-
man beings can influence the timing of the second coming, while others
have opposed this view—arguing instead that the participle should be
translated as “eagerly awaiting” instead of “hasten.” His chapter exam-
ines various models of explanation for 2 Peter 3:12, and then resolves
the passage by examining it in its larger context.
Ranko Stefanovic tackles the “Challenges of Futurism to the Ad-
ventist Prophetic Interpretation of Revelation” in chapter 14. He shows
that the book of Revelation itself points to historicism as the most ap-
propriate and the only valid approach to prophetic interpretation.
Stefanovic offers some practical suggestions to show how the meaningful
interpretation of some key passages of the book—including the messages
to the seven churches, the vision of chapters 4–5, and the introductory
vision to the seven trumpets—serves as a safeguard from the pitfall
of futurism. He also gives attention to the seven trumpets and the seven
last plagues, which are strongholds for the futurist position.
In chapter 15, “How Soon is ‘Soon’? Reading the Language of Escha-
tological Imminence in the Book of Revelation,” Laszlo Gallusz argues
that from its first verse to its very last, Revelation is replete with the lan-
guage of imminence. Its temporal emphasis poses a problem in light
of the almost two-millennia-long wait for the soon coming of Christ.
Gallusz identifies and analyzes seven expressions of imminence in
Revelation and makes an attempt to interpret the book’s temporal per-
spective, paying attention to the matter of genre and the salvation-
historical thought framework of the biblical author, particularly to the
Christ-event as the center of human history.
Chapter 16 features a contribution by Jon Paulien. Recognizing that
the Seventh-day Adventist identity relates to the time periods in the
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, Paulien writes on “The 1260 Days
in the Book of Revelation.” Noting that aspects of those time prophecies
have not in the past been developed in relation to solid academic exege-
sis, Paulien offers a more exegetical basis for Adventist understanding
of the five 1260-day/year passages in Revelation 11–13.
In chapter 17, “The Apocalypse and Ethics: Eschatology and Moral
Imagination in the Book of Revelation,” Larry L. Lichtenwalter argues that
Revelation’s eschatology and ethics interweave, informing Scripture’s
ultimate moral/spiritual vision and urgent appeal. He shows that moral
realities unfold against the vivid tapestry of an eschatological horizon
Editors’ Introduction xxix
comprised of a historical flow (past, present, future) and in the context

of an overarching worldview with its vision of God and His redemptive
re-creation. According to Lichtenwalter, Revelation puts us in a moral
context—telling us what condition human life is in, where we are, and
where we are going; it informs us what questions need to be answered
and provides the philosophical map, the larger moral vision against
which its various moral themes can be considered.
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in chapter 18, “What Is Adventist Escha-
tology?,” discusses the nature of Adventist eschatology and addresses
the challenges that it faces to further elucidate its nature. Rodríguez
stresses that Adventist eschatology is a vision of the future, identified
as the Christian hope, configured in the divine mind as part of His re-
demptive plan, centered in Christ, preserved in Scripture, and appro-
priated by faith in the divine promise. It is only visible and accessible in
Christ, making it absolutely trustworthy.
Chapter 19 by Ekkehardt Mueller offers “Reflections on Historicism
and Eschatology.” He deals with the relation of historicism and eschatol-
ogy and, after some definitions and observations on historicism, moves
on to eschatology, before finally looking at both of these topics togeth-
er. Mueller argues that since New Testament eschatology comprises
Christ’s first coming, the interim in which we now live, and the longed-
for second coming of our Savior and Lord, historicism is the approach
that does most justice to the perspective of apocalyptic literature, espe-
cially as found in Revelation.
Kwabena Donkor, in chapter 20, “Theistic Evolution and Its Impli-
cations for Adventist Eschatology,” notes that in some quarters of con-
temporary culture, evolution has been taken as fact, and this has the
effect of making the interdisciplinary conversation between Christian
theology and science an increasingly important theological topic.
Donkor concludes that Adventist eschatology and theistic evolution’s
eschatology are built on such contrasting hermeneutical foundations
that they cannot coexist coherently. To adopt theistic evolution and its
eschatological vision into the Adventist belief system would mean a
reworking of Adventist eschatology, such that it would bear no resem-
blance to what we know it to be presently.
In chapter 21, “The Three Angels’ Messages as the Teleological
Principle of the Adventist Theological System,” Dan-Adrian Petre ar-
gues that Adventist theology is based on a historicist understanding
of the apocalyptic prophecies. Petre offers an overview of the Adventist
theological system and its cognitive, hermeneutical, and methodological
principles. He introduces the three angels’ messages as the teleologi-
cal principle and discusses the doctrinal development and theological
xxx Editors’ Introduction
content of the three angels’ messages. He emphasizes the eschatological

interconnectedness that reinforces the teleological character of the three
angels’ messages.
Anthony MacPherson contributes chapter 22, “Theodicy and Contrast-
ing Eschatological Visions: The Investigative Judgment and the Problem
of Evil.” MacPerson addresses issues specific to eschatology such as the
final fate of the wicked, the imperfect believer, the unevangelized pagan,
the completeness of God’s victory over evil, and the prospect of evil’s
full elimination, or its possible re-emergence. He notes that over time
theologians have produced a range of eschatological responses to these
issues. He outlines and analyzes some of these responses and compares
them with the comprehensive Seventh-day Adventist eschatological
vision based in the pre-advent and millennial judgments.
In chapter 23, “‘The Footsteps of an Approaching God’: Reflections
on Ellen G. White’s End-Time Eschatology,” Alberto R. Timm provides
a general overview of end-time biblical eschatology as described by
Ellen G. White. After highlighting some major end-time philosophi-
cal and religious challenges, Timm deals specifically with White’s views
of the great cosmic controversy between good and evil, the cataclysmic
“signs” of Christ’s second coming, the conditional imminence of His
appearing, the end-time scenario that culminates with that glorious
event, and God’s absolute and final victory over sin and all impenitent
sinners, eradicating them completely and forever from the universe.
Timm underscores that a clear understanding of White’s eschatologi-
cal expositions can help us better appreciate God’s triumphant leading of
human affairs and loving care for each one of us.
In chapter 24, “The Flexibility and Fixedness of the Parousia in Ellen
G. White’s Writings,” Denis Kaiser reflects on two apparently contradic-
tory types of statements by Ellen G. White. On the one hand, she speaks
of the possibility to hasten Christ’s second coming and that God’s peo-
ple have delayed that event. On the other hand, she mentions that the
time of Jesus’ coming is near and that the Father knows the time, imply-
ing that “God’s purposes know no haste and no delay.” Kaiser analyzes
her particular statements on the subject, tries to solve the tension be-
tween these seemingly contradictory remarks, and outlines implications
for our spiritual life and our expectations of the second of Christ.
Darius W. Jankiewicz contributes chapter 25, “The Theological Ne-
cessity of the Investigative Judgment: Albion Ballenger and His Failed
Quest to Subvert the Doctrine.” Jankiewicz argues that the investiga-
tive judgment doctrine has always been an intrinsic part of Seventh-day
Adventist soteriology. Throughout the history of Seventh-day Adven-
tists, however, the investigative (or pre-advent) judgment has been one
Editors’ Introduction xxxi
of the most controversial doctrines, challenged and questioned more

than any other Adventist belief. For Adventists, however, the investiga-
tive judgment forms an essential part of our theology and cannot be
abandoned. Jankiewicz explains that this is because Adventist soteriol-
ogy is locked within a meta-theological paradigm that necessitates the
eschatological pre-advent judgment. Thus, according to him, under-
standing this paradigm may be helpful in explaining the beauty and
uniqueness of Adventist soteriology.
Finally, Nicholas P. Miller’s contribution, “Calculating the 1260-
Year Prophecy,” closes the volume with chapter 26. Miller contends that
a careful, historical understanding of the history of church and state is
exceedingly helpful to an understanding of prophecy. According to him,
rather than focusing on military events, losses, or victories, a concern
with legal enactments relating to church and state is of greater impor-
tance. Thus, the uprooting of three horns is a historical process over
a period of time, from the 470s to 550s, whereas legal enactments—
especially related to the Justinian Code—can provide a more precise
time boundary for events. It also serves to highlight the end of the pe-
riod, with Justinian’s Religious Code being replaced by the Napoleonic
Secular Code in 1798. According to Miller, this new way of looking at
prophetic periods may also help us with more obscure prophecies, such
as the time periods in the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation.
Biblical Studies
CHAPTER 1
Presence of the Future:

The Existential Dimension
of Eschatology
Jacques B. Doukhan
The “presence of the future”1 that will be discussed in this study is

not about Rudolf Bultmann’s idea that the “future” aspect of the kingdom
of God is to be understood in existential terms, implying that in fact the
kingdom of God is only lived as the present experience of an encounter
(“kerygma”).2 It is not about C. H. Dodd’s suggestion that the kingdom
of God has already been realized in Christ, implying that we are now
in the eschatological kingdom.3 Neither is it about G. E. Ladd’s thesis4
that the kingdom of God is to be understood within the paradigm of
the “already/not yet” tension, implying that the kingdom is not only a
present reality in the person and mission of Jesus Christ who works in
human history but also an apocalyptic event that will take place at the
end of the age.
This study is to show the “present” dimension of the apocalyptic
revelation of the “future.” How does the apocalyptic vision of the future
also concern present life on earth? Four apocalyptic texts (two from
Daniel and two from Revelation) have been chosen to prove this case
1
Note that “The Presence of the Future” as the title of this paper is not indebted to Ladd’s book
(see n. 4), and is used in a different sense.
2
See Rudolf Bultmann, History and Eschatology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1957).
3
See C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1936).
4
G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1974).
4 ESCHATOLOGY FROM AN ADVENTIST PERSPECTIVE
and illuminate its paradox. First, two eschatological expressions—“at

the end of days” (Dan 1:18)5 and “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10)—refer to the
present dimension of the future time of the end. Second, two apocalyp-
tic texts—the prophecy of the 1335 days (Dan 12:12) and the prophecy of
the three angels’ messages (Rev 14:6–13)—refer to the present earth-
ly dimension of the Day of Atonement. Following the examination of
these key eschatological texts that highlight the need for a connected
eschatology, a brief exposition of specific cases in the three Abrahamic
religions will warn against the danger of a disconnected eschatology.
The Presence of the Day of the Lord
“At the end of the days” (Dan 1:18)

The Hebrew phrase ûmiq āt yāmîm (“at the end of the days”) is used
by Daniel to refer to the end of his training, with his “final examination
and its results,”6 before entering the king’s service (Dan 1:5, 18). It echoes
the phrase lĕqē hayyāmîn (“at the end of days”), which designates the
end of human history, when Daniel and all the saved ones receive their
“inheritance” (Dan 12:13).
The eschatological intention of this language is further supported by
the immediate context, which seems to allude to the Day of Atonement,
as the following evidence suggests: 1) the experience of the period of
“ten days” (Dan 1:12), which relates to a time of test in view of vindica-
tion (cf. Rev 2:10), may be an allusion to the ten days needed between
the Feast of Trumpets to prepare for the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:27);
2) the particular word wĕyērā û (“be examined”) (Dan 1:13) has the same
passive form (Niphal) as the verb that refers to God’s revelation at the Day
of Atonement (Lev 16:2; cf. Gen 22:14);7 and 3) the emphatic repetition
of the word mar ē (“countenance,” 3x in Dan 1:13, 15) does not just refer
to the impressive appearance of the young men (cf. Dan 1:4). In Daniel
this word refers specifically to the eschatological vision of God’s revelation
in the 2300 evenings and mornings (Dan 8:13, 26). This eschatological
perspective conveys by association, then, a message of hope. Applied to
the case of Daniel and his three friends, these echoes convey the idea
that God will be revealed through this “test,” and they will be vindicated
as at the Day of Atonement.
5
Biblical quotations follow closely the NKJV.
6
C. L. Seow, Daniel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 29.
7
The line could also be translated “in the mount, the LORD shall be seen” (see Pss 24:4; 48:2; Isa
4:50; Ezek 28:14, 16; etc.).
Presence of the Future: The Existential Dimension of Eschatology 5
That Daniel uses eschatological language to describe his present situ-

ation contains an important lesson for the student of the eschatological
prophecy: the message of the end of times is not disconnected from the
present existence, but is, on the contrary, a part of present life and gives
a sense to existence. Note incidentally that this “end of days” has been
determined by the king, while the day of Cyrus, like the eschatological
“end of days,” has been determined by God Himself. Whether deter-
mined by human wisdom and secular traditions or by God, Daniel’s
experience of the end times in human life was not only the occasion to
remember the transitory character of existence, and thus provide the
lucid perspective of wisdom (Eccl 7:1–4, 8); Daniel understood this end
time of his existence in an eschatological sense as a message of hope.
“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10)

The expression kyriakē hēmera (“the Lord’s Day”) has been the object
of considerable discussions and has been interpreted in various manners.
This phrase appears at the beginning of John’s report of his apocalyptic
vision: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud
voice, as a trumpet, saying: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega’” (Rev 1:10–11).
The style of this line is reminiscent of Daniel’s way of introducing his vi-
sions: “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared
to me—to me, Daniel” (Dan 8:1; cf. 9:1; 10:1). This study suggests that in
light of Revelation’s parallels with Daniel that John, like Daniel, refers
primarily to the time when he received his vision (cf. Dan 7:1; 9:1; 10:1).
Since it cannot be Sunday because the phrase “Lord’s Day” is not attested
in history before the second century AD, there are good reasons to think
that it refers to the seventh-day Sabbath,8 which is called in the Hebrew
Scriptures wĕyôm haššĕbîʿî šabbāt la ădōnāy (“the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord”) (Exod 20:10; cf. Exod 16:23; Lev 23:13; Deut 5:14).
The Hebrew preposition la (“to, ”translated “of ”) before ădōnāy (“the
Lord”) denotes the genitive relation expressing the idea that it belongs
to the Lord.9 This interpretation is supported by the context of this
passage, which is about the seven churches (Rev 1:11), and the literary
structure of the book of Revelation, which is articulated on the calendar
of Israel’s holy days in Leviticus 23, implying the Sabbath at this place.10
8
Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1901), 128.
9
Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed., E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur
Ernest Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 419–420, §129.
10
Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 13–15.
Note that this association of the name YHWH ( ădōnāy) with the Sabbath
has been preserved in Israel’s worship and tradition.11
It is also highly probable that John is alluding to the other “Day of the
Lord,” the yôm YHWH of the Hebrew prophets (Isa 13:9–13; Ezek 30:1–5;
Joel 2:1–11; Amos 5:18–20; Zech 1:14–18; etc.), which refers to the day of
judgment12 and the day of Jesus’ coming at the end of times. The escha-
tological interpretation of this phrase is further supported by the loud
sound of the trumpet (Rev 1:10b), an allusion to the eschatological day
of the Lord (see Joel 2:1, 15; Zech 9:14; Zeph 1:14–16; cf. Matt 24:31;
1 Thess 4:16; Rev 11:15).13
John received, then, his vision about the day of the Lord at the
end of time (day of the final judgment and of the parousia) during the
Sabbath day, at the end of the week (the other day of the Lord remind-
ing creation), just as Daniel received the vision of the future eschatological
Day of Atonement during the Day of Atonement of his present life
(Dan 10:5). That the Sabbath and the day of the coming of the Messiah
have been related, in fact identified with each other, is not surprising.
The Sabbath has eschatological overtones in the Bible (Isa 58:14; 61:1–3;
cf. Heb 4:3–10). In Jewish tradition the Sabbath has been understood as
the sign of the day of deliverance, the “foretaste of the World to come.”14
The important lesson of this coincidence between the two days of
the Lord is that the future eschatological day gives significance to the
Sabbath day of the present existence. The eschatological day of the Lord
will, then, not only affect the theological meaning and justification of
the seventh-day Sabbath, but will also impact its practice.
11
The recitation of Psalm 92, “Song for the Sabbath day,” which opens the service of the Sabbath from
the most ancient times, begins with praising the name of YHWH: “it is good to give thanks to the
Lord (YHWH), and to sing praises to Your name” (Ps 92:1). The Talmud records the very ancient
prayer of the Sabbath by R. Zadok, which associates the Sabbath with the name of YHWH: “You gave
us, O Lord (YHWH) this great and holy seventh day in love.” See Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, A
Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 91–2.
12
White, 6:129, also seems to endorse this interpretation.
13
See Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of
Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977),
123–131.
14
Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publica-
tion Society, 2004), 495. See also Genesis 17:5 in Freedman, H. and Maurice Simon, eds., Midrash
Rabbah - Genesis, Volume I. (London: Soncino Press, 1939).
The Presence of the Day of Atonement
“Blessed is he who waits and comes to the one thousand three

hundred and thirty-five days” (Dan 12:12)
The beatitude ašrê hamĕ akke (“Blessed is he who waits”) that con-
cludes the book of Daniel, constitutes the ultimate response to the lament
question ʿad-mātay (“How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders
be?”) that the heavenly being asked in the beginning of the chapter
(Dan 12:6), and that remained hanging and unanswered. This is the last
prophetic period. After the reference to the prophetic period, “a time,
times, and half a time” (Dan 12:7), the prophet still asks the question
“What shall be the end of these things?” (Dan 12:8), implying that the
end was for later, “sealed till the time of the end” (Dan 12:9). The next
prophetic period of 1290 days is only a parenthetic information that is
specifically related to the “daily,” an issue that is raised before the proph-
ecy of the 2300 evenings and mornings, (Dan 8:11–12), and is not a
prophecy that is meant to arrive to “the end of these things” (Dan 12:8).
In fact, the period of the 1335 days is the only prophetic period associ-
ated with the idea of arrival and introduced by a blessing, suggesting the
fulfillment of prophecy (see the blessing of Ezra 7:27–28, which also
denotes arrival and marks the fulfillment of God’s promise).
The numerous parallels between this passage depicting the con-
versation of the two heavenly beings by the river in Daniel 12:5–6 and
the conversation of the two heavenly beings in Daniel 8:13–14 suggest
that the same question ʿad-mātay (“How long?”) concerns the same
prophetic event and expects the same response, thus implying that the
1335 days lead to the same arrival time as the 2300 evenings and morn-
ings of Daniel 8:14—that is, the Day of Atonement. There is, however,
one fundamental difference between these two prophecies: whereas the
prophecy of the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:14 leads to an
event in heaven, the prophecy of 1335 days in Daniel 12:12 describes for
the same time an event taking place on earth: “blessed is he who waits.”
The Hebrew word ašrê (“blessed”) connotes “happiness.” The use of
this word is related to the religious experience. This word refers to the
happiness for the forgiveness of sin (Ps 32:1–2), because one can trust
God (Isa 30:18), but it also refers to wisdom and ethics (Prov 3:13; 8:33;
Job 5:17). In this specific context the waiting that Daniel is referring to
has a particular significance. Those who wait are happy because of the
judgment that has been given to them (Dan 7:22). This is a happiness
made of gratitude and confidence because the kingdom of God has been
given to them (Dan 7:27).15 But this happiness is not just of an emotional
nature; it is not merely a sentiment. The Hebrew word ašrê (“blessed”
or “happy”) has an ethical and dynamic application. It is related to the
word āšar (“go straight,” “go on,” “advance”),16 which has strong ethical
connotations as the following verses attest: “Go in the way of understand-
ing” (Prov 9:6); “Guide your heart in the way” (Prov 23:19; cf. Isa 3:12;
9:15); “Reprove the oppressor” (Isa 1:17). This human waiting that is made
of faith and joy, but also moral straightness (Titus 2:13), testifies on earth,
in the present life, to the eschatological Day of Atonement in heaven.
“Fear God . . . for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship
Him who made heaven and earth” (Rev 14:7)
Like the preceding passage from the book of Daniel, this message
from the three angels (with some variations) also describes an event taking
place on earth that parallels and echoes the heavenly Day of Atonement.
The connection between the heavenly Day of Atonement and the three
angels’ proclamation on earth is suggested formally through its liter-
ary parallel with the vision of the four beasts (Dan 7 // Rev 13–14) and
substantially through its theological content (judgment and creation).
The Literary Parallel Between Daniel 7 and Revelation 13–14

Daniel 7 Revelation 13–14
Beast from the sea (7:1-3) Beasts from the sea (13:1a)
Lion (7:4) Beast of ten horns (13:1b)
Bear (7:6) Leopard (13:2a)
Leopard (7:6) Bear (13:2b)
Beast of ten horns (7:7) Lion (13:2c)
Usurping Power (13:3–18)
Usurping power (7:8)
(Beast from the land, 13:11–17)
Judgment/Day of Atonement Judgment/Day of Atonement
(7:9–12) (14:1–13)
Son of Man (7:13–14) Son of Man (14:14–16)
15
Note that the same Aramaic verb yhb (“give”) is used in both verses to apply to both the gift
of the judgment and the gift of the kingdom.
16
See Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-
Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), s.v. , 80.
Observations
1) The parallel between the two prophecies is consistent through-
out the texts, with some variations: 1) all the beasts of Daniel 7:4–7 are
incorporated in one single beast in Revelation 13:2 and 2) the sequence
of the beasts in Revelation 13:1–2 is reversed from the sequence of the
beasts in Daniel 7:4–7, forming a chiastic structure: lion, bear, leopard,
beast of ten horns // beast of ten horns, leopard, bear, lion.
2) The section of the judgment/Day of Atonement in Daniel 7:9–12
and the section of Revelation 14:1–13 correspond in the parallelism; both
come after the beasts and before the Son of Man. This parallel suggests
that Revelation 14:1–13 corresponds to Daniel 7:9–12, thus referring to the
same event—the judgment, the Day of Atonement. This correspondence
is confirmed in the theological content.
The Theological Content

The section of Revelation 14:1–13 that corresponds to the section of
Daniel 7:9–12 is made of two parts. The first part (Rev 14:1–5) takes place
in heaven (Rev 14:2), and describes the day of a judgment/atonement scene
involving a lamb, or rather a ram,17 standing on Zion (heavenly temple,
cf. Ps 48:1–2; Heb 12:22), signifying victory of judgment (cf. Rev 5:6;
Dan 11:1), in the company of the 144,000 who are sealed and redeemed
before the throne of God (cf. Dan 7:9, 27). Note that the actual sacrifi-
cial ram contrasts with the other non-sacrificial beasts of the prophecy,
which are described as “like a leopard,” “like . . . a bear,” and “like . . . a
lion” (Rev 13:2), in the same manner as the “like” beasts of Daniel 7:4–6
contrast with the actual sacrificial animals in Daniel 8:3–8. This allusion to
Daniel 8 and 7 confirms the interpretation that sees the Day of Atonement
in Daniel 8.
The second part (Rev 14:6–13) takes place on earth (Rev 14:6b),
and describes the proclamation of the “three angels’ message,” which
concerns judgment and creation. The first angel speaks explicitly about
judgment and creation (Rev 14:7), the second angel speaks implicitly
about judgment (Rev 14:8), and the third angel speaks implicitly about
17
The Greek word arnion that is generally translated “lamb” should rather refer to a ram, as in
Revelation 5:6 and Revelation 13:11, where the arnion “lamb” is described with horns (lambs,
unlike rams, have no horns). For that reason some commentators argue that in Revelation 5:6
this is not a lamb but a “ram,” alluding to the ram of Daniel 8:3; see R. H. Charles, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, vol. 1, Revelation 1–14, International Criti-
cal Commentary (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1920), 141; cf. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, The
Anchor Bible 38 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 86. For the identification of a ram for
arnion in Revelation 13:11, see David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, Word Biblical Commentary 52B
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 757.
creation (Rev 14:9) and judgment (Rev 14:10–13). The main questions that
arise are: Why does this association of judgment and creation appear?
And what is the theological significance of these two notions in this
particular context? First, it should be pointed out that the perspective
of this association is essentially eschatological. This intention is already
suggested through the unusual sequence of judgment-creation. The cre-
ation that is here in view is the re-creation following judgment. Second,
the unexpected mention of the “springs of water” against the regular
pattern with the three traditional components of the Genesis creation
account (heavens, earth, sea) constitutes an allusion to the new Jerusalem18
(Ezek 47:1–12; cf. Rev 7:17; 22:17). Note also the additional universal-
istic injunction “give glory to Him” (Pss 29:1–2; 96:3; Isa 24:14–15; 42:12;
66:18–19; Hab 2:14; 1 Chr 16:23–24; Rev 11:13; 15:4). But there is still an-
other reason: the association of judgment and creation constitutes the very
essence of the Day of Atonement.
First, the Day of Atonement means the day of judgment. This identi-
fication is already established through the parallelism between Daniel 7
and Daniel 8 that makes the Day of Atonement, the cleansing of the
sanctuary in Daniel 8:14, correspond to the day of judgment in Daniel
7:9–12 (see above). But judgment is also the constitutive texture of the
Day of Atonement as described in the foundational text of Leviticus 16
(ritual of separation of the two goats, ritual of atonement through the
sacrifice, affliction of one’s soul, ablutions, etc.), but also as understood
in Jewish tradition and liturgy.19
Second, the ceremony of the Day of Atonement also points to cre-
ation as implied in the text of Leviticus 16 (cosmic scope of purification;
cleansing of the whole sanctuary, as symbol of creation; Sabbath; sev-
en occurrences of “all the iniquities”; tenth day of the seventh month,
which reminds of the ten words of creation in seven days), and testified
to in Jewish tradition and liturgy.20
The proclamation on earth of judgment and creation (“three angels’
message”) that parallels the heavenly Day of Atonement is therefore to be
understood as a part of the eschatological “truth” of the Day of Atonement.
It is in fact the visible sign, the testimony on earth of the heavenly Day
of Atonement. But what does the proclamation of judgment and creation
18
John T. Baldwin, “Revelation 14:7: An Angel’s Worldview,” in Creation, Catastrophe, and
Calvary, ed. John T. Baldwin (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 19–39, sees here
an allusion to the flood.
19
Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 128.
20
Ibid., 130.
mean? This preaching is first of all information about God’s grace.

Judgment and creation are both God’s gifts to humanity. Creation is
God’s first gift to humanity, the gift of life that triggered the course of
history. Judgment is God’s last gift to humanity, the gift of salvation
through forgiveness and hence of the kingdom of God (Dan 7:22, 27; see
previous discussion). The three angels’ message to be proclaimed is
therefore a message of “good news,” as it has been explicitly identified:
“the everlasting gospel”21 (Rev 14:6).
Fear God and Give Glory to Him

This call responds to judgment (Rev 14:7a). The expression “fear God”
is often used in the wisdom texts to make people aware of and acutely
sensitive to the presence of God in every aspect of daily life, at all
occasions. In that sense the fear of God is comprehensive (Eccl 12:13–14;
cf. Ps 139:1–12) and “becomes the principle of human behavior and the
beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Ps 11:10; Prov 1:7).”22 To “fear God” is
implied again in the message of the third angel, who describes the saints
who “keep the commandments” (Rev 14:12; cf. Deut 10:12–13). This call
is reinforced by the complimentary addition “give glory to Him.” This ex-
pression has universalistic overtones (Ps 96:3; 1 Chr 16:23–24; Isa 24:14–15;
42:12; 66:18–19; Hab 2:14; Ps 29:1–2; Rev 15:4; 11:13), as it implies the
presence of all nations to whom this testimony is destined (Rev 14:6).
Worship Him Who Made Heaven and Earth

This call responds to creation (Rev 14:7b). In the Bible, creation is the
very reason for worship. The first experience of worship, the Sabbath, is
given as the first human response to creation (Gen 2:2–3; cf. Exod 20:9–11).
In the book of Nehemiah, worship is justified on the basis of creation: “You
have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host . . . the host
of heaven worships You” (Neh 9:6). Likewise in the book of Revelation,
in the context of a heavenly scene of worship, the twenty-four elders
give the same reason for worship: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive
glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by Your
will they exist and were created” (Rev 4:11). It is no accident that the
Psalms, which report Israel’s life of worship, place creation at the core of
worship (Pss 95:6; 96:5–9; 100:3; 134:1–3; 148:1–6). This concern for wor-
ship is also implied in the message of the third angel in his warning
21
There is a play on the word euanggelia (“good news”), which is repeated in both euangelisai
(“proclaim”) and euangelion (“gospel”).
22
S. Terrien, “Fear,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick, vol. 2 (Nashville,
TN: Abingdon, 1962), 259.
against worshipping the beast (Rev 14:9, 11). It is noteworthy that the
only other biblical passage that associates in the same context the ideas
of universal and eschatological judgment with the remembrance of
creation, the fear of God, and the keeping of commandments is found
in the book of Ecclesiastes,23 precisely in connection to an apocalyptic
perspective (Eccl 12:1–7):
To those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue,

and people. . . . Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of
His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven
and earth, the sea and springs of water . . . here are those who keep
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Rev 14:6, 7, 12).
You do not know the works of God who makes all things
(Eccl 11:5). . . . God will bring you into judgment (Eccl 11:9). . . .
Remember now your Creator. . . . Fear God and keep His com-
mandments, For this is all humans.24 For God will bring every
work into judgment (Eccl 12:13–14, emphasis supplied).
This accumulation of specific common themes and associations

of ideas (indicated in bold) suggests that the inspired author of the
book of Revelation had the conclusion of Ecclesiastes in mind when he
reported the three angels’ message. This intertextual connection with
the book of Ecclesiastes gives an unexpected perspective to the so-
called “three angels’ message.” Not only does it confirm the connection
23
This message of judgment and creation has also been retained by the only two New Testament
texts that refer to Ecclesiastes. In the first text, the apostle Paul quotes Ecclesiastes 7:20 to affirm
the brokenness of human nature, “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom 3:10), which he places
in the perspective of judgment: “Now we know that . . . all the world may become guilty before
God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Rom 3:19–20). In
the second text, Paul refers to the “vanity” to which the world has been subjected: “For the
creation was subjected to futility, but because of Him who subjected it in hope” (Rom 8:20).
The Greek word mataiotes, “futility,” is the same that is used by the LXX for the Hebrew word
hebel, “vanity.” This passage refers to the effect of the fall on the whole creation and to the
cosmic hope in Christ, as Paul further comments in the next verses: “Because the creation itself
also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption. . . . For we know that the whole creation
groans and labors with birth pangs together until now . . . even we ourselves groan within our-
selves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:21–22). According to
Paul, who was in touch with the book of Ecclesiastes, the only solution to the problem of
broken human nature and of the world is the cosmic solution of judgment and creation.
24
The Hebrew phrase kol , “man’s all” (NKJV), means “all humans/every person” (see
NASB, TNK), as attested in other passages in the book of Ecclesiastes (3:13; 7:2) and everywhere
in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Gen 16:21; Exod 9:19; Josh 11:14; Judg 16:17; Ps 116:11; etc.).
between the heavenly Day of Atonement and the three angels’ message,
but it also, surprisingly, opens up new horizons outside the tradition-
al borders of the apocalyptic discourse, right into the heart of the ideal
of wisdom, making us aware of the present and earthly dimension of
the eschatological message.
It is not of little significance that the apocalyptic vision is bound
with the wisdom ideals. The book of Daniel offers a perfect illustra-
tion of that connection.25 There, wisdom is mixed with prophecy. The
apocalypse is found in the context of Daniel’s stories of life, identified as
“wisdom-didactic narratives”26 (Dan 2:31–45; 3:4–24; 4:5–27; 5:25–28;
7:1–28). Reciprocally, the call for wisdom and the emphasis on the value
of intelligence and perception is emphasized in the apocalyptic sections
(Dan 8:16–17, 27; 9:2, 22–23, 10:1, 11:33; 12:10; etc.). The verb bîn, “under-
stand,” is a key word in the book of Daniel. The hero of the book, Daniel
himself, exemplifies this connection. He is a holy man who does not com-
promise with evil. He remains faithful to God’s dietary laws (Dan 1:12),
he does not lie (Dan 5:22), he does not worship the king (Dan 6:11),
and yet he is also a man who entertains friendly relationships with
people—with his guard (Dan 1:9) and with the king (Dan 6:18–19).
Daniel is involved in politics (Dan 2:49) and serves the king (Dan 1:5;
6:22). The book of Revelation has the same interest for wisdom
(Rev 7:12; 13:18; 17:9) and contains the same appeal for righteousness
and ethics (Rev 2;14; 13:10; 14:5; 22:11); there, the exhortation to “hear”
and understand is repeated in all seven prophetic letters to the churches
(Rev 2:7, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 11, 17). The book of Revelation describes the ideal
of life in terms that remind the ideal of wisdom: “Blessed are those who
do His commandments that they may have the right to the tree of life”
(Rev 22:14; cf. Prov 11:30).
Disconnected Eschatology
As history has shown us, the apocalyptic message without that con-
nection to the present dimension with its concern for life, ethics, and
wisdom could be confusing, dangerous, and mentally disruptive.27 An
25
On ethics in the book of Daniel, see J. Barton, “Theological Ethics in Daniel,” in J. J. Collins
and P. W Flint, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, vol. 2 (Boston, MA: Brill, 2001),
661–670.
26
H. P. Müller, “Die weisheitliche Lehrerzählung im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt,” Die
Welt des Orients 9 (1977): 77–98.
27
See the analysis of the so-called “Jerusalem Syndrome” in Yair Bar-El et al., “Jerusalem Syn-
drome,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (January 2000): 86–90.
analysis of the phenomenon of violence, madness, and fanaticism in the

three Abrahamic faiths, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
reveals at various degrees three main symptoms of this apocalyptic distor-
tion, as noted below.28
Use of Power and Violence to Enforce the Apocalyptic Interpretation

This point is the most important factor of religious violence.29 In the
Jewish context: some elements of the ultra-orthodox branches in Israel are
advocating the possession of all the biblical lands as the prerequisite for
the coming of the Messiah. One dramatic example is the case of Ygal
Amir, who murdered Prime Minister Rabin because he felt that his politics
would delay the appearance of the Messiah. In the Christian context: this
phenomenon has prevailed since the Church allied with the Roman pow-
er, and was manifested throughout the ages (Inquisition, Crusades, and
more recently in the political activism of extreme right Christian politi-
cal parties in many countries). In the Muslim context: this character is
present in the early Muslim invasions and more recently in the rise of
Islamic states (Iran, ISIS), and in the apocalyptic scenarios and invocations
by Hezbollah and Hamas.
Zeal to Activate the Immediate Apocalyptic Fulfillment

The eagerness to trigger the apocalyptic fulfillment is often supported
by a literalist application to current events. The interpretation may some-
times be issued by the operator who identifies himself as a prophet or
messiah. In the Jewish context: Baruch Goldstein perpetrated the 1994
Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in order to precipitate the end of the
world. In the Christian context: the Crusaders interpreted their wars as the
fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to put an end to Muslim occupa-
tion of the Holy Land. Timothy McVeigh blew up a government building
with the intention of setting off a chain reaction that would lead to the
end of the world. David Koresh believed that the Persian Gulf War was
the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 11, and claimed he was involved
in the Armageddon war leading to the end of times. In some Adventist
circles, “Last Generation Theology” pushes for perfection and evan-
gelism of the world in order to precipitate the coming of Christ. In the
Muslim context: the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the revolt in the Masjid
al-Haram in Mecca in November 1979 used apocalyptic material to
28
See Catherine Wessinger, “Apocalypse and Violence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic
Literature, ed. John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 422–40.
29
See Jan Assmann, The Price of Monotheism, trans. Robert Savage (Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, 2010), 20–23.
communicate the urgency of their reforming message. The beginning

of the Intifada in 1987 was associated with a prediction of the end of the
world. Osama bin Laden launched his attacks, including the Septem-
ber 11 massacre, with the intention of provoking the end of the world.30
Emphasis on the “Vertical” at the Expense of the “Horizontal”

This attitude consists of giving exclusive and obsessive importance to
the apocalyptic vision, while ignoring the present human reality with its
demands of ethics, justice, and love. An outgrowth of this approach is the
abuse, the exploitation, and sometimes the destruction of others or even
oneself (suicide attacks) for the sake of the “greater” truth (God, the king-
dom of God, Israel, paradise, etc.). This fanatic behavior appears in all
three religions, although it has recently been more visible among Muslim
terrorists who like to use the motto Alahu akbar (“God is great”) to justify
terrorist acts.
Conclusion
What lessons can we learn from this presence of the future? Daniel’s
qē yammîm (“end of days”) (Dan 1:18; cf. Dan 12:13) means that the truth
of the end of times should become a way of life that invades even the
secular domains. The hope of the future end, the eschatological mes-
sage, should be lived in the flesh of life, with joy, ethics, and wisdom.
Likewise, John’s idea of the Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10) should affect our theol-
ogy and our practice of the Sabbath, which should be more than just our
apologetic “not Sunday” argument, or our legalistic work, or simply
another pretext for rest, but the living testimony and experiential foretaste
of the kingdom of God.
The happiness that characterizes those who wait and have arrived
(Dan 12:12) at the time of the Day of Atonement shows the joy of salva-
tion that brings comfort and gives meaning to their lives. The three an-
gels’ message (Rev 14:6–13) to fear the Judge, obey His commandments,
and worship the Creator, is a call for righteousness and ethics here in the
present life and a call to gratefully enjoy the gift of God’s creation. This
30
Cf. the analysis of historian and philosopher Jean-François Colosimo: “While Lenin or Stalin,
imposing terror, still succeeded in making the Soviets wait for the ideal society without classes,
as others wait for the return of the Messiah, today in the context of mundialization, people do
not have time to wait anymore. It is, then, the rule of accelerated terror, killing oneself while kill-
ing others, and claiming the ultimate divine power, that is the power to provoke the Apocalypse”
(author’s translation from an interview by Aliocha Wald Lasowski, “Le soleil des lumières est
devenu un astre noir,” L’Express, March 28, 2018, 147).
present and earthly dimension of the future kingdom of God is ulti-

mately a lesson about mission: we are on earth, in our present existence,
the witnesses of the future kingdom of God and of heavenly realities.
This connection between the future kingdom and the earthly reality
is the “present truth.” For it not only makes eschatology stronger, but it
makes eschatology more relevant and thus more convincing. Note, how-
ever, that the present testimony has not been concocted as a method of
contextualization, a strategy to make the eschatological message more
palatable, and thus win the “heathen” disciples, at the expense of the
revealed message. This “existential” application is a part of the revelation
of the eschatological package. In this perspective, although the present is
derived from the future, it does not replace it (“realized” eschatology and
“existential” eschatology); nor does it constitute a heterogeneous element
that would be in tension, and to a certain extent, in competition with it
(“already/not yet” eschatology). Instead, the present is of the future, testify-
ing to the future heavenly kingdom, within the present earthly kingdom.
The eschatological message must be understood in the larger frame-
work of biblical truth, and take seriously the biblical calls for wisdom,
beauty, joy of life, and ethics. Without that connection, the focus on
apocalyptic eschatology could be dangerous and might degenerate into
fanaticism, heresy, unethical behavior, crime, or madness. In fact, the
obsessed occupation with the apocalyptic world may sometimes be a
symptom of the latter. With humor the Mishnah warns us about the
risks involved in the apocalyptic enterprise: Four sages entered the apoc-
alyptic vision; the first died, the second lost his sanity, the third lost his
faith, and only the fourth escaped in peace. The reason for his survival
is that he had left signs to find his way back; he had remained connected
with the earth.31
31
Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson Publishers, 2011), 7d:60–61, Hagigah 14b.
CHAPTER 2
Why Care for the Earth If

It Is All Going to Burn?
Eschatology and Ecology
A. Rahel Wells
The Seventh–day Adventist understanding of eschatology is that the

earth will burn at the end of time. Unfortunately, the resulting assump-
tion that God will renew the earth, no matter what humans do, often
translates into neglecting the environment in the present. This inaccurate
understanding of eschatology overlooks the clear descriptions of God’s
care for the earth and human ecological responsibility indicated in the
original creation, the present earth after sin, and the new earth. This study
will briefly address each of these categories, and then focus on several
eschatological passages, which include a picture of earth restored and
rejuvenated, but also seem initially to point to an annihilation of the
sinful earth by God. This study argues that these passages have often
been misunderstood and that the human responsibility to care for the
earth will continue after it is renewed by God.
Original Creation and Human Responsibility
God’s command to care for the earth began in the garden of Eden,
before sin, and deeply impacts our theology and anthropology. If we un-
derstand ourselves to be made in God’s image—ruling the earth as God
would if He were here—then caring for the earth becomes a necessity to
supporting God’s ultimate reign on earth.
Humans are to be caretakers of the earth. We are made in God’s im-
age, but our purpose is not to exalt ourselves or exploit the environmen-
tal resources under our dominion. Instead, humans are to act as God’s
representatives on the earth, ruling it as He would if in our place. The

Hebrew verbs in Genesis 1:26–28 do not give license to abuse, but
demand a just and wise rule over God’s creation, acting as His vicege-
rents.1 Genesis 2:15 reiterates this principle of environmental stewardship
by using the Hebrew verbs “serve” and “keep” (šāmar and ābad) for
humanity’s care of the garden.2 Together these are normally associated
with the priestly care of the temple (e.g., Num 3:7–8), implying the same
level of respect and care should be shown to the earth. We are to serve
the earth, not vice versa.
The earth and everything on it actually belongs to God. Among
other passages, Psalm 24:1–2 and Leviticus 25:23 give further insight into
humanity’s rulership over the earth in Genesis 1. We do not actually own
the earth, but are its caretakers (cf. Gen 2:15; 1 Chr 29:14). In addition,
God’s ownership of the earth is reiterated in Exodus 20:8–11, where the
reason given for Sabbath observance is a memorial to God’s creation of
the earth. We are never to forget the real owner of this earth, and our
responsibility for its care. Thus, in recognizing and celebrating the
biblical account of creation and Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventists stand
on a firm foundation for a biblical theology of conservation.
The Sabbath also implies a reduction in consumerism and materi-
alism, as we have the privilege of resting and not working one day each
week. Stewardship does not only concern money, but also references the
environment, possessions, time, and opportunities—all related to the
most crucial principle of God’s ownership of the world and everything
in it. Most importantly of all, God delights in His creation. In Genesis 1:31,
He calls everything He makes “very good” ( ôb mĕ ōd). Thus, from the be-
ginning, humans were to treat all of the earth as created and loved by God
and belonging ultimately to Him as its Maker.
Human Responsibility to Care for the Earth After Sin
The importance of human responsibility to care for animals and all

of God’s creation in Genesis 1–3 does not diminish after sin, but remains
1
H. Spanner, “Tyrants, Stewards—or Just Kings?,” in Animals on the Agenda: Questions About
Animals for Theology and Ethics, ed. A. Linzey and D. Yamamoto (Urbana, IL: University of Il-
linois Press, 1998), 216–224; Daniel I. Block, “All Creatures Great and Small: Recovering a Deu-
teronomic Theology of Animals,” in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor
of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 283–305; and Richard
Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation (Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2010).
2
All biblical quotations are from my own translation, unless otherwise indicated.
Why Care for the Earth If It Is All Going to Burn? Eschatology and Ecology 19
a prominent theme through the rest of the Bible. The creation narrative
sets the foundational mandate for creation care, and many Old Testa-
ment texts imply or allude to this care, while others clearly depict God’s
love and concern for His creation and Israel’s continued responsibility
to care for the earth and all its creatures. After sin, human responsibility
is even greater in some ways, as human sin leads to deterioration of the
earth, and humans bring more destruction than restoration. In light of
this, God makes even more clear His ownership and delight in the earth,
as well as continued human responsibility.
God still owns the earth, stating clearly that “the land is mine”
(Lev 25:23), including the heavens, the earth, and everything in it
(Deut 10:14). Moses describes the land of Canaan as “a land which the
Lord your God cares for” (Deut 11:12), implying love and delight in His
creation, even though tainted by sin. God cares for the earth even where
there are no human settlements, bringing rain on land where no people
live (cf. Job 38:26).
Additionally, in passages like Jonah 4:11 and the flood story (Gen 6–9),
it is obvious that humans are not the only creatures for whom God
shows compassion. No other flood stories in the ancient Near East
depict humans or gods caring about and saving the animal world.3
Interestingly, certain biblical passages treat/consider animals in ways
equal to humans. For instance, in Exodus 19:13 (and Exodus 34:3), the
animals were also not to touch Mount Sinai, or else they would be killed.
In Numbers 8:17, God seems to consider animals as part of the children
of Israel. Psalm 36:6 states that God saves ( ašāy) both humans and
animals, using a word normally reserved for humans and salvation. In
Jonah 3:7–8, animals are to fast along with humans and cry out to God
for salvation from the destruction of Nineveh. Job 12:7–10 implies that
animals know that God is in charge and directing events of the world,
even the lives of every living thing.4 This does not mean that animals
are more important or equal to humans, but that they are important
to God, and should also be important to humans.
Because of God’s love for the earth, and the potential of humans
bringing destruction to the earth, the commands to care for the earth
intensify after sin. Humans are held responsible for the state of the earth
and all the creatures that live on it (Rom 8:19–22; Rev 11:18). The fol-
lowing passages focus on a few examples, including animals in Sabbath

A. Hüttermann, The Ecological Message of the Torah: Knowledge, Concepts, and Laws Which
Made Survival in a Land of “Milk and Honey” Possible (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1999), 12–58.
4
For further discussion, see Terence Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational
Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 249–268 and Bauckham.
commandments and care for the land as well as the creatures on it.
Although not mentioned in every passage regarding the Sabbath,
the clearest commands involve animals in Sabbath rest and the sabbatical
year after sin. All types of animals are cared for by the Pentateuchal laws
concerning Sabbath rest.5 In addition to the connection with creation in
Exodus 20, the Sabbath commandment in Deuteronomy 5:11–14 reminds
us that one of the main reasons for Sabbath keeping is in response to
God’s gracious redemption of His people (cf. Lev 25:17, 38). When hu-
mans bless creation by conserving the earth, we are also responding in
gratitude to God for our redemption.6 In the purpose clause used in
Exodus 23 to describe the reason for the Sabbath (“in order that your
ox and your donkey may rest”), the focus is shifted from the human
head of the household to those who would likely be oppressed. This
prioritization of animals reflects the focus on care for the downtrodden
in Exodus 20–33.
When animals are in need, Jesus instructs humans to care for them,
even when doing so on the Sabbath requires what would normally be
considered work. In Luke 13:15, Jesus mentions caring for oxen on the
Sabbath who need water to drink. By mentioning the loosing of oxen
from their stalls in order to give them water, this passage assumes that
the oxen were not working on the Sabbath but remained in their stalls
resting from their labors.7
5
J. B. McDaniel, “A God Who Loves Animals and a Church That Does the Same,” in Good News
for Animals? Christian Approaches to Animal Well-Being, ed. C. Pinches and J. B. McDaniel,
Ecology and Justice Series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993), 77. Recent work confirms this
picture of animal care seen in Pentateuchal law concerning the Sabbath: Israel was to care for
the earth as a good king, representing how God would care for it. See Spanner, 216–224 and
J. A. Loader, “Image and Order: Old Testament Perspectives on the Ecological Crisis,” in Are
We Killing God’s Earth? Ecology and Theology, ed. W. S. Vorster, Proceedings of the Eleventh
Symposium of the Institute for Theological Research (Pretoria: University of South Africa,
1987), 6–28.
6
As illustrated in the Sabbath commandments, humans are to imitate God’s care for animals.
In Proverbs 12:10, the one who is righteous is the one who cares for the soul (šepen) of do-
mestic animals. As noted by E. Brotzman, “Man and the Meaning of ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬,” Bibliotheca Sacra
145 (1988): 400–409, the noun šepen is used broadly to describe everything from personhood
to specific individual desires. More than just making sure animals live, a righteous man knows
the “soul” (as it were) of his animal: the desires, appetites, inner living being, even emotions,
passions, and personality (cf. Exod 23:9; 31:17). Since Israel had been delivered and were to
imitate God, all the surrounding laws in the Covenant Code were to protect those most
likely to be victims in society. See B. Rosenstock, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis in the Book of the
Covenant: The Case of the Sabbath Commandment,” Conservative Judaism 44 (1992): 37–49.
7
See J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, Word Biblical Commentary 35B (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993),
724–725, 745–747. In addition, animals are often mentioned in Jesus’ parables, and some of the
first creatures to view the Messiah were animals in the stable. For other references to animals
Humans are also responsible for caring for those creatures that are
not domesticated. Upon examining Leviticus 25:2–7 more closely, the
chiastic structure found there highlights the care for the earth and its
non-human inhabitants by placing them in the center of the passage in
verse 4a.8 Indeed, the reason given for this time of rest for the land is
that the poor and wild animals may eat. The inclusion of the wild ani-
mals, and the resulting care for animals further removed from contact with
humans, makes it clear how much God cares for all of His creatures.9
Thus, this high priority of animal life in the Bible commands a car-
ing responsibility from humans toward animals and all creation, and
certainly implies humane treatment on every day of the week. In addi-
tion to the Sabbath and sabbatical year commands, restitution is extra if
animals are stolen (Exod 21:33; see also Lev 24:18), baby animals are to
remain with their mother for a time (Exod 22:30), kindness to neigh-
bors involves kindness to their animals (Exod 23:4), burdens of animals
should be reasonable (Exod 23:5), etc.10
God also shows immense love, care, and concern for the land,
especially as the people often abuse it and do not follow the laws that He
set forth regarding it. For instance, even during war, the people were to
leave at least some trees, especially fruit trees, rather than cutting them
all down to use in the war effort (Deut 20:19–20), although there is no
biblical evidence that this ever happened. When the land needed a rest,
God sent Israel into exile in order to give it rest (2 Chr 36:21). Even when
people do not care for the earth, God does and brings restoration to it.
The sabbatical and Jubilee years are also good examples of God’s
care, as well as human responsibility, for both land and animals. Leviticus
25 and Exodus 23 contain foundational principles of conservation based
by Jesus, see G. L. Comstock, “Pigs and Piety: A Theocentric Perspective on Food Animals,”
in Pinches and McDaniel, 105–127.
8
For more discussion, see A. Rahel Schafer, “Rest for the Animals? Non-Human Sabbath Re-
pose in Pentateuchal Law,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 23 (2013): 15–34. Although this passage
does not refer directly to the weekly Sabbath, the parallels with Exodus 20:8–11 and
Deuteronomy 5:12–15 correlate strongly with the concepts, vocabulary, and even specific phras-
es that are used in relation to the weekly Sabbath. For further discussion, see E. Haag, “‫ׁשבת‬,”
in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren,
and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004),
383; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor
Bible 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2154–2157.
9
J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary 4 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1992), 434.
10
Other laws indicate some level of equality of personhood between humans and animals, in that
animals are responsible for actions—keeping Sabbath, not killing, no bestiality, etc. (Exod 21:28;
22:18; Lev 18:23; 20:15).
on Genesis 1–3, applicable to all those concerned with the environment.

These passages give special reasons for earth care and conservation that
other Christians may find harder to substantiate when the reasons given
for seventh-day Sabbath observance are regarded as no longer valid.11
The year of Jubilee was a heightened type of sabbatical year, when
slaves were freed, and land was returned to its original owner. During
this time, however, anyone who lived off the land would likely be wor-
ried about how they were to survive this lengthy period with no
agricultural activity (Lev 25:20). Thus, God reminded the Israelites that
He promised blessing and provision to those who were faithful to follow
His law and let the land rest (Lev 25:21). Just as on the Sabbath, trusting
God involved relinquishing one’s time and opportunities for advance-
ment in order to care for the earth (necessitated by the three-year break
from agriculture, along with return of any acquired land).12 Unfortunately,
this rarely happened, as people easily forgot their dependence on God
and responsibility to care for the land.
In Exodus 23:10–12 and Leviticus 25:2–7, phrases and wording
correspond to the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, and parallels
are drawn between the resting of the land itself on the seventh year and
the command to rest on the seventh day. The focus of Leviticus 25 is the
special Sabbath rest for the land, so the Sabbath (and sabbatical year) rest
and care for creation extends to all that God has made, not just people
and animals. The use of land here implies the whole ecosystem, not
just the soil.13 Indeed, in 2 Chronicles 36:21, the land was finally able to
enjoy the Sabbaths that had been denied it by disobedient Israel.14
11
Although Leviticus does not reiterate the Sabbath commandment in the same manner as the
Decalogue, observance of the Sabbath is assumed in several instances, and is mentioned more
specifically in regard to the festivals and the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:31; 19:3, 30; 23:3, 8, 11,
15–16, 32, 38; 24:8; 26:2). For further discussion, see Milgrom; and F. R. Kinsler, “Leviticus 25,”
Interpretation 53 (1999): 395–9.
12
In the New Testament, the church realized the value of these Jubilee principles and attempted
to make them applicable at all times, as they shared everything in common, helped the needy,
and supported freedom from slavery (Acts 2:42–46; 4:34–35; 5:14–16; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11;
Phlm 15–17).
13
This intensifying Sabbath terminology is rare in the Pentateuch and occurs only five other
times (Exod 31:15; 35:2 [2x]; Lev 16:31; 23:3, 32)—three in relation to the weekly Sabbath and
two regarding the Day of Atonement. Haag, 14:389, refers to this phrase as “in superlative
construction.”
14
Hüttermann, 149, connects the sabbatical year with the protection of soil fertility and wa-
ter availability, stating that the Israelites lived in a land that was not well suited to agriculture
but needed special care, as the milk and honey, “translated into modern plant sociology and
knowledge of succession,” refer to “a macchia, a region of Mediterranean hard scrub.” He consid-
ers the Torah to contain the keys to biological as well as spiritual life. See also M. S. Northcott,
Leviticus 26:31–44 also includes the concept of Sabbath rest for

the land, but animals are not specifically mentioned in relation to the
Sabbath in this passage. It is important to note that the Hebrew verb in
Leviticus 26:34, 43 is rā â (“to restore/make amends”), not nûa , šābat,
nāpaš (the verbs used for human, animal, and divine Sabbath rest in
Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). The land is not necessarily actively
participating in repose and rejuvenation but is being restored from
human abuse and overuse. Leviticus 25 also has different terminology
for the land’s rest (šabbat šabbātôn), and describes the sabbatical year
as benefiting humans and animals, not so much the land itself (the
verb šābat is used for the land in Leviticus 26:35, but in a more passive
sense). God cares for all of His creation, but living creatures take
priority over plants and land.
Seventh-day Adventists have a head start in conservation by strongly
encouraging a vegetarian diet. A plant-based diet is one of the very best
things humans can do for animals—one vegan saves the lives of at least
ninety-five animals per year.15 In addition, such a diet is also one of the
best things humans can do for the environment as a whole—recent
research shows that meat and dairy production is a major contributor
to global warming, worldwide famine, deforestation, and habitat loss.16
Concern for the earth and all animals is a clearly identifiable theme
after sin. We cannot dismiss care for creation on biblical grounds by
reasoning that the earth will eventually burn anyway. Even if viewed
selfishly, humans need ecosystems to be functional. However, other
living creatures are co-inhabitants of the world with humans. As they
also depend heavily on its ecosystems for survival, the Bible holds all
humankind responsible for the preservation of the earth and the care
The Environment and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
15
No Voice Unheard, Ninety-Five: Meeting America’s Farmed Animals in Stories and Photographs
(Santa Cruz, CA: No Voice Unheard, 2010). See also Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power
of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy (New York: St. Martin’s, 2002).
16
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmen-
tal Issues and Options (Rome: FAO, 2006), http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf (accessed
February 14, 2020); Cornelis De Haan et al., Livestock Revolution: Implications for Rural
Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, Directions in Development (Washington,
DC: World Bank, 2001), http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/306051468740146162/
pdf/multi0page.pdf (accessed February 14, 2020). Some of the newest research shows that live-
stock provide eighteen percent of the calories for the world, but use eighty-three percent of
farmland and produce sixty percent of greenhouse emissions. If everyone became vegan,
farmland use could be reduced by seventy-five percent and the world would still be easily
fed (J. Poore and T. Nemecek, “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers
and Consumers,” Science 360 [2018]: 987–992).
of all living creatures.17 Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are

to help others who are oppressed, even though we may lack as a result.
Since any advantages in this world are only temporary, conservation in
the light of the Sabbath and creation teaches us to trust in our heav-
enly riches and practice conservation with an eye toward eschatology
(Lev 25:20–21).
Human Responsibility and the New Earth:

Eschatological Renewal and Restoration
Eschatological passages in the Old Testament include a picture
of the earth restored and rejuvenated, not necessarily recreated from
nothing (e.g. Isa 65; Zech 14; Ezek 40–48). In Revelation, John still sees
the lake of fire and all those who have died (Rev 21:7–8), implying the
cleansing of this earth, not the presence of a different earth. Human
responsibility continues to include care for the earth after sin is no
longer present. A brief discussion of passages that seem to imply total
destruction are also considered here, as they appear at first glance to
be contra the Old Testament passages of a renewed earth (e.g., Isa 65–66;
Zech 14; Ezek 40–48).
Various passages make clear that God cares for creation so much
that He saves it along with humans. Revelation 11:18 states that God will
destroy those who “destroy the earth.” In addition, Romans 8:19–23 lays
a foundation for understanding the continuity of creation in the earth
made new, in that God will restore and redeem the present earth.
This passage highlights God’s response to creation itself crying out for
deliverance from suffering.18 Paul discusses creation in only one other
place in Romans, indicting all humanity based on what they should
17
Much has been written about what we can do to help the suffering of animals. For some ex-
amples, see G. L. Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press, 1995); Jay B. McDaniel, Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 1989); A. Linzey, Animal Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 1998); and P. Waldau and K. Patton, eds., A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion,
Science, and Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006).
18
For further analysis and sources referring to this passage, see John Bolt, “The Relation be-
tween Creation and Redemption in Romans 8:18–27,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 34–51;
Harry Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8.19–22 and Jew-
ish Apocalyptic Literature (London: T&T Clark, 2006); Cherryl Hunt, David G. Horrell, and
Christopher Southgate,“An Environmental Mantra? Ecological Interest in Romans 8:19–23 and
a Modest Proposal for Its Narrative Interpretation,” The Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008):
546–579; and A. Rahel Schafer, “‘You, YHWH, Save Humans and Animals’: God’s Response to
the Vocalized Needs of Non-Human Animals” (PhD diss., Wheaton College, 2016).
have known from the creation of the world (Rom 1:18–23). Several cru-
cial terminological connections establish the interrelationship between
Romans 1:18–23 and Romans 8:19–23.19 The word κτίσις is one of the ma-
jor keys to understanding both passages (separately, as well as linked
together), connecting creation past with the eschatological picture of
creation.20
Humans have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and wor-
shipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25). This
condemnation extends to creation as well (Rom 8:20–21).21 The words
used in Romans 8 for the suffering that creation is experiencing suggest
intense suffering that is experienced across the board; none are exempt
from the anguish caused by human sin.22 The Greek word for groan-
ing in Romans 8:22 (systenazō) includes the notion of severe discomfort
from pain, and is often used to describe the labor of birth pangs. Although
involving some of the most intense physical hurt experienced on earth,
the birthing process also brings hope for a new life.23 This term seems
to allude to the hope of Romans 8:20, where the creation was subjected
in hope, implying that something good could arise from the bad, not
that it would be obliterated.24 The futility was not for eternity, but only
19
Especially crucial are the words that only occur in these two passages in Romans: ktisis,
aphthartos/phthartos/phthora, mataiotēs/mataioō. Steve Kraftchick, “Paul’s Use of Creation
Themes: A Test of Romans 1–8,” Ex Auditu 3 (1987): 72–87 and Hunt, Horrell, and Southgate
also note links between Romans 1 and 8.
20
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 25. For further exposition of this passage, see
Schafer, “‘You, YHWH, Save Humans and Animals.’”
21
In Romans 1:21 humanity became futile in their thoughts because they did not honor God, a
direct result of their refusal to acknowledge the clear revelation of God through His created
works. In chapter 8, the futility to which creation is subjected is not self-imposed or even
self-generated, but affects creation as the side effect of humanity’s sin. Paul reminds his fel-
low humans that all of nature is in travail because of their transgressions. Sin is no respecter of
species. James A. Rimbach, “‘All Creation Groans:’ Theology/Ecology in St. Paul,” Asian Journal
of Theology 1 (1987): 382, also connects this verse with Adam’s fall. See also C. Clifton Black,
“Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 428.
22
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000),
942, s.v. “στενάζω.” These connect with Joel 1, Jonah 3, and Exodus 2 in the LXX.
23
The LXX uses the same word for groaning in Genesis 3:16, with the labor and birth pangs
resulting from sin. For further discussion, see Laurie J. Braaten, “All Creation Groans: Romans
8:22 in Light of the Biblical Sources,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 28 (2006): 131–159.
24
For further debate on the identification of the one who subjected the creation, see Brendan
Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 258.
for a time, until the horrible consequences of sin were made clear.25
The central point in this passage is hope for all creation in redemption
from the bondage of corruption. The cause of creation’s groaning is
primarily the actions of humanity, but creation will be liberated by
God’s redemption of humanity, rather than being destroyed.
The central message of this passage is hope in deliverance both for
humans and all of creation.26 The same keywords are used for creation
and humanity; they are paralleled in waiting for redemption, groaning,
and hope in the future. Although Paul does not speak directly about eco-
logical concerns, Romans 8:21 shows his underlying assumptions about
God’s care for His creation, as well as the responsibility that humans
have but do not follow. All the works of God’s hands will be restored
from the ravages of sin, not eradicated and annihilated to begin again.
Among many others, F. F. Bruce concurs that the present creation will
not be destroyed but undergo a “transformation . . . so that it will fulfill
the purpose for which God created it.”27 This interpretation implies a
need for action on the part of humankind. If God thinks so highly of
the animals and plants in this world that He would rescue them from
the curse of sin, how much more is humanity obligated to act as
faithful stewards of the ecosystems entrusted to them by God!
God promises to restore all creation and bring His creatures into
full liberty when the earth is made new.28 Romans 8:22 escalates the
25
The types of suffering mentioned for creation may be compared and contrasted with that of
humankind. In verse 22, the word systenazō gives the idea of groaning together, while verse
23 uses stenazō, which implies more of an internal groaning. This distinction does not seem
important to Paul’s arguments, although some see both as a co-groaning of all creatures (e.g.,
Hunt, Horrell, and Southgate, 546–579).
26
See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1988), notes that Romans 8:18–30 serves as the climax of chapter 8, the cli-
max of chapters 6–8, and the preparation for chapters 9–11. See ibid., 466–467, for lists of
keywords found in all of these passages.
27
F. F. Bruce, “The Bible and the Environment,” in The Living and Active Word of God: Stud-
ies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz, ed. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1983), 29. After an in-depth study of ktisis, Joseph Lee Nelson, Jr., “The Groan-
ing of Creation: An Exegetical Study of Romans 8:18–27” (Th.D. diss., Union Theological
Seminary, 1969), 154, finds that creation is never an “object of wrath” or a “symbol of guilt.”
28
Dunn, 473 notes that in this context, nyn takes on a whole new meaning beyond the pres-
ent time—namely, the “eschatological salvation in which the process of salvation is being
worked out.” The definite article before the adverb in verse 22 reinforces the end-time sense
involved, literally translated as “the now” (tou nyn). Sigve Tonstad, “Creation Groaning in
Labor Pains,” in Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, ed. N. C. Habel and P. Trudinger, Society of
Biblical Literature Symposium Series 46 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 145, notes that an “apocalyptic,
ultimate hope, is in view.”
tension between the present groaning and the eagerly anticipated

redemption, since Paul seems assured of the closeness of fulfilled hope
despite the current struggles.29 The Greek verb used for the liberation
of creation (eleutherō) implies that unlike the subjection to futility, where
the consequences to creation were a secondary result of humanity’s
fallen condition, the release into freedom involves anticipation on the
part of creation as well.30
The earth and all God’s creatures are not just freed from bondage, but
actually enter into the glorious freedom that otherwise only belongs to
the children of God. In this verse, creation again seems to be put in a
similar category with humanity as God’s creatures.31 The word used for
the anticipation (apekdechomenoi) of the creation involves watching
“eagerly with outstretched head, like geese flying toward a warm-
er climate.”32 The same root (apokaradokia) is used in verse 19 for the
eager anticipation of the creation for the revealing of the sons of God,
confirming that creation is also waiting for redemption and will be
delivered along with humanity. Creation and humanity share their ex-
pectations and hope in the future liberation, as well as groanings for
deliverance. Creation is not going to be utterly annihilated, in order for
God to start over with a different earth. Creatures and all of creation
are also awaiting Jesus’ second coming, when they also will have no more
pain and suffering, but will live on the earth made new, transformed
and restored (cf. Isa 11; 65).33
29
Andrzej Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30: “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory” (Atlanta, GC:
Scholars Press, 1999), 162.
30
See also Sheila McGinn, “Feminists and Paul in Romans 8:18–23,” in Gender, Tradition, and
Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders, ed. Christina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (New
York: T&T Clark, 2005), 25, who notes that “creation is eager for freedom.”
31
See further in Hahne, 215. McGinn, 26, agrees that humans are not superior to the rest of
creation in this passage.
32
Dale Moody, “Romans,” in Acts–1 Corinthians, Broadman Bible Commentary 10 (Nashville,
TN: 1970), 218. Groaning usually connotes complaints about pain or sadness. But here, Paul
describes groaning more positively, as a straining for an immanent better future.
33
The Bible portrays animals as innocent sufferers of human sin. However, the Bible also por-
trays animals as accountable for their actions. I have addressed this at length in my dissertation
(Schafer, “‘You, YHWH, Save Humans and Animals’”). In light of this, it seems likely that
most animals will be redeemed, but that those who willingly participate in inflicting death
and even violence towards humans may not be (e.g., Gen 6:5-7; 8:1; Ex 19:12-13; 21:28-32;
Lev 20:15-16), although it is hard to know for sure how God will treat individual animals,
just like individual humans who committed violent acts and yet will be saved (e.g., David,
Manasseh, etc.). Either way, as Isaiah points out, there will be no more violent acts committed
by animals in the new earth, indicating their transformation along with humans (Isa 11; 65).
The End-Time Fire: Passages Related to Apparent

Total Destruction
Despite the clear injunctions to care for the earth (past, present, and
future), one of the main reasons given for not doing so is the notion that
the earth will all burn up regardless of humanity’s actions.34 Although
caring for the earth benefits humans, many act as though humans are the
only ones that matter. However, even the biblical images of fire burning
at the end of time do not imply that the earth will be totally consumed
in the refining process, or that we should not care for it in the meantime.
Fire is cleansing for the righteous (e.g., Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2), and
does not burn them when God is with them (cf. Isa 43:2; Mal 4:2).
Fire can be used for purification (e.g., Num 31:23; 2 Chr 7:1; Mal 3:2),
as well as for light and protection (e.g., the pillar in the wilderness,
Ps 105:39; Zech 2:5). God Himself is a consuming fire (cf. Gen 15:17–18;
Deut 4:24; Ezek 1:27–29; Dan 7:9–10; Rev 1:12–16), and yet is also
represented as the source of the fire of the love between husband and
wife (Song 8:6). Fire is in God’s house before sin (Ezek 28:14), but it only
consumes Lucifer after his sin (Ezek 28:18). The latter scenario is the
only time when fire is all-consuming: when it is destroying the wicked
(e.g., Gen 19; Mal 4:1). But the earth and all other creatures are nev-
er said to sin in Scripture—only humans are—so sin, sinners, and the
results of sin are what will be consumed at the end of time, not the whole
earth (cf. Mal 4:1).35
Much more could be said, but many of those who argue that the
earth will be completely annihilated by fire refer to 2 Peter 3:7–12,36 so
it bears a few comments here. There are several interpretations of each
34
This idea seems implied in much of end-time fundamentalism as, e.g., in Hal Lindsey, The
Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1970). For a critique, see Paul S.
Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Studies in
Cultural History (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992), 333–337.
35
As noted above, animals are accountable for their actions, but sin comes only through humans
(Rom 5:12-14), though it deeply affects the animal world as well. And yet, animals are consis-
tently portrayed as more righteous than humans, such that animals continue to praise God, and
relate to Him positively, even when humans do not (e.g., Isa 43:20; Jer 8:7; Ps 104:27-30).
The Bible seems to indicate that it is not even the fault of animals that they are predatory,
since sin comes through humans; God provides food to predatory animals when they cry to
Him (cf. Psalm 104:21; 147:9; Job 38:39-41), and will remove their predatory desires when He
removes all the results of sin on the new earth (cf. Isa 11:1-10; 65:25; Rom 8:23; Rev 21:1-4).
36
For a helpful evaluation and critique of this view, see Douglas J. Moo, “Nature In The New Cre-
ation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 49, no. 2–3 (2006): 443–488.
of the words involved, and most English translations do not capture all
the nuances. For instance, when Peter says that the “heavens will pass
away with a roar” (v. 10) this phrase in Greek could just as easily re-
fer to loud noise or fire moving past in the sky (perhaps when God is
coming in judgment). In Scripture, “pass away” (parerchomai) usu-
ally refers to events that have passed, and not total and complete
eradication.37 As seen in Romans 8 and elsewhere, God plans to redeem
the world, not utterly destroy it and start over again. The idea of the utter
annihilation of all creation at the end of time is not biblical, but actually
originates with gnostic eschatology, which states that the spiritual is
good, and the physical will be burned up to make way for that.38 This is
directly opposed to a Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the world
as originally good and created by God, then marred by sin, and which
will ultimately be redeemed and restored at the end of time (with sin and
sinners utterly annihilated).
Peter is also using language of the day of the Lord from the Old
Testament, which describes the destruction of the wicked and everything
related to sin, but not the destruction of the whole earth because it is
refined and transformed instead.39 In addition, the word “elements”
(stoicheia) in verse 10 does not refer to elements on the periodic table,
but usually to heavenly bodies, in that the coming day of the Lord’s
judgment will pass to the earth from heaven, through the heaven-
ly bodies. Also in verse 10, the verb referring to the elements being
“burned up” (kausoō) is juxtaposed with the word best translated as
“loosened/released” (lyō), which together seem to refer to the result of
the fire of cleansing judgment. This fire lets nature return to God’s ideal,
rather than continue to be burdened by the current presence of sin.
The earth and the works done in it are able to be “exposed/found/made
clear” (euriskō) and this is perhaps best understood as being refined,
37
For further exposition, see Matthew Emerson, “Does God Own a Death Star?: The Destruction
of the Cosmos in 2 Peter 3:1–3,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 57 (2015): 281–293.
38
See more in Craig A. Blaising, “The Day of the Lord Will Come: An Exposition of 2 Peter
3:1–18,” Bibliotheca Sacra 169 (2012): 387–401. Instead, God’s refining power is moving from the
heavens, through the heavenly bodies, to the earth. All the universe will have to be cleansed
by the refining fire of God. Sin will be no more through the universe, which fits with the
Seventh-day Adventist understanding as well. Sin is not just here; there are sinful angels and
results of sin through the universe.
39
Gale Heide, “What Is New About the New Heaven and the New Earth? A Theology of Cre-
ation from Revelation 21 and 2 Peter 3,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997):
37–56. Clifford Winters, “A Strange Death: Cosmic Conflagration as Conceptual Metaphor in
2 Peter 3:6–13,” Conversations with the Biblical World 33 (2013): 147–161, argues that the fire burn-
ing is a metaphor for burning up of the false beliefs and theology that Peter has been addressing.
in that the wicked are done away with to reveal the refined result in
2 Peter 3:13.40
Peter then quotes Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, where it is clear that
this is a renewed earth, not a completely new earth after it was totally
burned up (Isaiah 24 describes the earth before the fire of judgment).41
Isaiah 66:24 confirms this by describing the earth after the cleansing fire
is done (cf. Isa 66:15–16), indicating that the evil to be burned up is sin
and sinners. The people are the ones who die, while the earth is still
there (cf. Mal 4:1; Ps 11:5–7). Similarly, Revelation 20–21 describes a lake
of fire, not an earth full of fire. This is hinted at in 2 Peter 3:7 as well, in
that the fire is reserved for the judgment of ungodly humans.42
In 2 Peter 3:5–6, Peter also makes the comparison between the
judgment by fire at the second coming and the worldwide flood in
Genesis 6–9. Some use this as an additional argument that all will be
destroyed to start over. But the flood did not utterly destroy the whole
earth; it only cleansed it of sin. In fact, some of the fish lived through the
flood, as did plants and seeds, evidenced by the raven returning a green
leaf to Noah and the fact that no mention is made of fish on the ark.43
40
Blaising, 387–401. As to how God will renew and refine the earth, Scripture does not give
many details beyond that it is through fire. The main distinction I am seeking to highlight
is that this is not a total annihilation with nothing left, which would necessitate a complete-
ly new creatio ex nihilo. Instead, it is a renewal of the earth that involves some type of divine
transformation/restoration/renewal process. God’s refining fire (for the earth/creation) is differ-
ent than his consuming fire (for sin/sinners).
41
A similar example would be the “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31, which is actually a renewed
covenant, as it contains all the elements of every previous covenant. The reason it had to be
renewed is because people kept breaking it. But there was nothing new in content or purpose,
notes Skip MacCarty, In Granite or Ingrained? What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about
the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2007).
42
Note also that Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, rev. ed. (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2002),
674, describes the fire as purifying the earth, but implies the whole earth is on fire. However, a
few pages earlier she states that it will be the wicked who will be destroyed in the “cleansing
flames” (ibid., 672).
43
One might counter that if we draw parallels between the flood and the final judgment,
should we not also consider the more explicit aspects of this judgment in Revelation? However,
Revelation is a book of symbols, and the specifics and literal nature of the details within the
trumpet and bowl plagues are much debated (and even still are not used to indicate annihila-
tion of the entire earth, in contrast to how 1 Peter is used). In 1 Peter, the main connections and
parallels are made with the flood, and that is why I have focused on that here. However, Genesis
does indicate that only a small selection of animals and humans were saved in the ark, and that
all the other land animals were destroyed (as paleontological evidence also suggests). The point I
am making here is that some animals were saved along with humans, as happens in almost every
major biblical deliverance event (e.g., plagues, Red Sea, Jonah 4), so it seems that God will save
as many animals as He can at the end, similar to how He will save as many humans as He can.
Thus, this was a refining destruction, just as the final one clearly seems
to be. The point was to remove sin and sinners, so that righteousness
can dwell (2 Pet 3:13).44 In addition, on the renewed earth, humans will
still have the responsibility of caring for the earth and animals. Isaiah
65:17–25 details actions in the new earth that include planting vineyards,
and a total lack of pain or destruction (cf. Rev 21–22).
In actuality, rather than indicating that we should not take care of
the earth because it will all burn up, 2 Peter 3:7–12 urges us to take bet-
ter care of the earth than we are doing now! “What manner of persons
ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness?” (2 Pet 3:11, NKJV).
The earth belongs to God. God cares for the earth. God will redeem the
earth. And God is expecting us to care for it too until He returns. Not
only that, but we will continue to care for the earth throughout eternity.
Eschatology does not negate our responsibility to care for the earth; rather,
it presupposes and urges it.
Conclusion
Creation, Sabbath laws, the pictures of the new earth, and many
other biblical passages examined briefly above provide key rationales
for the continued necessity of caring for the earth. In our theology of
conservation, we cannot dismiss caring for the earth by reasoning that
the earth will eventually burn. The Bible holds all humankind responsi-
ble for the preservation of the earth and the care of all living creatures,
continuing our responsibility from before sin into the present, and
looking toward our responsibility on the renewed earth.
Thus, eschatology provides a definitive motivation for ecology.
Humans are to care for the earth now, especially in light of the biblical
account of God’s creation of the world, and the future continuity with the
earth made new. Although many care for the earth even though they are
not Sabbath keepers or Christians, Adventists have a special duty to be
involved with conservation efforts because of the links between original
creation and re-creation in the new earth. In light of these connections,
Seventh-day Adventists believe that conservation is not only necessary,
but also a God-given responsibility for humankind. Caring for the earth
was humanity’s responsibility before sin, after sin, and will continue to
44
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, rev. ed. (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2002), 108–110,
makes similar statements when describing the flood, pointing out that the flood was worse in
some places on the earth, where the wickedness was the greatest. This would imply that there
were some places that were not impacted as much by the flood, and that perhaps the final
judgment by fire will be similarly selective.
be on the earth made new. Seventh-day Adventists should be at the

forefront of care for those less fortunate than we are, including animals
and all life on earth, not as a chore, but as an offering of thankfulness
for our redemption by God, looking forward to the redemption of the
whole world.
The renewed earth will continue to be our home through eternity,
and the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the new earth is that we
will not be floating on clouds as spirits. From the beginning, the physical
world was good, very good, and what God intends to renew and restore
on the new earth. Our physical bodies will be present on the physical
earth after sin is destroyed, albeit in a new dimension unaffected by sin
(cf. 1 Cor 15:42-57). Heaven and the new earth are not places for spirits, but
are physical places for us to live (cf. John 14:1–3; Rev 21).
Our care for the earth will also continue on the new earth, which
is simply the renewed earth. God will bring His home to become our
home once again. Indeed, God will destroy those who destroy the earth
(Rev 11:18), indicating that care for the earth is intimately tied to being
a follower of God. Thus, this study argues that an accurate eschatology
actually presupposes and necessitates care for the earth now, rather than
opposing it.
CHAPTER 3
Eschatological Focus in Job:

Resurrection Imagery as a
Life-Death Antithesis
Eriks Galenieks
Some prominent scholars argue that the eschatological perspective,

whether individual or general, is absent from the Hebrew Scriptures,
but, as a progressively evolutionary myth and theological speculation, it
gradually developed into an eschatological tradition complex in Israel.
That same group of theologians would declare that belief in the bodi-
ly resurrection is unknown to the Old Testament people. According to
another thought, the teaching that dead corpses will be revived appears
quite late in the Old Testament period—namely, after the destruction
of the monarchy, or at the beginning of the Babylonian exile—or
that, as a product of its late development, it refers to the time of the
Maccabean martyrs.
In order to grasp the true picture of the eschatological focus in the
Hebrew Scriptures, it is necessary to turn to the oldest book of the Bible,
the book of Job, which profoundly deals with the most fundamental
questions of human existence—the issues of life and death, suffering and
the grave, and the bodily resurrection—in their respective theological
contexts. In his excruciating pain, Job is not only brought face to face
with the reality of death, but is also moved to consider the condition of
man after death. According to Job, death is compared to a sleep (Job 14:12)
that will be followed by a resurrection (Job 14:14–15). The presence of
this and many other similar statements have functioned as a stumbling
block to theologians, who either totally deny the resurrection reality or
believe in some kind of postmortem existence in the underworld. Thus,
this study will focus on the life-death antithesis and resurrection imagery
in the selected eschatological contexts of the book of Job.
Imagery of the Brevity of Life
It should be pointed out from the very outset that one of the as-
pects Job particularly focuses his mind on is the subject of the brevity of
human life, which is repeatedly emphasized by means of various similes
and metaphors. It is also important to note that Job’s use of imagery to
emphasize the transitory nature of his life does not contain any allusion
to an afterlife in the underworld.1 To picture the fundamental truth
concerning the fragility and shortness of man’s life, Job employs various
figures of speech, shown in some scriptural references:
Table 1: Similes and Metaphors Emphasizing Life’s Fragility

my days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle2 yāmay qallû minnî- āreg Job 7:6
and they come to an end without hope/
wayyiklû bĕ epes tiqwâ Job 7:6
thread3
for a breath is my life kî-rûa ayyāy Job 7:7
As the cloud vanishes and is gone kālâ ānān wayyēlak Job 7:9
for a shadow are our days on earth kî ēl yāmênû ălê- āre Job 8:9
My days are swifter than a runner wĕyāmay qallû minnî-rā Job 9:25
they have passed with ships of reed ālpû im- ŏniyyôt ēbe Job 9:26
like a vulture [eagle] that swoops on its
kĕnešer yā ûś ălê- ōkel Job 9:26
prey
When Job reflects on his life, he repeatedly draws analogies and com-
parisons from nature. He compares the brevity and swiftness of it with
the fast-moving weaver’s shuttle that flies from side to side. He likens
it with the thread of hope that runs out; it is as a breath, insubstantial
at best and soon dissipated. Job has observed that man’s life can be relat-
ed to the swift ships upon the waters and the hungry eagle in the air—
1
William B. Stevenson, “Rhythm, Assonance, Structure, and Style,” in The Poem of Job: A Liter-
ary Study with a New Translation (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), 56–72; David J. A.
Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary 17 (Dallas, TX: Word: 1989), 186. Cf. 1 Chronicles
29:15; Isaiah 38:12; 40:6–7; 44:22; Hosea 13:3; Psalm 37:20; 39:7; 78:39; 90:5–6; 102:4, 12; 103:15–16;
129:23; 144:4.
2
All biblical quotations are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
3
The NEB renders “and come to an end as the thread runs out.”
Eschatological Focus in Job: Resurrection Imaginary as a Life-Death Antithesis 35
namely, it seems to him that his life passes away as swiftly as any of these.
The recurring image of “a shadow” sends a message about silent and
sudden disappearance.4 Thus, in Job 14:2, he uses two similes: “and he
flees like a shadow and does not last” (wayyibra ka ēl wĕlō ya ămôd),5
and “like a flower he comes forth and withers” (kĕ î yā ā wayyimmāl).6
In verse 6 he refers to a “hireling” (śākîr). Nothing is more unsubstantial
or floating than a shadow or the short life of a flower. The imagery is “that
of silence and sudden disappearance,”7 which by itself excludes any idea
of further movement, progression, or existence. The phrase “flees like a
shadow” is in sharp contrast to such concepts as “perpetual, eternal, or
immortal.” Job concludes that swifter than a runner his “days are ex-
tinguished” (Job 17:1), his “days are past” (Job 17:11), and God will seek
him and he will not exist (Job 7:21), as his youthful frame lies in the dust
(Job 20:11).
The basic function of this rich imagery is to refer to the time element
of fleetness and speed as emphatically as possible. Its employment clearly
demonstrates that Job understands the transience and fragility of human
life. Thus, he addresses himself to God by introducing Job 7:7 with the
imperative form “remember” (zĕkōr), which by contrast means “do not
forget me,” “do not leave me.” In Job 7:7–10, Job intertwines two unques-
tionable facts: 1) Death is unavoidable; it ends all. And 2) after death there
is only darkness and silence in Sheol, as is seen from the subsequent
texts and the book’s context in general.
Imagery of the Life-and-Death Antithesis
In Job 7:9, he describes his transient life by the following words: “As
the cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who is going down to Sheol does
not come up.” Here he uses another expressive and rich imagery—a
“cloud” ( ānān) that rapidly vanishes “and is gone” (wayyēlak). The term
“vanishes,” or literally “is gone,” refers to the final stage of fading so that
4
For various nuances of the term “shadow,” see Job 8:9; 10:21–22; 14:2; 17:7; 28:3; 34:22.
5
“Our days on earth are like a shadow” (1 Chr 29:15; Job 8:9), “man’s life is like a shadow” (Eccl
6:12), “man’s days are like a passing shadow” (Ps 144:4), “my days are like a lengthened shadow”
(Ps 102:11), “the sinner will not lengthen his days like a shadow” (Ps 8:13), “man flees like a shad-
ow” (Job 14:2), “my members are like a shadow” (Job 17:7), “I am gone like a lengthening shadow”
(Ps 109:23), “the song of the ruthless is silenced like heat by the shade of a cloud” (Isa 25:5), “the
king and princes will be like the shade of a great rock” (Isa 32:2).
6
Isaiah 40:6–7; Psalm 37:2, 20; 90:5–6; 103:15–16.
7
William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on the Book of Job (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 267.
the cloud is no longer visible.8 Here the verb “to go,” “walk” (hālak) has the
sense of “disappearing”9 and is parallel to “to go down” (yārad), thus clearly
referring to death and dying.10 The fact that Job has a clear understanding
of the main anthropological issues is undoubtedly demonstrated by the
frequent recurrence of the life-and-death imagery and his particular
emphasis on its antithesis. For example, Job goes on to explain his per-
ception of death by referring to the nature and function of Sheol:11 “So he
who is going to Sheol does not come up” (kēn yôrēd šĕ ôl lō ya ăle, Job 7:9).
Job does not allude here to the spirit or soul’s consciousness in Sheol.
Such expressions as “my eye will never again see good” ( ênî lir ôt
ôb, Job 7:8) and “I will not be” (wĕ ênennî, Job 7:8, 21) are clear in their
meaning: “I will be dead” and “I will no longer exist.”12 Thus, he excludes
any idea of life’s continuation after death in the netherworld. If there were
some kind of existence after death, Job certainly would have alluded to it.
The choice of particularly descriptive terminology demonstrates Job’s
keen perception and clear insights in various nuances of the life-death an-
tithesis. Such straightforward expressions as “and I will not be” (wĕ ênennî,
Job 7:8, 21),13 “be finished,” “cease,” “vanish” (kālâ, Job 7:9),14 “and it goes,”
“disappears” (wayyēlak, Job 7:9), and “he who is going down” (yôrēd,
Job 7:9)15 not only affirm his conviction of imminent end,16 but also refer
8
The psalmist compares people to grass: “In the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the
evening, it fades and withers” (Ps 90:6, NRSV). This transience brings pain and suffering to hu-
man beings. Job mourns, “My eye has grown dim from grief, and all my members are like a
shadow” (Job 17:7). Likewise, the psalmist laments how his eyes “grow dim with waiting” for
his God and how sorrow inevitably accompanies life (Ps 69:3; 88:9).
9
Edouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1984), 205.
10
Georg Sauer, “ ,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. E. Jenni and Claus
Westermann, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 365–370 and Francis A. Brown, S. E.
Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an
Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: MA, Hendrickson, 1996), s.v. “ ,” 237.
11
The term Sheol occurs sixty-six times in the Old Testament and always designates the place
or location of the dead or simply the grave: Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30, 33;
Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6; 2 Kings 2:9; Isaiah 5:14; 7:11; 14:9,
11; 14:15; 28:15, 18; 38:10, 18; 57:9; Ezekiel 31:15, 16, 17; 32:21, 27; Hosea 13:14; Amos 9:2; Jonah 2:3;
Habakkuk 2:5; Psalm 6:6; 9:18; 16:10; 18:6; 30:4; 31:18; 49:15, 16; 55:16; 86:13; 88:4; 89:49; 116:3; 139:8;
141:7; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Proverbs 1:12; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:11, 24; 23:14;
27:20; 30:16; Song of Solomon 8:6; Ecclesiastes 9:10.
12
Reyburn, 153.
13
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 35.
14
Ibid., s.v. “ ,” 478.
15
See Genesis 37:35.
16
Clines, 17:187.
to the finality of death, the decomposition of his body in Sheol, from

which nobody “will come up” (ya ăle, Job 7:9). Besides, the construction
of the second line of verse 9 functions as “an emphatic denial of the pos-
sibility of return to earth after death.”17
It should also be pointed out that a number of scholars use Job 7:9
to assert that “disbelief in the resurrection could hardly be affirmed
more bluntly than it is here.”18 However, the phrase “does not come up”
(lō ya ăle, Job 7:9) is limited in its meaning and controlled by the fol-
lowing verse. The explanatory statement “he will not return again to his
house” (lō -yāšûb ôd lĕbêtôyôrēd, Job 7:10) does not speak about the
denial of resurrection at all, but refers back to verse 9. The phrase “he
will not come up” (lō ya ăle), coupled with “he will not return again”
(lō -yāšûb ôd), forms the strongest possible double negation, the pur-
pose of which is to provide an additional clarifying explanation that the
dead in Sheol do not rise to return to their families. Even if one takes the
phrase “he will not come up” (lō ya ăle) in isolation, it does not refer to
definiteness and finality in an eschatological sense, but to an unfinished
process. It means that the statement of verse 9, “he will not come up”
(lō ya ăle), does not support the view that emphasizes a denial of the
resurrection.
The observation that by the term Sheol Job means simply the grave
where his physical body goes, without any further implications, is fur-
ther demonstrated by the parallel terminology that occurs in a broader
context in the book of Job. The phrase “he who goes down to the Sheol
[or grave]” (yôrēd šĕ ôl), is equivalent to the expression of Job 7:21, “I
will lie down in the dust” (le āpār eškāb), where the verb “to lie down”
(šākab) functions as a metaphor for death.
In other words, to go down to Sheol means to lie in the dust because
“dust” ( āpār) is one of the major characteristics of Sheol. In Job 17:16, the
terms “dust” ( āpār) and Sheol form a direct parallel, whereas in Job 20:11
17
Victor E. Reichert, Job: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commen-
tary (Jerusalem: Soncino Press, 1985), 30. E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans.
Harold Knight (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 103, comments that “for the Hebrews, as for the
Babylonians, Sheol is situated beneath the earth: one goes down to it, one comes up from it (cf. 1
S[am] 28:11ff).” Dhorme, 103, refers to the meeting of Saul with the witch of Endor, who brought
up Samuel, as “the case of an extraordinary intervention.”
18
Robert L. Alden, Job: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture NIV Text,
The New American Commentary 11 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 110; Harold H.
Rowley, Job, The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Nelson, 1970), 79; Reichert, 30; and
Robert Frew, Job: Notes on the Old Testament, Explanatory and Practical by Albert Barnes, vol. 1
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1955), 188.
and 21:26, the expression “they lie down in the dust” ( al- āpār tiškāb)
primarily refers to death and then to the grave.19
It should be remembered that in Daniel 12:2, the dead sleeping in
“the dusty earth” ( admat- āpār) points back to Genesis 3:19 and func-
tions as a synonym for Sheol.20 The construct chain admat- āpār21 literally
means “the earth of dust” and is associated with the imagery of burial in
the grave.22 Since the plural noun “sleepers” (miyyĕšēnê) is in a construct
state, it specifies the dead as “sleepers of the dusty earth,” which in fact
qualifies the dead as dust.23
Of particular importance for the current discussion is Job 3:13–22,
which contains one of the longest and most elaborate descriptions of the
place of the dead in the entire Hebrew Bible, though the term Sheol is
not directly mentioned:24
v.13 For now I would have lain still and been quiet, I would have
been asleep; Then I would have been at rest
v.14 With kings and counselors of the earth, who built ruins for
themselves,
v.15 Or with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with
silver;
19
There is also a direct interrelatedness of the term šĕ ôl with āpār in Job 17:16 and Psalm 30:10;
and in Ezekiel 31:14, 16, 18 šĕ ôl is linked with ere (Ezek 26:20). In Job 21:26 āpār is represented
as the grave through concise but precise references to those who šākab (“lie down”) and rimmâ
(“worm”) that kāsâ (“covers”) them. The imagery of the grave is further represented by joint
significations of āpār and mētêkā (“your dead”) and nĕbēlātî (“my corpse”), ere (“earth”), and
rĕpā îm (“Rephaim,” “the dead”), which is further intensified by a punctuated vocabulary of the
resurrection (Isa 26:19).
20
The direct intertextual connection of Daniel 12:2 with ý āpār min-hā ădāmâ (“from the dust
of the ground” or “dust from the ground”) in Genesis 2:7, and with the identical representations
of Genesis 3:19, el-hā ădāmâ (“to the ground”), kî- āpār (“for dust”), and el- āpār (“to dust”),
is unmistakable, as it signifies both the material from which man was formed and the place of
his return. The imagery of the returning place as Sheol is further determined by the directional
preposition el, and the function of the verb tāšûb (“you will return”), where every lexical ele-
ment influences each other toward the same representation, thus unmistakably characterizing
and strengthening the idea of the grave as the place of ădāmâ and āpār.
21
Yitshak Avishur, “Pairs of Synonymous Words in the Construct State (and in Appositional
Hendiadys) in Biblical Hebrew,” Semitics 2 (1971–72): 17–81.
22
For a detailed analysis of the phrase admat- āpār, see Artur A. Stele, “Resurrection in Daniel
12 and Its Contribution to the Theology of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
1996), 111–115.
23
Note in particular that the author does not allude to souls or spirits of the dead that continue
their miserable semi-conscious existence somewhere in darkness, but to the dead in their graves.
24
Because of space restrictions, the discussion of Job 3 will focus only on the major key elements.
v.16 Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, like infants
who never saw light?
v.17 There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary
are at rest.
v.18 There the prisoners rest together; They do not hear the voice
of the oppressor.
v.19 The small and great are there, And the servant is free from
his master.
v.20 Why is light given to him who is in misery, And life to the
bitter of soul,
v.21 Who long for death, but it does not come, And search for it
more than hidden treasures;
v.22 Who rejoice exceedingly, and are glad when they can find the
grave? (Job 3:13–22, NKJV).
Despite the fact that Job uses a variety of descriptive images and
similitudes to refer to the place of the dead, the imagery of the life-
death antithesis and the explanatory elements of the grave are so precise
that he leaves no place for misinterpretation or manipulation. For in-
stance, he employs the noun “grave” (qeber) as an equivalent for the term
Sheol in Job 3:22, 5:26, and 10:19, whereas the grave of 3:22 functions as a
parallel term to “death” (māwet) in verse 21. Job also refers to the place
of the dead or the grave by employing its antecedent, the adverb “there”
(šām, see Job 3:17 [twice], 19),25 whereas in 7:21 he denotes the place of
the dead as “dust” ( āpār), and in 10:21, 22 as “earth” or “land” ( ).26
Consequently all five words ( ) serve as an
analogous vocabulary of the term .
Furthermore, the book of Job vividly pictures the nature of
by employing a variety of synonymous terms that function not only as
descriptive elements, but undoubtedly qualify as the place of the
dead. For example, in order to call attention to the fundamental nature of
he uses at least five different words for darkness, including 1)
(“darkness,” Job 3:4–527) and 2) (“shadow of death,” Job 3:5). In
25
See exegesis on Ezekiel 32:21 in Eriks Galenieks, “The Nature, Function, and Purpose of the
Term Sheol in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings: An Exegetical-Intertextual Study” (PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 1995), 210–226.
26
See Galenieks, 75–100.
27
Cf. Psalm 23:4; Job 10:21–22; 12:22; 16:16; 24:17; 28:3; 34:22; 38:17. See Walter L. Michel,
“ŞLMWT, ‘Deep Darkness’ or ‘Shadow of Death’?”
29 (1984): 5–20; Winton Thomas, “‫ֶ ת‬ ,” in the Old Testament,”
7 (1962): 191–200; and Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “‫ֶ ת‬ ,” 853.
10:21, Job qualifies as “land” by employing both terms, and

, simultaneously—that is, “the land of darkness and the shad-
ow of death” ( ). The other qualifiers are 3)
(“darkness,” “gloom,” Job 3:6)28 and 4) (“darkness,” Job 10:22).29 The
last three words for darkness are included in 10:22 in the following way:
“the land of utter gloom like darkness of shadow of death” (
), which is also designated as literally meaning
5) “and no order” or “disorder,” “chaos” ( ).30
Though it is impossible to discern all the semantic nuances intended
by these words and what exactly they imply, it is apparent that they re-
fer not only to the grave as the place of darkness but also allude to the
creation account of Genesis 1:2.31 In fact, by using the language of syn-
thetic parallelism, Job reverses the order of creation and returns to the
place of nonexistence and darkness that is also described in the prophetic
vision of Jeremiah 4:23–26.32
In addition to the five nouns that lead to the powerful intensification
of the imagery of “darkness,” Job 3 contains nine other no less important
terms, thus providing additional insights into the life-death antithesis
and the descriptive elements of the nature and function of the term Sheol
in Job. Four of the nine terms stand next to each other in Job 3:13.
For now, I would be lying down and quiet
I would be asleep and then at rest
By employing the verb “to lie down” (šākab)33 metaphorically, Job

creates a vivid mental picture of himself as being dead and lying in the
grave.34 He continues to describe his state at death by two other verbs:
28
Job 10:22; 23:17; 28:3; 30:26. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫ ֶפ‬,” 66.
29
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫ פ‬,” 734.
30
See Ibid., s.v. “ ֶ ,” 690.
31
See Michael Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV:23–26 and Job III:3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation
Pattern,” 21 (1971): 151–167. See also Rick D. Moore, “The Integrity of Job,”
45, no. 1 (1983): 17–31 and Cox Dermont, “The Desire for Oblivion in
Job 3,” 23 (1973): 37–49.
32
Norman C. Habel, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 104.
33
See Galenieks, 75–100, 282–305, 549–581.
34
James G. S. S. Thomson, “Sleep: An Aspect of Jewish Anthropology,” Vetum Testamentum 5
(1955): 421–433.
“be quiet,” “undisturbed,” “motionless” (šāqa ),35 and “sleep,” “be asleep”
( ).36 Because of “the similarities of one deceased to one asleep,”37
the last word “be asleep” ( ) functions as a metaphor for designating
death, and thus refers to “the sleep of death.”38 The fourth verb “to rest,”
“be quiet,” “cease” ( , see Job 3:17)39 also “relates to rest in death”40
—that is, Job would be free from all his earthly troubles if he were dead
and in the grave/ .
Job 3:17–19 contains the second cluster of five similar terms that de-
scribe the place of the dead almost in the same way as Job 3:13. However,
this cluster differs from verse 13 by the emphasis Job puts on the earthly
social structure and its total reversal in .
It is significant to note that such terms and expressions as “they cease
from raging,” ( , Job 3:17),41 “they are at peace” (
42
Job 3:18), “they hear not” ( v. 18), and “are free” ( , Job 3:19)43
are used in a definite and precise sense in order to describe the state of
the dead in the grave, thus providing a comprehensive picture of its nature
and function.
Finally, in Job 3:11, Job laments that if he had died ( ) and perished
( ) at his birth, he would lie down with the dead whom he describes
according to the criteria of this earth—namely, “with kings and counsel-
ors of earth” ( , Job 3:14) and “with princes”
a (‘im-śārîm, Job 3:15). He also points out that in the grave “there are the
wicked” ( , Job 3:17) and “the exhausted of strength” (
, v. 17), and together with them are “prisoners” ( , Job 3:18),
the “slave driver” ( , v. 18), “the small and the great alike are there”
( , Job 3:19), “and the slave” ( , v. 19) with
his “master” ( , v. 19). The expression “the small and the great” (qā ōn
35
Philip J. Nel, “ ,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 234–235 and Brown,
Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫ׁש‬,” 1053.
36
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫ ׁש‬,” 445.
37
William C. Williams, “ ,” in VanGemeren, 2:553–555.
38
See also Psalm 13:4; 90:5–6. “ ,” The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 2
(Leiden, New York: Brill, 1996), 447–448.
39
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫נ‬,” 629.
40
Leonard J. Coppes, “ ‫נ‬,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, vol. 2
(Chicago, IL: Moody, 1981), 562–563.
41
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 293 and ibid., s.v. “ ֶ ,” 919.
42
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ‫ׁש‬,” 983.
43
Ibid., s.v. “ ‫ פׁש‬,” 344.
wĕgādôl) functions as a summary of the previous verses, thus including

everyone on the list of the dead.
The power of this descriptively qualifying life-death imagery can be
attributed neither to the adjectives and their dynamic function nor to the
nouns themselves, but only to what these various identified representa-
tives of a social structure have become in .44 In the land of the living,
these various social groups were locked together, and there was a dis-
tinction between them—but in death, all their social differences have
been annihilated.45 Consequently, chapter 3 contains directly interrelated
and interconnected terminology that represents the sphere of death as
an antithesis to life that unveils and amplifies the intrinsic nature of the
term in Job 7:9 in a more expanded way.
Table 2: A Brief Summary of Death Terminology in Job 3

Place Qualifier Death The Dead
grave darkness lie down kings
death = grave shadow of death be quiet and counselors
there darkness, gloom be asleep princes
dust darkness rest the wicked
earth no order, chaos at peace the exhausted of strength
they hear not prisoners
be free slave driver
cease the small and the great
Indeed, it is hard to comprehend on what grounds scholars take

more than a dozen specific synonymous terms that refer to death and the
44
See Reyburn, 83.
45
Clines, 17:93.
place of the dead and assert that Job is dealing here “with death as a quiet,
restful, inactive existence,”46 or “degrees of punishment in the afterlife,”47
or “that the dominant image of existence in the underworld he presents
is of peace and rest.”48
It is impossible to reconcile the above statements concerning the quiet
“existence” of the dead in their death with those particular images of death
that form a comprehensive description of Sheol. It is a great mistake to
identify Sheol as the place of departed spirits because Job is not looking
for the spirit or soul existence in the underworld; he is longing for the
grave.49 Job, as seen earlier, employs five synonyms for the term Sheol to
designate the grave, not six different locations. To qualify Sheol as the
place of darkness, he uses five different terms, all of which are inseparably
joined with the grave. In other words, as light is associated with life, so
darkness is associated with death and the domain of the dead.
In addition, Job employs a cluster of nine different words to repeatedly
emphasize the fact that in Sheol no physical, mental, or spiritual activity
is possible, because in the grave there is a total absence of consciousness
and existence. In the grave, there is no social distinction: whether one
belongs to kings, princes, prisoners, slaves, the wicked, or to the “blameless
and upright,” like Job himself (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3), it does not matter, because
in death “all corpses look alike.”50 This comprehensive picture of death
and the place of the dead has nothing to do with existence in the un-
derworld, but solely refers to the grave. That is the essence of the term
Sheol in Job 7:9.
Finally, by its nature, the term Sheol demonstrates the qualities that
are diametrically opposite to any life-form, and therefore functions as
the grave or an antithesis of everything that can be termed “being,” “life,”
or “existence.” Thus, Job 18:18 refers to two totally opposite images of
light and darkness, the symbolism of which is deep and insightful. The
light is associated with life (Job 3:20; 33:20; Ps 56:14), and the darkness
is the indicator of death (Job 10:21–22; 17:13; 19:8). These two contrast-
ing images are the only possible states of being (Job 18:5–6). Technically
the distinction between the two concepts represents a spatial contrast or
46
Reyburn, 80.
47
Hartley, The Book of Job, 97–98.
48
Clines, 17:91.
49
Laird Harris, “Why Hebrew She’ōl Was Translated ‘Grave,’” in The NIV: The Making of a Con-
temporary Translation, ed. Kenneth L. Barker (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1986), 68.
50
Leo Calvin, Leo Rosten’s Treasury of Jewish Quotations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), 173.
a life-and-death antithesis that finds its expression in the theological

context of the book of Job.
Resurrection Imagery as a Life-Death Antithesis
Indeed, it is hard to find another text like Job 19:25–27, so undeni-

ably vibrant and forceful in its expression, meaning, and application and
functioning as the most dynamic and powerful affirmation of Job’s faith
in the personal resurrection from the grave.51
The fact that Job focuses in his speeches so much on the life-death
antithesis does not mean that he has no hope. On the contrary, Job repeat-
edly looks beyond the present to the future with confidence. He never even
alludes to popular assumptions concerning existence of the spirit or soul
in the underworld, as his focus is on another alternative:
For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that at the end He will stand upon the earth;
And after my skin is destroyed, this [I know],
That from my flesh I shall see God,
Whom I will see for myself,
And my eyes will behold, and not another.
My heart faints within me (Job 19:25–27).52
51
Many modern scholars see in Job 19:25–27 only contradictions and no hope of resurrection
at all. As a brief summary, here are three major views: 1) Job refers to the bodily resurrection,
2) modern scholarship points out that in these verses Job expects to see God after his death in
a disembodied state, and 3) they describe Job’s desire to see his restoration before his death. For
discussion of these three views, see Clines, 17:463–466.
52
Literally “My kidneys grow faint in my breast.”
Verses 25–27 belong to a unit (Job 19:21–29) that, in spite of its diverse
structural and thematic elements, represents both a well-balanced chi-
asm and a structurally systematic arrangement.53 Moreover, verses 25–27
not only function as the peak of the entire chiastic outline, but also
demonstrate that they are bound together phonologically by their own
double chiastic structure based on sound.54
wa ănî yāda tî gō ălî āy wĕ a ărôn al- āpār yāqûm (v. 25)
wĕ a ar ôrî niqqĕpû-zō t ûmibbĕśārî e ĕze ĕlôah (v. 26)
ăšer ănî e ĕze-llî wĕ ênay rā û wĕlō -zār (v. 27)
These three lines are interlocked by numerous emphatic elements

that directly expose and dramatize Job’s conviction in the bodily resurrec-
tion. The additional emphatic presence of the pronoun “I” (wa ănî) before
the verbs “I know” (yāda tî, Job 19:25) and “I will see” ( e ĕze, Job 19:26),
intensification by repeating the verbs “I will see” ( e ĕze, Job 19:26–27)
and “they will see” (rā û, Job 19:27), and the clarifications “I myself ” (lî,
Job 19:27),55 and “and not another” (wĕlō -zār, v. 27) create a dynamic
picture of the resurrection experience.
Job 19:25 starts with the phrase “for I know” (yāda tî), where “for”
and “but” (wa) introduce contrast with verses 23–24,56 and the personal
pronoun ănî takes on an emphatic form “I myself.”57 The verb “I know”
yāda tî,58 occurs in the book of Job especially in legal contexts, where it
basically means “I have a strong conviction” or “I firmly believe.”59 It is
highly significant to note that Jacques Doukhan points out Job’s unique
53
For discussions on the structure, see Habel, 294–298; Gerald Janzen, Job, Interpretation, a Bible
Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1985), 131–132, 131–140; Edward
J. Kissane, The Book of Job (Dublin: Brown and Nolan, 1939), 118–123; and Clines, 17:435–438.
54
Jacques Doukhan, “Radioscopy of a Resurrection: The Meaning of niqqepû zō’t in Job 19:26,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 34, no. 2 (1996): 189. See also Gordon Eugene Christo, “The
Eschatological Judgment in Job 19:21–29: An Exegetical Study” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
1992), 78.
55
For the reflexive and emphatic function of personal pronouns suffixed to prepositions occur-
ring after a verb, see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 305.
56
Clines, 17:458.
57
See Habel, 303.
58
See also Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 395.
59
Habel, 304. See Job 9:2, 28; 10:13; 13:18. For a detailed discussion on the current verses, see
Christo, 67–151.
relationship with God by focusing on the verb yāda tî in the interdepen-

dent textual parallels:60
yāda tî kî-zō t immāk (Job 10:13)

I have known that this is with You
wa ănî yāda tî gō ălî āy (Job 19:25)

For I know that my Redeemer lives
(Job 10:12)
And after my skin is destroyed, this [I know],
(Job 19:15)
my Redeemer lives
By affirming, “My Redeemer lives” ( ), Job focuses on Yahweh,

who functions as his personal Defender, Redeemer, Advocate, and Judge.61
The pronominal suffix “my” refers to Job, and, at the same time, the phrase
“my Redeemer lives” ( ) is structurally contrasted with, literally,
“on the dust” ( ). The noun “earth,” “dust” ( āpār) points back
to the in Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 as the place of life and death. In the
book of Job, it occurs twenty-six times, alluding either to death and the
grave62 or to mortal human beings.63 Moreover, the occurrence of the
term so close to the adjective “alive,” “living” ( ),64 which char-
acterizes the Redeemer as a living being, alludes to the resurrection.65
This view can be further substantiated by the nature and function of the
verb “He will stand” ( ), especially as it functions parallel to 66
and clearly alludes to 14:12, where Job employs in parallel to “they

will awake” ( ) in order to emphasize the eschatological event of
resurrection. The presence of both terms and , the subject
60
Doukhan, 187–193.
61
See Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “ ,” in VanGemeren, 1:789–794. For various functions of the term,
see Christo, 137–143.
62
Job 7:21; 17:16; 20:11; 21:26.
63
Job 2:12; 4:19; 7:21; 10:9; 14:8, 19; 16:15; 17:16. See Janzen, 141.
64
See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 312 and Clines, 17:460.
65
The foundation for this connection is found in Genesis 2:7, when a man was formed from the
āpār of the ground and Yahweh caused him āyâ (“to live”). See also Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2.
66
Bertrand Pryce, “The Resurrection Motif in Hosea 5:8–6:6” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
1989), 166.
of which is the Redeemer, intensifies and reinforces the concept of the

resurrection even more.67
Furthermore, the adjective “and at the end” ( ) is derived
from ’a ar, which means “behind,” or “afterwards.”68 Both in terms of space
and time, can mean either “what immediately follows” or the
general “beyond” or “future.” It can even describe the limits of space or
the very end of time.
According to Dahood, the word functions as a technical
term for the eschaton if it is qualified by an eschatological context.69 This
is exactly the case in verses 25–27, which contain various elements of death
and resurrection, thus demonstrating all the criteria for understanding
it in an eschatological sense. Job’s faith is in the eschaton. Even if he has
to die and go down to and become again the dust of the earth,
Job is confident in the eschatological resurrection, as is seen from the
discussed vocabulary.
By employing the expression “and after my skin is destroyed” (
, Job 19:26), Job refers to his death and decay in the
grave, which is contrasted by the resurrection imagery “that in [from] my
flesh I will see God” ( ).70 Scholars are divided
on how to understand verse 26, especially concerning the phrase “and in
my flesh” ( ), which is interpreted by many as “from the grave,
Job, a bodiless spirit, will witness the occasion when God appears before
the local assembly to verify Job’s innocence.”71 Such conclusions contra-
dict not only the immediate context but also the entire canon, including
the nature and function of the employed terminology. For example, the
preposition mîn can mean either “from” or “from the standpoint of,”
and many examples of the latter can be found in the Hebrew Scripture.72
Literally, the expression means “from my flesh” and not
67
J. F. A. Sawyer, “Hebrew Words for Resurrection,” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 232. See also
Theodor H. Gaster, “Resurrection,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur
Buttrick, vol. 4 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962–1976), 39–43 and William L. Hendricks, “Resur-
rection,” in Holman Bible Dictionary, ed. Trent C. Butler (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publish-
ers, 1991), 1178–1179.
68
See Bill T. Arnold, “ ,” in VanGemeren, 1:360–361 and Laird Harris, “ ,” in Harris, 1:33–34.
69
Mitchell Dahood S. J., Psalms III: 101-150: Introduction, Translation, and Notes with an Ap-
pendix: The Grammar of the Psalter, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 17A (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2008), xlvii.
70
For a detailed discussion on verse 26 and its parallels in Job 10, see Doukhan, 190–192.
71
For four major views concerning verse 26, see John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, The New
International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 295–297.
72
See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 577–583.
“without my flesh.”73 It should be noted that by its nature and function,

“my eyes” ( , Job 19:27) not only forms an inseparable part of a
physical body but also serves as a parallel to the phrase “and in my flesh”
( , Job 19:26). Moreover, both phrases “and my eyes” and “in my
flesh” have the first-person suffix “my.” Additionally, from both sides they
are enclosed by the emphatic pronoun “I” ( ), which, taken altogether,
imparts a tremendous structural and thematic force to Job’s dynamic hope
of a new life in the resurrected body: I myself, my flesh, I myself, my eyes.74
It should be noted that the descriptive elements of a human body
like “skin” ( ), “flesh” ( ), “bones” ( ), and “sinews” ( ,
Job 10:11; 19:20) find their counterpart in the resurrection context in
Ezekiel 37:3–10, where Ezekiel is an eyewitness of a new creation. Con-
sequently, the enhanced emphasis on various body parts authenticates
the restoration of the physical nature during the event of the resurrec-
tion, which, on one hand, means that Job envisions death and the grave,
but on the other hand, illustrates with a concrete description the fact
that after the resurrection, the identity of Job remains the same as before
his death.75
Finally, the force of Job’s conviction in the future resurrection is mani-
fested by the choice of eschatological terminology—especially the verb
“see,” “behold” ( ),76 which functions to express the vision of God that
every righteous person will have on the resurrection day.77 Generally,
the words for “to see” are associated with the words for “waking.”78 Some
scholars would include in this category even those texts that do not have
the word “to see” but that nevertheless imply it.79
Generally, the verb “to see” (rā â) denotes the act of “seeing,” “per-
ceiving,” “watching,” or “looking” with one’s own eyes.80 Job expresses his
conviction that he will live again by “my eyes will behold” (wĕ ênay rā û,
73
Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 15
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 139.
74
See Janzen, 144.
75
Samuel L. Terrien, Job: Poet of Existence (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957), 150–151.
76
See Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 302.
77
Robert D. Culver, “ ,” in Harris, 1:274–277.
78
Sawyer, 224. See, e.g., Psalm 17:15, 16:10; 36:10.
79
Dahood, xlix–lii; Psalm 21:7; 27:4; 41:13; 61:8; 63:3; 140:14.
80
Eve perceived that the fruit of the tree was good (Gen 3:6). In Isaiah 53:11, rā’â occurs without
an object, and one can understand this to indicate simply that after the suffering of death (the
grave, v. 9), the Suffering Servant will see again—that is, his eyes will be opened; see Dahood,
Psalms III, xlix–lii.
Job 19:27)—he will see again. There is no such thing as seeing without
awakening, for in sleep the eyes are closed, it is dark, and one sees noth-
ing; however, in awakening the eyes open, it is light, and one can see
again.81 That is why in Scripture seeing is often paralleled with awakening.
Note, for example, the references in Psalms 17:15 and 11:7:
ănî bĕ edeq e ĕze pānêkā

I shall behold Your face in righteousness;
eśbĕ â bĕhāqî tĕmûnātekā

I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake (Ps 17:15).
yāšār ye ĕzû pānêmô

The upright will behold His face (Ps 11:7).
The context in both psalms is the threat of death at the hands of the
wicked. In both contexts, the beholding is a reward in contrast to the
fate of the wicked. On the wicked “God will rain fiery coals and burning
sulfur” (Ps 11:6), and the men of this world have their reward in this life
(Ps 17:14). In this context, the reward of the righteous person is seeing God
when he awakes at the resurrection (Ps 17:15; see also Job 9:5, 13, 32–34;
13:20–21; 14:13).
In summary, by employing two synonymous verbs āzâ (occurs twice)
and rā â, and in particular emphasizing his personal, by its nature physical
involvement—namely, seeing with “my eyes” ( ênay)—and then clarify-
ing his assertion by adding “and not another,” literally “stranger” (lō -zār),
Job demonstrates a powerful conviction that he himself, in person, not a
stranger, will see God in his new resurrected body. Thus, Job’s hope for
the bodily resurrection is not focused on the immortality of the soul or
its continued existence in ; instead it is rooted in God’s wholistic
creative power and characterized by assurance and confidence that looks
forward to its fulfillment.
The theology which is delineated in this passage does not support

the idea of the immortality of the soul, since our text implies the
presence of the body, nor does it support the idea of an existen-
tial experience, since our text implies death through the reference
to dust. We find here, then, a clear expression of the doctrine of
81
Sawyer, 222–224.
resurrection as it will be later developed in Paul’s famous dis-

course on the topic in 1 Cor 15.82
Moreover, Job 14:22 is predicated by language that is simple, direct,

and specific—not only here, but in the whole chapter as well. On one hand,
it is employed to create a graphic imagery of the destructive power of
death, and on the other hand, to refer to the resurrection hope.83 For
example, in verse 14, by picturing himself as being dead in Sheol and by
using highly figurative, vivid mental pictures, Job punctuates his wish by
the figures of personification: “All the days of my service I will wait un-
til my change comes” (kāl-yĕmê ĕbā î ăya ēl ad-bô ălîpātî), and “You
will call and I will answer” (tiqrā wĕ ānōkî e ĕnekkā, Job 14:15). In these
verses Job refers not only to his rapidly approaching death but also to
the resurrection event.
Thus, in 14:13, Job uses one of the major terms, ōq (“fixed time,”
“something prescribed,” “a statute or due”),84 with at least three overlapping
and interrelated dimensions:
1) The dimension of time refers to the period between two fixed points,
beginning and end (birth and death) or end and beginning (death and
resurrection), whether in the past, present, or future.85 In other words,
Job matches spatial and temporal aspects by referring to his life of suf-
fering under the current cosmic order as one phase (Job 14:5) and to
his resurrection as another (Job 14:13; 24:1).86 Already in Job 8:7 he
stresses two extremely important terms: rē šît (“first,” “former”) and
a ărît (“latter,” “future” [of time]), which are picked up again in the
following chapters.87
2) Another dimension refers to the eschatologically fixed time point
of individual resurrection, “and You will remember me” (wĕtizkĕrēnî, Qal
82
Doukhan, 193.
83
Ben C. Ollenburger, “If Mortals Die, Will They Live Again? The Old Testament and Resurrec-
tion,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 29–44.
84
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 349 and Peter Enns, “ ,” in VanGemeren, 2:250–251.
85
Helmer Ringgren, “ ,” ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, trans. David E. Green, Theological Dic-
tionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 5:139–147.
86
As Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 171, noted, “the biblical hope of res-
urrection does not come from the fertility cults or the cycle of nature.” See also Donald H. Gard,
“The Concept of the Future Life According to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 73 (1954): 137–143.
87
See Janzen, 111.
impf. 2 m. s.),88 which means that the point of temporal division is actual-
ized according to a divinely appointed decree.89
3) On the third dimension, Gerhard Liedke comments with the fol-
lowing words: “It is clear that the ōq always involves a superior and
an inferior; it is the result of an action carried out by the superior and
affecting the inferior.”90 Here the noun ōq functions as the object of the
verb ōq tāšît (Qal impf. 2 m. s.), meaning “You would set/appoint” and
the superior is Yahweh Himself.91
All three dimensions blend together and reach their culmination in
the concluding phrase “and You will remember me” (wĕtizkĕrēnî). More-
over, the idea of resurrection is further intensified by the Hiphil verb
ya ălîp (“that it will sprout again/change,” Job 14:7)92 and the noun form
ălîpātî (“my change,” Job 14:14), referring to a “revival after death.”93
Some of the most significant terms in Job’s vocabulary are “hope” (tiqwâ,
Job 14:7)94 and the resurrection term “to live” ( āyâ, Job 14:14). The ques-
tion “If a [strong] man dies, will he live again?” ( im-yāmût geber hăyi ye,
Job 14:14) necessitates a positive answer: “Yes.”95 And finally, Job 14:15
contains clear allusions to the original creation vocabulary that emphasizes
the creative power of Yahweh. At the same time, it refers to the resurrec-
tion of the dead as the end result of Job’s personal relationship with God.96
Job is well aware of the nature and function of , its limitations,
and the destructive power of death, including its helplessness before
Yahweh. That is why Job contemplates and focuses his attention on the
individual resurrection, “which may be described as proto-apocalyptic in
88
Leslie C. Allen, “ ,” in VanGemeren, 1:1100–1106.
89
Janzen, 111.
90
Translation by the author. Original reads as follows: “Es ist deutlich, daß der sich immer
zwischen einem Übergeordneten und einem Untergeordneten abspielt, und zwar als Ergebnis
einer Handlung, die der Übergeordnete ausübt und die den Untergeordneten betrifft” (Gerhard
Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze, Wissenschaftliche Monographien
zum Alten und Neuen Testament 39 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971], 154–186,
esp. 166–169; see also Ringgren, 142).
91
Cf. Jeremiah 5:22; Ezekiel 16:27; Psalm 148:6; Job 14:5; 23:14; 28:26; 30:10; Proverbs 8:28; 30:8.
See also Richard Ernst Hentschke, Satzung und Setzender: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Rechts-
terminologie, Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, vol. 5, no. 3 (Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer, 1963), 91.
92
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, s.v. “ ,” 322.
93
Ibid.
94
Job uses the term twelve times. See ibid., s.v. “ ,” 876.
95
Here the answer is positive because of specific vocabulary and context, whereas in Psalm 88:10–
12 a similar rhetorical question calls for a negative response.
96
Because of space limitations, none of these terms will be discussed here.
scope and character.”97 Thus, Job is ready to go down to , his tempo-

rary “hiding place,” in faith.
Finally, as this theological-anthropological paradigm is rooted in the
Word of Yahweh, its formulation of the bodily resurrection of the dead
from is completely consistent and compatible with the scriptural
perspective, which, in turn, is in conflict with the traditional view of
the immortality of the soul. It should be noted that nothing less than a
totally new creation, including the literal bodily resurrection of the dead,
can constitute the culminating eschatological fulfillment, which is the
counterpart of the first creation out of nothing. In other words, as life
breath is given for a purpose, and death has its purpose, so even more
the bodily resurrection. “To reduce the resurrection to an immaterial
symbol of new life is to rob the dimension of world transformation, and
to push it in the direction of Greek thought.”98
Conclusion
It is significant to note that the implications of various images in the

book of Job are more than simply profound and far reaching. Job’s im-
agery and references to the brevity of human life and Sheol are encircled
by the vocabulary, allusions, and motifs of death, resurrection, judgment,
and hope,99 thus putting a strong emphasis on the grave as exclusively
a temporary hiding place. His words “That You would conceal me un-
til your wrath is past” and “That You would set a limit for me, and
remember me” (Job 14:13) contain profoundly important elements that,
by their function, are of a theological, anthropological, and eschatologi-
cal nature. Job focuses on God as the initiator of his physical resurrection
that, in turn, implies an eschatological perspective with all its develop-
ments, including the destruction of the grave and death.
97
Janzen, 110.
98
Clark H. Pinnock, “The Incredible Resurrection: A Mandate of Faith,” Christianity Today,
April 6, 1979, 13–17; Hywel D. Lewis, “Immortality,” Review & Expositor 82, no. 4 (1985): 549–563;
Walter Wifall, “The Status of ‘Man’ as Resurrection,” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wist-
senschaft 90 (1978): 382–394; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrec-
tion—An Historical Examination and Explanation, trans. A. M. Stewart (Atlanta, GA: John Knox,
1978); Richard Vinson, “Life Everlasting,” Biblical Illustrator 16 (1989): 74–76; George W. E.
Nickelsburg,Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); Nickelsburg, “Resurrection: Early Judaism and Christian-
ity,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
684–691; and Bruce Vawter, “Intimations of Immortality and the Old Testament,” Journal of
Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 158–171.
99
See Job 14:13.
In other words, the scriptural paradigm of theological anthropology

makes it impossible to accept the view of a disembodied personal exis-
tence in ,100 which, by its strong emphasis on the immortal nature
101
of the soul, nullifies one of the main core reasons and essence of the
resurrection, which is the “resurrection to immortality and everlasting
life in ‘a new heavens and a new earth.’”102 “The resurrection is not merely
the transition from one form of life to another; it is nothing less than the
re-creation of that which had ceased to exist, and which now lives again
through God’s immortal power.”103
Finally, it should be emphasized in particular that in the setting of
the life-death antithesis, “contrary to a widespread scholarly tradition, a
resurrection hope was not a late-appearing conception since it is found
in pre-Exodus Egypt.”104 Job repeatedly and unambiguously refers to
100
Ray S. Anderson, On Being Human (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 213.
101
See Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Hell under Fire: Modern Scholarship
Reinvents Eternal Punishment (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004). For the opposite view, see
Edward William Fudge, “The Final End of the Wicked,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 27, no. 3 (1984): 325–334. Commenting on the traditional view of unending conscious
torture, Fudge writes: “Is the OT silent concerning the wicked’s final fate? Indeed, it is not. It
overwhelmingly affirms their total destruction. It never affirms or even hints at anything resem-
bling conscious unending torment. The Old Testament uses about 50 different Hebrew verbs to
describe this fate, and about 70 figures of speech. Without exception they portray destruction,
extinction or extermination. Not one of the verbs or word-pictures remotely suggests the tradi-
tional doctrine” (ibid., 326).
102
E. E. Ellis, Christ and the Future in New Testament History, Supplements to Novum Testa-
mentum, vol. 97 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 196, emphasis supplied. See also the works of J. A. Schep,
The Nature of the Resurrection Body: A Study of the Biblical Data (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1964); Josef Schmid, “Resurrection of the Body,” Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of The-
ology, ed. Adolf Darlap, vol. 5 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 333–340; and James Orr,
“Immortality in the Old Testament,” in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpreta-
tion, ed. Walter C. Kaiser (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), 253–265.
103
John C. Brunt, “Resurrection and Glorification,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theol-
ogy, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 364 and Harold Tabor,
“Immortality and Resurrection in the Old Testament,” in Resurrection! Essays in Honor of Homer
Hailey, ed. Edward Fudge (Athens, AL: CEI Publishing, 1973), 67–78.
104
Ellis, 188–189. See also James Henry Breasted, Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient
Egypt (New York: Harper, 1959), 55–61; Breasted, A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the
Persian Conquest (New York: Scribner, 1909), 53–73; and Archibald Henry Sayce, The Religions
of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia: The Gifford Lectures on the Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian
Conception of the Divine Delivered in Aberdeen (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 170. For the res-
urrection hope as a late-appearing idea, see, e.g., James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A
Study of the Two Testaments (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 52, who writes, “It is well known
that the emphasis on bodily resurrection is not evident in the Old Testament, but is a product
of the late development, with a heavy stress on the time of the Maccabean martyrs.”
Yahweh’s purpose and power to deliver the dead ones from Sheol.105 In
this connection, Ellis points out that “the hope of resurrection is repeat-
edly expressed by Michael Dahood, Derek Kidner, and others.”106 It is
noteworthy to conclude that the book of Job contains a deep and un-
wavering belief in resurrection and immortality of the righteous.107 The
resurrection of the dead is that great, final, and sudden eschatological
event that will follow after one’s death in Sheol and toward which the whole
universe is moving.108
105
See also 1 Samuel 2:6; Hosea 13:14; Job 19:25–27, Psalm 49:16; 73:24; Isaiah 25:8; 26:19, Ezekiel
37:1–14; Daniel 12:2.
106
Ellis, 189.
107
Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Com-
mentaries, vol. 15 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 74, 86, 90; idem, Psalms 73–150:
An Introduction and Commentary,Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, vol. 16 (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 263, 466.
108
See also Howard Clark Kee, “Resurrection of the Dead,” The Dictionary of Bible and Reli-
gion, ed. William H. Gentz (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986), 887–888; W. Stewart McCullough,
“Israel’s Eschatology from Amos to Daniel,” in Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World, ed. J.
W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), 66–101; and John H.
Otwell, “Immortality in the Old Testament: A Review of the Evidence,” Encounter 22 (1961):
22–27.
CHAPTER 4
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13: Narrative

Flow and Chronological
Relationships as Eschatological
Indicators of Temporality
Roger Ruiz
Daniel is an eschatological book and, even in the narrative sections,

its intention is to present eschatology. Jacques B. Doukhan affirms that the
“book of Daniel is the biblical book which, more than any other, refers
to the end, and is consequently the most eschatological book of the Old
Testament.”1 The Hebrew word ‘ēt (“time”) appears sixteen times in the
book of Daniel,2 and thirteen times in the last prophetic line (Dan 10–12).3
It seems that time becomes an important element in the last part of
the book.
Moreover, Daniel is an apocalyptic book. A distinction between
classical and apocalyptic prophecy is that while classical prophecy has a
telescopic view of the future, apocalyptic prophecy sweeps history from
the time of the prophet until the end.4 In other words, apocalyptic
prophecy describes a predictive journey through time. Thus, a semantic
1
Jacques Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
1987), 2.
2
Daniel 8:17; 9:21, 25; 11:6, 13, 14, 24, 35, 40; 12:1 (4x), 4, 9, 11.
3
For an understanding of the four prophetic lines in the book of Daniel, see Gerhard Pfandl,
“Daniel’s Time of the End,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 7, no. 1 (1996): 147.
4
See Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Principles for Interpreting Old Testament Apocalyptic
Prophecy,” in Prophetic Principles: Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical and Practical In-
sights, ed. Ronald A. G. Du Preez (Berrien Springs, MI: LithoTech, 2007), 51‒52.
study of temporality, analyzing temporal expressions in the predictive

narrative, is fundamental for the understanding of apocalyptic prophecy
since these expressions provide the temporal frame for events in time.
This study explores the chronological relationship between the
temporal expressions ēt qē , hā ēt hahî , and qē hayyāmîn as indica-
tors of temporality in Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13. A proper analysis of
temporality in prophetic narrative includes semantics (clause level) and
linguistics (discourse level).5
The methodology to study temporality in Daniel 11:40–12:13 ( ēt qē ,
“time of the end”; hā ēt hahî , “that time”) takes the following steps: 1) it
identifies the main and secondary characters, 2) it performs a linguistic
analysis of the morpho-syntactic pattern of the verbs, and 3) it analyzes
other parts of speech besides verbs that contribute to temporality, such
as vocabulary expressing space-time correlation. As for the analysis of
qē hayyāmîn (“the end of the days”), it follows two steps: 1) a brief com-
parative study of the vocabulary of resurrection in Daniel 12:2 and 12:13,
and 2) a brief comparative study of the plural forms for “day” (yôm),
spelled with final nun and final mem in Daniel 12.
Temporality of ʿēt qēṣ in Daniel 11:40–45
ʿĒt qēṣ in the Fourth Prophetic Line of Daniel

Among Adventist scholars, Gerhard Pfandl’s dissertation is the most
comprehensive study about ēt qē (“time of the end”). He concludes
that this temporal phrase “seems to be a technical term standing for
the eschaton.”6 This expression appears in the Hebrew Bible only in the
5
For different approaches to analyze temporality and verbal valence, see Janet W. Dyk, Oliver
Glanz, and Reinoud Oosting, “Analysing Valence Patterns in Biblical Hebrew: Theoretical
Questions and Analytic Frameworks,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 40, no. 1
(2014): 43–62; Ohad Cohen, The Verbal Tense System in Late Biblical Hebrew Prose, trans. Avi
Aronsky, Harvard Semitic Studies 63 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013); Jan Joosten, The
Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose,
Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10 (Jerusalem: Simor, 2012); Adina Moshavi, Word Order in the Bib-
lical Hebrew Finite Clause, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 4 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2010); John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense,
Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 7 (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012); Cook, “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles
of ‘Wayyiqtol’ and ‘Weqatal’ in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” Journal of Semitic Studies 49, no. 2
(2004): 247‒273; Cook, “The Hebrew Verb: a Grammaticalization Approach,” Zeitschrift für
Althebräistik 14, no. 2 (2001): 117‒143; and T. D. Andersen, “The Evolution of the Hebrew
Verbal System,” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 13, no. 1 (2000): 1‒66.
6
See Pfandl, “Daniel’s Time of the End,” 149 and Pfandl, “The Latter Days and the Time of the
End in the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1990), 431.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 57
book of Daniel (five times).7 This present study, however, focuses on

its four occurrences in the last prophetic line of Daniel, which consists
of the introduction (Dan 10–11:2a), prophetic narrative (Dan 11:2b–12:3),
epilogue (Dan 12:4), and explanation (Dan 12:5–13).
Significantly, the expression ēt qē occurs in the prophetic narrative
(Dan 11:35, 40), the epilogue (Dan 12:4), and the explanation (Dan 12:9).
The epilogue (Dan 12:4) closes the prophetic line with a direct discourse
and two imperative verbs—“But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words
and seal up the book”—so the prophetic narrative ends in Daniel 12:3. The
explanation consists of two questions and two answers. The first question is
from one of the celestial beings to the Man dressed in linen (Dan 12:5–6);
the second question is virtually the same as the first, but now it is Dan-
iel who asks it (Dan 12:8). The answer to Daniel’s question (Dan 12:9)
begins with the same content of the epilogue (Dan 12:4). Table 1 clarifies
this point.
Therefore, ēt qē (“time of the end”) in the epilogue (Dan 12:4) and
the explanation (Dan 12:9) does not describe actual events at the time
of the end. Moreover, the preposition ad (“until”) precedes ēt qē
(“time of the end”) in Daniel 12:4 and 12:9, which produces a gap in time
and points out until the time of the end.
Table 1: Similar Elements of Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:9

and until the time of
Verse 4 And you Daniel Conceal
seal the end
And he and until the time of
Verse 9 Daniel because concealed
said, you go sealed the end
Although ēt qē (“time of the end”) occurs twice in the prophetic

narrative (Dan 11:35, 40), in Daniel 11:35 it is preceded by the preposi-
tion ad (“until”). Only in Daniel 11:40 does the preposition bě (“in, at”)
appear before ēt qē (“time of the end”). This change from ad (“until”)
to bě (“in, at”) makes a significant distinction from a temporal perspec-
tive. The preposition ad (“until”) breaks the temporal line and creates a
gap in time. On the other hand, the preposition bě (“in, at”) introduces
the actual time of events.8 Therefore, only in Daniel 11:40 does ēt qē
(“time of the end”) introduce and establish the temporal frame for events
7
Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9.
8
Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 196.
in the prophetic narrative flow of the fourth prophetic line of Daniel.

Table 2 illustrates this point.
Table 2: Ēt qē (“Time of the End”) in the Fourth

Prophetic Line in Daniel (10–12)
Introduction Prophetic Narrative Epilogue Explanation
(10:1–11:2a) (11:2b–12:3) (12:4) (12:5–13)
until the time of the until the time until the time of
No time of the end
end (11:35) of the end the end (12:9)
No flow of events No flow of No flow of
No flow of events
(11:35) events events
at the time of the end

(11:40)
Flow of events (11:40)
ʿĒt qēṣ (“Time of the End”) and Its Narrative Flow

in Daniel 11:40–45
The expression ûbĕ ēt qē (“and at the time of the end”) introduces
the pericope of Daniel 11:40–45. This expression seems to include all the
events that happen until the next temporal expression—namely, hā ēt
hahî (“that time,” Dan 12:1).
The King of the North: Main Subject in Daniel 11:40–45

Daniel 11:40 presents two subjects, the king of the South and the king
of the North: ûbĕ ēt qē yitnagga immô melek hannegeb wĕyiśtā ēr ālāyw
melek ha āpôn (“And at the time of the end the king of the South will
collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him”).
Table 3: King of the North and 3ms Verbs

Verse 40 Verse 41 Verse 42 Verse 43 Verse 44 Verse 45
He will He will He will He will He will go He will
storm enter reach out rule out plant
He will He will
enter enter
He will
overflow
He will pass
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 59
Moreover, a remarkable feature of this narrative is its use of the pro-

nominal suffix of 3ms, all of them having the king of the North as their
antecedent. Table 4 illustrates this point.
Table 4: King of the North—3ms Pronominal Suffixes

against him his hand his hand in his steps dismay him his palace
his end
to him
The king of the North is the main character of Daniel 11:40–45 and
does not change along the way until the end—that is, his end (qi ōw).
On the other hand, the most important of the secondary characters, the
king of the South, changes identification and takes a geographical con-
nection with the land of Egypt (Dan 11:42–43). Other secondary char-
acters in the narrative are rabbōwt (“many”), ēlle (“these,” Dan 11:41),
lubîm (Lybians) and kušîm (Ethiopians, in a nominal clause, Dan 11:43),
šĕmu ōwt (“news,” Dan 11:44), and ayin (“nobody,” in a nominal clause,
Dan 11:45). Table 5 illustrates this movement.
Table 5: Subjects in Daniel 11:40–45

Verse Verse 40 Verse 41 Verse 42 Verse 43 Verse 44 Verse 45
king of the news of
king of king of the king of
North East and king of
the South North the North
Subjects Lybians North the North
king of many land of
and Ethio- king of the nobody
the North these Egypt
pians North
king of king of the
king of king of news king of
the North North rule
the South the North dismay the North
enters in
collides reaches goes to
the lands
Verbal out hand the end
Scene
Many Lybians
king of Egypt king of the
stumble and Ethio-
the North does not North goes nobody
these pians after
storms escape out helps
escape his steps
Temporal attack enter
reach out rules dismay go
Move- reaction stumble
not escape follow go out help
ment escape
From a temporal perspective, the main character can interact with a

secondary character only at one point in time. Any action and reaction
of the characters implies temporal movement.
Verbal Morphology and Syntax as Temporal Indicators

Daniel 11:40–45 displays three types of active-finite verb construc-
tions according to morphology and syntax: 1) waw x yiqtol, 2) weyiqtol,
and 3) weqatal. These grammatical features are present in the whole nar-
rative (Dan 11:2b–12:3). The analysis of the morpho-syntactic arrange-
ment of Daniel 11:40–45 helps make a description of temporality. Each
construction contributes to the narrative in a particular way.
Weyiqtol appears three times and weqatal seven times. John A.
Cook suggests that “it is theoretically problematic to claim that tempo-
ral succession is determined solely by a particular verbal conjugation.”9
However, in a specific context, the repetition of a conjugation or a syn-
tactical verbal construction and other temporal indicators could form
a pattern at a linguistic level (beyond the sentence), which may be cor-
related with the temporal flow of the narrative. Table 6 shows the
morphological pattern of the verb in Daniel 11:40–45.
Table 6: Morphological Pattern of the Verb in Daniel 11:40–45

waw x yiqtol weqatal weyiqtol weqatal waw x yiqtol weyiqtol
weyiqtol waw x yiqtol weqatal weqatal
weqatal waw x yiqtol
weqatal
weqatal
Weyiqtol and weqatal are the morphological constructions that de-

scribe the actions of the king of the North in Daniel 11:40–45. This
fact is singular since the king of the North is the main character in the
narrative. Table 7 presents the verbs.
9
Cook, “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 257.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 61
Table 7: Weyiqtol and weqatal in Daniel 11:40–45,

Actions of the King of the North
wĕyiśtā ēr (“and he will storm”): weyiqtol
ûbā (“and he will enter”): weqatal
Verse 40
wĕšā ap (“and he will overflow”): weqatal
wĕ ābār (“and he will pass”): weqatal
Verse 41 ûbā (“and he will enter”): weqatal
Verse 42 wĕyišla (“and he will reaches out”): weyiqtol
Verse 43 ûmāšal (“and he will rule”): weqatal
Verse 44 wĕyā ā (“and he will go out”): weqatal
wĕyi a (“and he will plant”): weyiqtol
Verse 45
ûbā (“and he will enter”): (weqatal)
On the other hand, waw x yiqtol describes the active actions of sec-
ondary characters. This is illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8: Actions of Secondary Characters in Daniel 11:40–45

ûbĕ ēt qē yitnagga immô melek hannegeb (“and at the time of the
Verse 40
end the king of the South will collide with him”): waw x yiqtol
wĕrabbôt yikkāšēlû (“and many will stumble”): waw x yiqtol
Verse 41 wĕ ēlle yimmāl û miyyādô (“and these will escape from his hand”):
waw x yiqtol
Verse 44 ûšĕmu ôt yĕbahăluhû (“but news . . . will dismay him”): waw x yiqtol
The morpho-syntactic general pattern of the active-finite verbs in

Daniel 11:40–45 seems to follow this order: waw x yiqtol/weyiqtol/weqatal.
The only exception is a weqatal (“he will go out,” v. 44) followed by two
infinitive constructions (wĕyā ā + [2x prep. lĕ + inf.]). These forms
represent intention and not the actual actions (“he will go out to de-
stroy and annihilate many”). Otherwise, the narrative should use weqatal
instead of an infinitive (“he will go out . . . and he will destroy and an-
nihilate many”). Another possibility is to interpret the consonants of
wĕyā ā (wy ) as a weyiqtol (not wayyiqtol, which would be “and he went
out”). There are two reasons for this suggestion: 1) the morpho-syntactic
pattern seems to favor it, and 2) it has the same temporal meaning of
a weqatal (“and he will go out”). If that is the case, the morpho-syntactic
pattern does not show any interruption. Table 9 illustrates this point.
Table 9: Morpho-Syntactic Pattern of the Active-Finite Verbs

Secondary King of the King of the King of the
Verse Character North North North
waw x yiqtol weqatal weyiqtol weqatal
and at the time
40 of the end he will
collide
and he will
storm
and he will enter
and he will
overflow
and he will pass
41 and he will enter
and many will
stumble
and these will
escape
and he will
42
reaches out
43 and he will rule
but news will
44
dismay him
and he will go and he will go
out + (2x Inf) out + (2x Inf)
45 and he will plant
and he will enter
Waw x yiqtol
Daniel 11:40–45 initiates with a waw x yiqtol. As mentioned previously,
the subjects of all waw x yiqtol constructions are secondary characters
in the narrative. The king of the North is not a subject of a waw x yiqtol.
There are four waw x yiqtol in Daniel 11:40–45 (vs. 40, 42 [2x], 44). The
first and the fourth (vs. 40, 44) create new scenes in the narrative.
The first waw x yiqtol (ûbĕ ēt qē yitnagga , “and at the time of the
end he will collide”) provides the temporal frame for the whole pericope—
namely, bĕ ēt qē (“and at the time of the end”). In the initial action, the
king of the South collides against the king of the North. The emphasis of
the construction is on the x section as the temporal element. This waw x
yiqtol creates a new scene in a new temporal frame: the time of the end.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 63
The verb nāga (“to gore”) describes a solid attack of the king of the South
against the king of the North using the image of a goring ox (Exod 21:28).
The prophetic narrative does not give additional details. The attack is the
spark that ignites the reaction of the king of the North, the main character
in the narrative. Therefore, from a temporal view, the first waw x yiqtol
is a specific point in time, the first action within a temporal frame—
namely, the time of the end. In other words, this attack is the first sign of
the time of the end from the Daniel 11 perspective.
The fourth waw x yiqtol (ûšĕmu ôt yĕbahăluhû, “but news will dismay
him,” Dan 11:44) also initiates a new scene. Once the king of the North
governs over the economy of Egypt, there is some news that scares him.
Therefore, the scenario changes. In some way, the king of the North relates
the news with Israel, and he goes out of Egypt.
Therefore, the first (ûbĕ ēt qē yitnagga , “and at the time of the end he
will collide”) and the fourth (ûšĕmu ôt yĕbahăluhû, “but news will dis-
may him”) waw x yiqtol contribute to the temporality of Daniel 11:40–45,
indicating the beginning of the time span and providing the most crit-
ical change in the course of actions of the king of the North. They also
divide the temporality of Daniel 11:40–45 into two scenes, which begin
with two actions: 1) the attack of the king of the South on the king of the
North, and 2) the news from East and North. The narrative flow con-
tains the reaction of the king of the North to these new scenes. Table 10
illustrates this point.
Table 10: Two Main Scenes in Daniel 11:40–45

New Scenes
Temporality in King of the North
Secondary
Daniel 11:40–45 Main Character Translation
Characters
Two scenes weyiqtol
waw x yiqtol
Temporal frame ûbĕ ēt qē And in the time of the
Scene 1 end the king of the
Attack of the king yitnagga immô South will collide with
of the South melek hannegeb him
wĕyiśtā ēr And he will storm
1. Actions of the
king of the North wĕyišla And he will reach out
Scene 2 ûšĕmu ôt But news will dismay

News yĕbahăluhû him
2. Actions of the wĕyā ā And he will go out
king of the North wĕyi a And he will plant
In a distributional approach to text linguistic,10 “emphasis” classifies the

foreground and background information. The analysis of the waw x yiqtol
in Daniel 11:40–45 shows that the first (yitnagga immô melek hannegeb,
“the king of the South will collide with him”) and the fourth (ûšĕmu ôt
yĕbahăluhû, “but news will dismay him”) offer foreground information,
creating new scenes in the narrative. On the other hand, the second
(wĕrabbôt yikkāšēlû, “and many will stumble”), and the third (wĕ ēlle
yimmāl û miyyādô, “and these will escape from his hand”) are part of
the background information. They provide the reactions of the sec-
ondary characters (“many” and “these”) to the actions of the king of
the North. They are also contrasting: “many” stumble, but “these” es-
cape. Furthermore, the actions of Daniel 11:41 seem to be simultaneous:
while “many” stumble, “these” escape. Therefore, both actions share the
same temporal span.
Weyiqtol and weqatal

The elaboration of the two scenes introduced by waw x yiqtol is de-
veloped by weyiqtol and weqatal forms. The weyiqtol forms represent
central actions, while weqatal are subordinated actions.
Jan Joosten classifies Daniel as Late Biblical Hebrew. He considers
that even though weyiqtol is spurious in Classical Hebrew, in Late Biblical
Hebrew it represents the usual syntax. Moreover, he notices that “the most
impressive example of this is Daniel 11 with 25 cases.”11 He categorizes
weyiqtol as predictive—namely,12 predictive narrative.
While waw x yiqtol describes new scenes and background informa-
tion, the weyiqtol seems to be the description of the foreground infor-
mation and the central actions of the narrative. As illustrated in Table
10, weyiqtol verbs in Daniel 11:40–45 are exclusive to the king of the
North and function as reactions to the first (the attack of the king of the
South) and last (the news) waw x yiqtol situations.
At least one weqatal verb, and sometimes a chain of them, appears
after a weyiqtol. Lesley suggests that “weqatal plays a subordinate role
10
The distributional approach to text linguistic classifies texts in three categories: 1) speech at-
titude, 2) speech perspective, and 3) emphasis. For more information about the distribution-
al approach of text linguistic, see James A. Lesley Jr., “The Distinctions of a Text-Linguistic
Model Against the Tense/Aspect Model of the Clause Level of the Minor Prophets” (PhD diss.,
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010), 91–97.
11
Joosten, 399 mentions three cases in Daniel 11 (vs. 40, 42, 45).
Ibid., 398; see also Tania Notarius, “Prospective Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew: Dubious Cases or
12
Unidentified Category?” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 34, no. 1 (2008), 40.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 65
in the communication process in speech perspective and foreground in

emphasis as indicated by future expression. The weqatal does not initiates
an autonomous narrative.”13
The first scene consists of two weyiqtols (wĕyiśtā ēr (“and he will
storm”) and wĕyišla (“and he will reach out”). The first weyiqtol (wĕyiśtā
ēr, “and he will storm”) is followed by four weqatals (ûbā , “and he will
enter”; wĕšā ap, “and he will overflow”; wĕ ābār, “and he will pass”; and
ûbā , “and he will enter”). It seems that the king of the North’s action of
“storm” implies a chain of actions marked by weqatal. In other words,
in order to fulfill the action indicated by the weyiqtol, a sequence of
weqatal actions is needed. These actions expand the foreground informa-
tion and maintain the temporal flow. An example of these is the repetition
of ûbā (“and he will enter”) in the chain of four weqatal (Dan 11:40– 41).
The first action of ûbā (“and he will enter”) refers to one location, while
the second corresponds to another place. Movement in location implies
temporal movement also. In narrative weqatal also functions as com-
mentary, or background information from the linguistic perspective of
emphasis.14
The second weyiqtol (wĕyišla , “and he will reach out”) has only
one weqatal (ûmāšal, “and he will rule”). It seems that the action of “rul-
ing” is the complete fulfillment of the action of “reaching out” the hand.
The second scene consists of two weyiqtols15 (wĕyā ā , “and he will
go out”; and wĕyi a , “and he will plant”). The first (wĕyā ā , “and he will
go out”) precedes two infinitive forms that denote purpose.16 The second
(wĕyi a , “and he will plant”) precedes one weqatal (ûbā , “and he will
enter”). It seems that the result of the action of “planting” is “arriving” at
his end.
Summary
The morpho-syntactic information provides three stages on the
temporality in Daniel 11:40–45. First, waw x yiqtol forms provide scenes
and background information. There are two scenes in the text. Second,
weyiqtol forms are the main verbs in the narrative. They provide the
narrative description of each scene with sequential actions. And third,
13
Lesley, 99.
14
Alviero Niccacci, Sintáxis del hebreo híblico (Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2002), 73–74.
15
If wy is considered as weyiqtol, rather than a weqatal.
16
For a discussion on these forms, see the paragraph preceding Table 9, under the section titled
“Verbal Morphology and Syntax as Temporal Indicators in Daniel 11:40–45.”
weqatal forms represent subordinate actions and the sequential fulfill-

ment of the main verbs. The detailed information slows down the narrative
from a temporal perspective. When the text shows a chain of weqatal,
temporality becomes longer.
The morpho-syntactic arrangement of the narrative seems to show
variation in the temporal flow—in some cases speeding up the temporal
movement, and on other occasions slowing down temporality and the
flow of events.
It seems that the first scene (two weyiqtol and five weqatal) is lon-
ger than the second scene (two weyiqtol and only one weqatal). If that
is correct, then the period between the attack of the king of the South
(Dan 11:40) and the walking of the Libyans and Ethiopians on the steps
of the king of the North (Dan 11:43, supremacy of the king of the North
in terms of economy) is longer than the period between the news of
Daniel 11:44 and the end of the king of the North (Dan 11:45). Should an
interpreter include this observation?
Daniel 11:40–45 is a temporal unity under the temporal frame of ēt
qē (“time of the end”), with a continuous temporal flow. In other words,
ēt qē (“time of the end”) is not static; it has a dynamic movement leading
to the end.
Time and Space Correlation as Temporal Indicator

Two fundamental elements in the narrative of Daniel 11:40–45 are
the locative vocabulary and the verbs of motion. It seems that in reaction
to the king of the South’s attack, the king of the North initiates a jour-
ney down to the South. According to the principle of ordo naturalis in
narration,17 the temporal flow is a necessity when one goes from site A
to site B. Therefore, the correlation between time and space becomes a
temporal indicator. The locative movement of the king of the North
implies temporal movement. This is illustrated in Table 11.
17
Cook, “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 251.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 67
Table 11: Locative and Temporal Movement in Daniel 11:40–45

Verse 40 Verse 41 Verse 42 Verse 43 Verse 44
Verb enter enter reach out go out
Glorious between seas
Place the lands the lands Egypt
Land holy mountain
Verb pass in his steps
Edom
(the Libya
Place Moab land of Egypt
lands) Ethiopia
Amon
Temporal
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
movement?
On the way to Egypt, the word “land” in singular and plural determi-
nates the spatial movement of the king of the North. The sequence is the
lands, glorious land (Edom, Moab, and Amon as points of reference), the
lands, and the land of Egypt (Libya and Ethiopia as points of reference).
The spatial trajectory of the king of the North has three movements
according to the locative elements: 1) enter lands—enter Glorious Land,
2) reach out lands—Egypt, and 3) go out from Egypt—between the seas
and the Holy Mountain.
First Movement: Enter Lands/Enter the Glorious Land (Dan 11:40–41)

The verb bô (to enter) appears twice (Dan 11:40, 41) in the first
movement. Both times the subject is the king of the North. However, the
first time he enters ba ărā ôt (“in the lands,” plural), but the second
time he enters bĕ ere ha ĕbî (“into the Glorious Land,” a specific land).
Between the first and the second bô (“to enter”), the text presents
two verbs: wĕšā ap (“and he will overflow”) and wĕ ābār (“and he will
pass”). The narrative could use bô (“to enter”) once, but its repetition
in the first and last place in a chain of weqatal indicates slow motion and
a change of locative context from a general to the specific—namely, from
the lands to the Glorious Land.
Second Movement: Reach Out Lands/Egypt (Dan 11:42–43)

The next location is again the lands. There is a change of the verb
from bô (“to enter”) to šāla (“to reach out”). Although the two verbs are
connected to the land/s, there is a semantic distinction. The verb šāla
(“to reach out”) implies aggression because its object is yād (“hand”), a
noun associated with power.
The spatial vocabulary follows the same pattern of the first movement,
from general to specific—namely, the lands and the land of Egypt. How-
ever, there is a difference: the second movement does not repeat the verb
of motion. While bô (“to enter”) appears twice in the first movement,

šāla (“to reach out”) occurs once. This dissimilarity implies that the
second movement is faster than the first, and that the Glorious Land is
stronger than Egypt. Even Edom, Moab, and Ammon are in better po-
sitions than Egypt in respect to the attack of the king of the North;
they escape from the hand of the king of the North. However, when he
reaches out his hand, the land of Egypt does not escape.
At this juncture it bears noting that the reference to Edom, Moab, and
Ammon in comparison to Libyans and Ethiopians. To be sure, the lands
that surround the Glorious Land and the land of Egypt have reactions
to the presence of the king of the North. Edom, Moab, and Amon escape
from his hand, but Libyans and Ethiopians follow his steps.
The verb māla describes the action of Edom, Moab, and Amon; this
is an active finite verb. Nevertheless, the narrative uses a nominal clause
and prepositional phrase (bĕmi ādāyw, “in his steps”) to describe the
action of the Libyans and Ethiopians, which implies passivity and will-
ingness. Egypt does not fight against the king of the North, and the
Libyans and Ethiopians are willing to follow his steps. This suggests that
diplomacy is the way of conquest, rather than military power.
Third Movement: Go Out, Between the Seas and the

Holy Mountain (Dan 11:44–45)
When the king of the North departs from Egypt, the word “land”
does not appear. It seems that the geographical designation of “lands” in-
cludes the entire geographical area surrounding the places that appear by
name. Once the king of the North reaches Egypt, there is no more “land”
to conquer, except the Holy Mountain.
The movement is from Egypt to a point between the seas and the
Holy Mountain. After this, the movement stops and the king of the North
comes to his end. The last mention of the king of the North is grammat-
ically expressed by a nominal clause: wĕ ên ôzēr lô (“and no one [is a]
helper to him”), which implies weakness.
Spatial Movements in Daniel 11:40–45 and the Nature

of the King of the South
The spatial-temporal movement of the king of the North implies
that his conquering journey is expansive in geographical terms. Before
he comes to Egypt, the “lands” will be ruled by him; once he is in Egypt,
the surrounding powers will follow him. Table 12 presents the correla-
tion between the morpho-syntactic pattern and the spatial movements in
Daniel 11:40–45.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 69
Table 12: Morpho-Syntactic Pattern and Spatial

Movements in Daniel 11:40–45
Secondary King of King of King of
Verse Character the North the North Location the North Location
waw x yiqtol weqatal weyiqtol weqatal
at the time
of the end
40
he will col-
lide
and he
will storm
and he will enter
in the lands
and he will
overflow
and he will pass
41 and he will enter
in the Glori-
ous Land
and many
will stumble
and these
will escape
and he
42 will reach
out
in the
lands
the land
of Egypt
43 and he will rule
but news
44 will dismay
him
and he
will go
out
and he
will plant
between
the seas
and the
Holy
Mountain.
and he will enter
Spatial movement contributes to temporality. The sequence of the

verbs is: “enter,” “pass,” “enter,” “reach out,” “go out.” It seems to be a fast
movement (“enter”), followed by a slower motion (“pass”) because he is
overflowing the lands, followed by other fast movement—“enter” the
Glorious Land. Although there is not another verb of passing, the es-
cape of Edom, Moab, and Ammon suggests slow motion. Then there is
another fast movement from the Glorious Land to the lands (“reach out”).
The parallel terminology “lands” of Daniel 11:40 suggests that the action
of “reaching out” in verse 42 has the same sense of motion. The distinc-
tion between the two contexts is that the act of “reaching out” his hand in
verse 42 demonstrates his purpose—to rule over the king of the South
(Egypt) and his bordering nations. The mention of his “ruling” over the
precious things of Egypt and the following of the surrounding nations in
“his steps” suggests another slowing down in the narrative. Finally, as a
reaction to the news, which causes him dismay, the narrative seems to
speed up the movement with two infinitive verbs (“destroy” and “annihi-
lates”) toward the Holy Mountain.
An important change in the narrative is the nature of the king of the
South. At the beginning of the narrative (Dan 11:40), his actions are de-
scribed with a verb in 3ms (yitnagga , “he will collide”). Nevertheless, in
the end, the power that represents the king of the South is a place that
becomes a direct object (Dan 11:42–43) and is described negatively with
the stative verb hāyâ (“to be”). In other words, the king of the South may
be seen in a different perspective at the end of verse 43. At the beginning
he is strong (he attacks the king of the North) and his name is the king
of the South. At the end he is weak and cannot escape; he is passive and
his name is Egypt.
It seems that the king of the South/Egypt of Daniel 11:40–43 is a re-
versal of the Egypt/king of the South of Daniel 11:6–8. Table 13 illustrates
this reversal.
Table 13: King of the South/Egypt Reversal in Daniel 11:6–8 and 40–43
Similitudes and Reversal Daniel 11:6–8 Daniel 11:40–43
Temporality and by the end of the years and at the time of the end
Name the king of the South the king of the South
will not retain the strength
Weak/Strong will collide
of the arm
Name Egypt Egypt
Strong/Weak and he will prevail will not be for escape
Economy desirable vessels and in all the desirable
Economy silver and gold the gold and the silver
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 71
The parallelism between Daniel 11:6–8 and Daniel 11:40–43 respecting

the king of the South/Egypt may implicate that: 1) in the time of the end,
the king of the South could not be only one entity; 2) at the beginning it is
a military power with power to attack the enemy; and 3) at the end it is a
helpless economy power with no military defense. The morpho-syntactic
analysis of the verbs of the king of the South/Egypt may add other char-
acteristics: 4) It takes time (two weyiqtols and six weqatals and the spa-
tial sequence lands—glorious land; Edom, Moab, and Amon; the lands;
the land of Egypt; Libya and Ethiopia) for the king of the North to rule
over the economy of Egypt. This timing may confirm that the king of the
South/Egypt is not a single entity. And 5), this being the case, the king
of the South/Egypt must be a symbolic entity.
Temporality in Daniel 12
Temporality of hāʿēt hahîʾ (“That Time”) in Daniel 12:1–318

Daniel 12:1 introduces a new temporal phrase: ûbā ēt hahî (“and at
that time”). The preposition + article + demonstrative pronoun construc-
tion refers to a specific point in time. Pfandl suggests that this expression
refers us back to Daniel 11:40.19
Michael: Main Character of Daniel 12:1–3

The subject of the narrative changes from the king of the North to
Michael (Dan 12:1). It seems that the agent of the liberation (verb in Niphal)
of the people of Daniel is also Michael, since he is standing up for the
sons of Daniel’s people (Dan 12:1). In other contexts, Michael is the agent
of resurrection (e.g., Jude 9).
The secondary characters in the narrative are: 1) Daniel’s people
(Dan 12:1), 2) many who awaken (Dan 12:2), and 3) the wise who shine
(Dan 12:3).
Temporality and Morpho-Syntactic Arrangement of Daniel 12:1–3

The morpho-syntactic arrangement of Daniel 12:1–3 presents a
chain of waw x yiqtol. Daniel 12:1–3 prefers the waw x yiqtol (four times)
18
This study presents a summary of the discussion; for more information about this subject, see
Roger Ruiz, “Is the Liberation and the Resurrection of Daniel 12:1–2 One Event?” TeoBiblica 1,
no. 1 (May 2015): 67–87.
19
In the footnote, Pfandl expands the reference to all the events that occurs in Daniel 11:40–45.
See Pfandl, “Daniel’s Time of the End,” 143, n. 16.
as the typical construction for predictive narrative, instead of the usual

wayyiqtol, which is the characteristic feature of the narrative genre.20
Each one of the waw x yiqtol forms creates a new scene, but at the
same time describes events that seem to be consecutive: 1) Michael stands
up, 2) liberation of the people, 3) many awaken, and 4) the wise shine.
This is illustrated in Table 14.
Table 14: Morpho-Syntactic Arrangement of the

Finite-Active Verbs of Daniel 12:1–3
And at that time Michael will stand waw x yiqtol
Verse 1
And at that time will be liberated your people waw x yiqtol
and many from the sleepers of the earth of dust will
Verse 2 waw x yiqtol
arise
Verse 3 and the wise will shine waw x yiqtol
All waw x yiqtol are in the same temporal frame. Daniel 12:1 is unique
since it contains more occurrences of the word “time” than any other
verse in the Hebrew Bible. The word ēt (“time”) appears four times in
Daniel 12:1. But in connection with ēt (“time”), the expression bā ēt hahî
(“at that time”) occurs three times. The other ēt (“time”) appears in the
expression ēt ārâ (“time of trouble”). Table 15 illustrates this point.
Table 15: Occurrences of ēt in Daniel 12:1

Chiasm Verse
A and at that time 12:1
B time of trouble 12:1
B’ that time 12:1
A’ and at that time 12:1
After the first waw x yiqtol, Daniel 12:1 has a weqatal. According to
Alviero Niccacci, the weqatal breaks a waw x yiqtol chain and introduces
a commentary.21 In this case, the commentary is wĕhāytâ ēt ārâ (“and it
will be time of trouble”). Table 16 illustrates the weqatal among the waw
x yiqtol.
20
Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 86 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990),
112, 175.
21
See n. 14.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 73
Table 16: Weqatal Among the waw x yiqtol in Daniel 12:1–3

Conjunction X Element Verbal Form Verse
w X Yiqtol 12:1
w Qatal 12:1
w X Yiqtol 12:1
w X Yiqtol 12:2
w X Yiqtol 12:3
Tania Notarius, professor of Biblical Hebrew at the Hebrew University

in Jerusalem, considers ēt ārâ (“time of trouble”) to define the temporal
frame of Daniel 12:1.22 The stative nature of the verb hāyâ (“to be”), the
weqatal form and its collocation with the word ēt makes this construction
a proper definition for the whole pericope. In other words, all the events,
including the special resurrection, occur during the time of trouble.
Moreover, the waw x yiqtol chain suggests that these events are con-
secutive, and the absence of weyiqtol and other weqatals implies that these
events are in fast succession. Thus, the temporal frame of Daniel 12:1–3
is short.
Temporality of qēṣ hayyāmîn (“The End of the Days”) in Daniel 12:13

Daniel 12:13 is the epilogue of the book and the last part of the expla-
nation of the fourth vision. It is a promise to the prophet regarding his
own resurrection. Daniel 12:13 and 12:2 share the same theme: resurrection.
However, is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 the same as the resurrection
of Daniel 12:13?23 To answer this question, one should compare the tem-
porality expressed in both passages. First, whereas the temporal frame
of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 is ûbā ēt hahî (“and at that time”), the
temporal frame of the resurrection in Daniel 12:13 is qē hayyāmîn (“the
end of the days”). Second, while Daniel 12:2 employs the word yāšēn (“to
sleep”) as the term to describe death, Daniel 12:13 uses nûa (“to rest”) to
define death. Third, the word for “resurrection” in Daniel 12:2 is qî (“to
rise”), while in Daniel 12:13 the term for resurrection is āmad (“to stand
up”). And fourth, the subjects of the resurrection are rabbîm (“many”) in
Daniel 12:2. On the other hand, in Daniel 12:13 the subject of the resurrec-
tion is Daniel. Table 17 shows this comparison.
22
Tania Notarius, personal communication with author, Jerusalem, Israel, June 17, 2012.
23
For more information on this, see Artur A. Stele, “The Relationship Between Daniel 12:2 and
Daniel 12:13” in The Word: Searching, Living, Teaching, vol. 1, ed. Artur A. Stele (Silver Springs,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015), 91–103.
Table 17: Comparison of the Resurrection Theme

Between Daniel 12:2 and 12:13
Terminology Daniel 12:2 Daniel 12:13
Temporal Frame And at that time end of the days
Death sleep rest
Resurrection rise stand
Subject many Daniel
It seems that the resurrection of the rabbîm (many) is the special

resurrection during the time of trouble, while the resurrection of Daniel
occurs in the final moment the history. Thus,
the word death in Daniel 12:2 signifies “sleep” while in 12:13, the
verb means, “to rest.” The resurrection in Daniel 12:2 implies
“to awake” while in 12:13 it means, “to stand.” All humanity, re-
gardless if they are righteous or wicked “sleep” and “awake,” but
only the righteous “rest” and “stand up” before God. Whereas
Daniel 12:13 refers to the general resurrection, Daniel 12:2 refers
to a distinct one, a special during the time of trouble.24
Yāmîn and Other yāmîm in Daniel 12

In the introduction of the fourth vision, the heavenly messenger
tells Daniel that the vision is for the bĕ a ărît hayyāmîm (“latter days,”
Dan 10:14). The word yāmîm (“days”) appears two times in the section
of vision of Daniel 11 (11:20, 33), and two times in the section of explana-
tion (Dan 12:11–12). Daniel 12:11–12 refers back to Daniel 11:33 concerning
the days of the persecution of the wise.
Thus, if the vision in Daniel 11:33 uses yāmîm (“days”) as a symbol-
ic terminology, there is no reason to consider yāmîm (“days”) as literal
days in the explanation of Daniel 12:11–12. The word yāmîm (“days”) in
Daniel 11:33 relates to the “time, times, and a half time” period of perse-
cution in the explanation of Daniel 12:7. Therefore the yāmîm (“days”)
of Daniel 12:11 (1290) and 12:12 (1335) is only an extension of the original
yāmîm (“days”) in the vision (Dan 11:33), which is symbolic time. The
prophetic periods of time are part of the explanation following the struc-
ture of the four lines of prophecy in Daniel (vision/explanation of the
prophetic times). Daniel only repeats the question of the man beside the
river; the first answer is “time, times and a half time”; the second answer,
24
Roger Ruiz, “Liberation and the Resurrection,” 83.
Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 12:13 75
referring to the same subject, expands the period to 1290 and 1335 days.
However, the last yāmîn in the chapter has a special orthography: the
plural ending is a nun instead of a regular Hebrew mem. The last word
in the book of Daniel introduces the Aramaic again, evoking the bilin-
gual nature of the whole book. Nevertheless, it seems that the final nun
has another purpose: The yāmîn (“days”) of Daniel 12:13 has an ortho-
graphic and temporal distinction from the other yāmîm (“days”) in
Daniel 12. Whereas the yāmîm (“days”) in Daniel 12:11–12 predict the
preparation of the period of persecution, the persecution itself, and the
raising of a blessed people; the yāmîn (“days”) of Daniel 12:13 refers to
the resurrection at the last moment of the eschaton.
Conclusion
Ēt qē (“time of the end”), hā ēt hahî (“that time”), and qē hayyāmîn

(“the end of the days”) are temporal expressions of the fourth prophetic
outline of Daniel. From the five occurrences of ēt qē (“time of the end”)
in the Hebrew Bible, only Daniel 11:40 begins the actual prophetic nar-
rative of events. The others are preceded by the preposition ad (“until”).
Thus, ēt qē (“time of the end”) marks the beginning and the tempo-
ral frame of the pericope that narrates the last war between the king
of the South and the king of the North and his end (Dan 11:40–45).
Daniel 12:1 introduces a new temporal expression: hā ēt hahî (“that
time”). Although some see hā ēt hahî (“that time”) as referring back to
ēt qē (“time of the end”), according to the semantical analysis of tem-
porality, there is a temporal span between the two expressions. From a
linguistic perspective, hā ēt hahî (“that time”) refers to the last weqatal
before the king of the North comes to his end (Dan 11:45)—that is, the
last action of the king of the North, wĕyi a (“he will plant”). It is dur-
ing this final action of preparation for the activities described by two in-
finitive constructs (lĕhašmîd ûlĕha ărîm, “to destroy and to annihilate”)
that ûbā ēt hahî (“and at the time”) begins.
Michael stands up and the time of trouble starts. This time of trouble
for Daniel’s people is produced by the threat of death of the king of the
North. On the other hand, there is also a time of stress for nations.
Although the temporal point of contact between ēt qē (“time of the
end”) and hā ēt hahî (“that time”) is the last action of the king of the
North, ēt qē (“time of the end”) does not end there; it is interrupted by
hā ēt hahî (“that time”). From there, both temporal spans run together
until the very end.
The semantic analysis of temporality of hā ēt hahî (“that time”)

reveals that this is a short period. The differences between the resur-
rection of hā ēt hahî (“that time”) and qē hayyāmîn (“the end of the
days”) demonstrate that qē hayyāmîn (“the end of the days”) is not only
preceded by hā ēt hahî (“that time”), but also represents its last mo-
ment. Thus, the chronological relation of these three expressions creates
a temporal flow where ēt qē (“time of the end”) functions as the begin-
ning; hā ēt hahî (“that time”) is incorporated to, and follows, the flow of
ēt qē (“time of the end”); and qē hayyāmîn (“the end of the days”)
represents the end of both periods. Table 18 shows this chronological
relation.
Table 18: Chronological Relationship of ēt qē (“Time of the End”), hā ēt hahî

(“That Time”), and qē hayyāmîn (“The End of the Days”)25
Time of the end
That time
End of the days
25
Roger Ruiz, “Especial o General,” Ministerio Adventista (October 2009): 17.
CHAPTER 5
God’s People Of The Eschaton:

The Reversal Of The Role Of Daniel
As Prophetic Characterization
Of The End-Time Saints
Paul B. Petersen
Few will contest that the book of Daniel is concerned with the end
times.1 It is an eschatological book dealing with “times and seasons”
(Dan 2:21).2 Throughout, it presents periodization of the future, includ-
ing both prophecies of specific durations, such as three and a half times
(Dan 7:25; 12:7), the 2300 evenings and mornings (Dan 8:14), and the
70 weeks with its subdivisions (Dan 9:24–27); and also prophetic eras
or periods defined by specific content, such as the “time of the end”3
and “the appointed time of the end” (Dan 8:17, 19).4 Yet, most of these
1
With gratitude to Laura Murrow for insightful comments to the draft of this study.
2
All biblical quotations are the author’s own translations, unless otherwise indicated.
3
Gerhard Pfandl, The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, Adventist Theological Society Dis-
sertation Series 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1992), 272, convincingly
shows that “ ēt qē (‘time of the end’) in the book of Daniel seems to be a terminus technicus of
the final period of human history leading up to the final eschaton.” His conclusions also make a
clear distinction between this expression and the phrase “latter days” (e.g., bĕ a ărît yômayyā in
Dan 2:28 which generally means “future” [ibid., 179–180]) used repeatedly in the New Testament
(Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2; Jas 5:3; 2 Pet 3:3). The two expressions “are not equivalent and bear no direct
relationship to each other” (ibid., 317).
4
It is important for the understanding of the various time periods in Daniel to maintain the
distinction between these two types of periods. The three and a half times in Daniel 7:25 is a spe-
cific historical time period followed by the heavenly judgment and the time for the justification/
vindication of the saints. Likewise, the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:14 is of a definite
references and all specific time calculations are found in the section of
Daniel often labelled Daniel B, commonly called the prophetic part or, by
some, the apocalyptic part, depending on their definition of apocalyptic
literature.
This fact should cause us to reflect on the relationship between the
narrative part in chapters 1–6 (Daniel A), and the prophecies in chapters
7–12 (Daniel B).5 The narratives of the first part of the book all take place
at the time of the Babylonian and the Persian Empires, while the apoc-
alyptic prophecies, though shown to Daniel in the same period, point
to events that were to him yet future. Is the first part then to be under-
stood as didactical-historical only? And is the second part simply a group
of originally unrelated visions that, at a later stage, was attached to the
name Daniel because he was known from the court narratives and thus,
through his notoriety, was perceived to possess a certain authority?6
Among the questions raised in such a comparison between the two
parts is the difference in the depiction of Daniel. In chapters 1–6, the main
character is an “all-knowing” prophet who on behalf of God reveals di-
vine secrets and proclaims God’s commands and His judgments and/or
mercy to pagan rulers (Dan 2:19–45; 4:15–24; 5:13–28). But from chapter
7 and onwards, Daniel is portrayed as an emotionally struggling vision-
ary, disturbed, confused, and even distressed by the scenes he is shown
(Dan 7:28; 8:27; 12:8–13).
This study contends that the book is a carefully structured whole, and
that the two major parts belong closely together and mutually enlight-
en each other. It aims to show how the reversal of the role of the main
character Daniel serves to characterize the people of God at the appointed
time of the end, and that by bringing together theological perspectives
from the whole book, this characterization is of major significance for
anyone who seeks to understand the didactic function and purpose of
the book of Daniel.
The study first briefly addresses the question of the structure and
progress of events in the book. Next, it highlights the link between Daniel
A and Daniel B via three significant examples. With the structure of the
duration, and the “appointed time of the end” is a designation of the period that follows.
5
Almost all commentaries attest to this basic division of the book into Daniel A (the narratives/
stories/tales) and Daniel B (the visions). See, for instance, Ernest C. Lukas, Daniel, Apollos Old
Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 22, 31; John J. Collins,
Daniel, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: For-
tress, 1993), 24; and André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (London: SPCK, 1979), 14.
6
Most likely the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and 28:3 (Dani’el) was the same person as
Daniy’el of Daniel 1:6 etc.
God’s People of the Eschaton 79
book and these examples as a background, the study then discusses the
reversal of the role of Daniel and presents central features that character-
ize God’s people of the eschaton.
Structure and Genre of Daniel
The book of Daniel is characterized by three major transitions in

language, general genre, and authorial perspective. A closer look at
these transitions will reveal that the perceived clear-cut division of the
book into two parts needs some modification. First, while chapters 1 and
8–12 are in Hebrew, the remainder is in Aramaic. The transition to the
Aramaic section does not happen from the beginning of chapter 2, but
occurs with the reply of the Babylonian wise men to Nebuchadnezzar in
2:4b.7 Secondly, while the narratives are found in chapters 1–6, this part
of the book does not correspond precisely to the language division: the
apocalyptic prophecy of chapter 7 is evidently closely linked to the pre-
ceding narratives. Further, the narrative section itself contains a major
prophetic outline in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2. Similarly, the
prophetic part of the book contains a historical review of the past in the
prayer in 9:4b–19. The third transition happens in the course of the vision
report in chapter 7, which opens in the voice of third person (Dan 7:1–2)8
but ends in first person (Dan 7:28).
These brief observations already point to a more complicated struc-
ture of the book in which the various parts interact on many levels. In the
structure suggested below (Table 1),9 the commonly accepted chiastic
structure of the Aramaic chapters from 2–7 is presupposed.10
7
The Aramaic does not, as would have been just as natural or logical, begin with the king’s word
in verse 3; he would have spoken the same language!
8
Often overlooked, this point is noted by Collins, Daniel, 24: “Even chap. 7 has an introductory
sentence in the third person before it switches to direct speech.”
9
First proposed by Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Shape of Things to Come: The Genre of the His-
torical Apocalypse in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature” (PhD diss., University of Michi-
gan, 1990), 38–42. Steinmann has expanded his comments on what he calls “The Interlocked Chi-
astic Structure of Daniel” (ibid., 22) in Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis,
MO: Concordia, 2008), 20–25.
10
The chiastic arrangement of the Aramaic chapters was first suggested by A. Lenglet, “La struc-
ture littéraire de Daniel 2–7,” Biblica 53 (1972): 169–190 and has since received general acceptance.
Table 1: Structure of Daniel

Chapters Content Language
1 Introduction #1 Prologue Hebrew
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of
2 A Aramaic
four kingdoms
Nebuchadnezzar sees God’s
3 B Aramaic
servants rescued
4 C Judgment on Nebuchadnezzar Aramaic
5 C’ Judgment on Belshazzar Aramaic
6 B’ Darius sees Daniel rescued Aramaic
Daniel’s vision of four
7 A’/Introduction #2 Aramaic
kingdoms
8 D Post-Babylonian kingdoms Hebrew
9 E Jerusalem restored Hebrew
10–12 D’ Post-Babylonian kingdoms Hebrew
A few observations may help affirm the presence of this structure. The
two chapters of introduction, chapters 1 and 7, contain topics central to
the subsequent sections. Chapter 1 presents the historical setting, the
temple vessels, and the young Jews; chapter 7 introduces the visionary
style of the second part of the book, the animal imagery, and the feature
of an angelic interpreter. The two parts are bilingual: the Hebrew chapter 1
introduces a chiasm in Aramaic, and the Aramaic chapter 7 introduces a
chiasm in Hebrew. Sections D and D’ fit perfectly over C and C’ in which
Babylon is judged; these two visions are concerned with more details re-
lating to the dominating kingdoms in the period after the end of the
Babylonian Empire, and they both take the Persian Kingdom as their
starting point.
The structure further helps clarify the significance of chapter 7. Re-
garding language, chapter 7 belongs to the first and Aramaic part. In
genre, however, it belongs to the prophetic part. The chapter thus func-
tions as the hinge of the book,11 fitting with the fact that it, on one hand,
11
According to Paul Raabe, “Daniel 7: Its Structure and Role in the Book,” Hebrew Annual Review
9 (1985): 267, chapter 7 is “a hinge which binds together chaps. 1–6 and 8–12.” James H. Sims, A
Comparative Literary Study of Daniel and Revelation: Shaping the End (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mel-
len, 1995), 39, states that the vision in chapter 7 marks “the watershed in the persona of Daniel
in his book.” Also Collins, Daniel, 37, views the chapter as “a connecting link between the vision
and the tales.”
summarizes the themes of chapters 1–6, and on the other hand, presents
the basic features of the subsequent chapters 8–12.
When studying the structure of a text, readers observe it from the
end and view it in its totality. Following the book of Daniel in its prog-
ress as the events it describes transpire, a number of connecting features
also appear. While new chapters, for instance, at first glance may seem
to introduce completely new stories, plots, or visions, often highlight-
ed by a chronological marker, the book links consecutive chapters by a
variety of linguistic, literary, or thematic means.12 The narrative about
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue is linked theologically and lin-
guistically to chapter 1 by its emphasis on God as the “Great Giver” of
power, wisdom, and favor in personal relationships.13 Nebuchadnezzar’s
response to the dream in chapter 2 is clearly expressed in chapter 3 by his
building of a statue completely covered with gold and articulated with
irony in the narrator’s repeated usage of the Aramaic verb qûm: the king
“sets” up his statue (Dan 3:1, 2, 3, 5 etc.) in rebellion against the God who
alone “removes and installs (qûm) kings” (Dan 2:21). The royal decrees14
bind chapters 3 and 4 together, and the condemnation of Belshazzar is
pronounced with explicit reference (Dan 5:22) to Nebuchadnezzar’s
conversion experience from chapter 4. The change to a new empire in
chapter 6 makes readers ask whether history will repeat itself. Central
themes of chapter 6 lead into the vision in chapter 7: the clash of em-
pires, the changing (šĕnā , Dan 6:8–9; 7:25; cf. 2:21) or unchanging law
or laws (dāt, Dan 6:5, 8; 7:25), and worship and prayer (Dan 6:11–12, etc.;
cf. 7:10, 13–14).15 The presence of the little horn is one of the many fea-
tures connecting chapters 7 and 8. The prayer in Daniel 9:4b–19 and the
12
The author of this chapter suggests that, intended or not, the anomalies observed regarding the
switch into Aramaic in Daniel 2:4 instead of the beginning of chapter 2 and the switch into the
third person only at the end of chapter 7 function to link the book together more closely in its
progressing flow of events. They could both be viewed as interlocking devices between chapters
1 and 2 and 7 and 8, respectively.
13
See Paul B. Petersen, “God—the Great Giver,” in “For You Have Strengthened Me”: Biblical and
Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed.
Martin Pröbstle with Gerhard A. Klingbeil and Martin G. Klingbeil (St. Peter am Hart: Seminar
Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 97–105.
14
Daniel 3:28–30 and 3:31–33 (Hebrew), belonging to two different narratives, confusing chapter
dividers throughout the ages!
15
On linguistic and literary levels, the connection between chapters 6 and 7 are also highlighted
by the occurrence of lions (Dan 6:25; 7:4) and by the presence of the same verbal root in the clos-
ing of chapter 6 and the beginning of chapter 7 (slq about the “bringing up” of Daniel in 6:23 and
the ascending of the beasts in 7:3). See Paul B. Petersen, “The Theology and the Function of the
Prayers in the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1999), 324 n. 2.
subsequent angelic oracle in 9:20–27 evidently answer some of the fun-

damental pending questions from the visionary experience of Daniel in
chapter 8.16
Along with the broad interlocking chiastic structure of the book, these
chapter connections testify to the contention that the seemingly disparate
and stylistically different parts of the book of Daniel are combined into
a coherent whole. With its mix and combination of many genres, Daniel
belongs to what John J. Collins aptly labels the “complex apocalypse”:
The Jewish apocalypses commonly embrace various distinct liter-

ary forms—visions, prayers, legends, etc. . . . The complexity of
the apocalypses has two distinct aspects. First, literary forms are
used in a subordinate way within a larger whole—e.g., prayers and
exhortations within a vision. Second, many apocalypses juxta-
pose formally distinct units which are not clearly subordinate to
each other (e.g., the visions in Daniel 7–12 and the Similitudes of
Enoch). . . . Such complexity is the norm rather than the exception,
at least in Jewish apocalypses. It cannot be adequately explained
by source-critical theories. Even where independent sources are
incorporated, we must still account for the composition of the fi-
nal work. The complex apocalypse is a literary phenomenon in its
own right.17
It follows from these observations regarding the coherence of Dan-

iel that the characters of the book may undergo a development, and that
their roles have to be assessed in light of the work as a whole. Contrary
to common perception, for instance, the royal responses and decrees in
the narrative section (Dan 2:46–49; 3:28–30; 3:31–33; 4:34; 6:26–28) are
not identical.18 The kings experience a development, reflected in their
decrees. Likewise, any portrayal of Daniel needs to consider the total pic-
ture of the book—both the narrative and the prophetic section.
16
For this, see among many Adventist sources, Petersen, “Theology,” 197–224; Jacques Doukhan,
“The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 17
(1979): 1–22; and Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Visions and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in
Exile (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 135–142.
17
John J. Collins, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, The Forms of The Old
Testamental Literature 20 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 3.
18
Contrary to what is often claimed, for instance by John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Com-
mentary 30 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), 69, the royal decree in Daniel 3:28–30 at the end of the
deliverance of Daniel’s three friends from the fiery furnace does not command “all to bow to
God Most High.” It protects those who worship the God of the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar himself is,
however, not yet there! That only follows in Daniel 4:31–34.
Linking the Parts
Before discussing the significance of the reversal of Daniel’s role, let

us look at three examples of connections between the two major parts
of the book.19 A comprehensive discussion is not possible in this study.
Yet these particular examples not only serve to illustrate the coherence of
the book in connection with the stylistic, literary, and narrative transi-
tions, but can also be viewed as building blocks for the characterization
of the person Daniel in the book as a whole.
Visions and Dreams

In Daniel 2:1 King Nebuchadnezzar “had/dreamed dreams.” This com-
mon Hebrew term for dream ( ălôm) is familiar to the reader who has
just been told, toward the end of the previous chapter (Dan 1:17), that
God had given20 Daniel the ability to understand “all kind of visions
and dreams” (plural from ălôm). As the language shifts, the related
Aramaic equivalent is consistently used for the king’s statue dream
( ēlem in Dan 2:4–7, 9, 26, 28, 36, 45). However, when Daniel addresses
the king, he refers more specifically to the dream as “visions of your
head” (Dan 2:28), using for “vision” the Aramaic equivalent ĕzû of the
Hebrew āzôn.
It is a popular perception that these ecstatic experiences of the kings
are in a different category than those Daniel later encounters. This is a
misunderstanding. Chapter 7 employs exactly the same expressions for
Daniel’s dream vision. Just like Nebuchadnezzar, “Daniel saw a dream
( ēlem) and visions [from ĕzû] of his head” (Dan 7:1). And just as for
Nebuchadnezzar, the reader is informed of how this happened—“as he
lay in his bed” (miškab, Dan 7:1, cf. 2:28). A further detail adds to the
similarity between the two experiences. In his prayer Daniel refers to
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as the “king’s matter (millâ)”; likewise, he ends
his report of his own dream in chapter 7 with the words “here is the end
of the matter (millâ).”
19
Thematic and/or literary connections between the two major parts of the book are not treated
to any great extent by scholars. Zdravko Stefanovic contributes with “Thematic Links Between
the Historical and Prophetic Sections of Daniel,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 27 (1989):
121–127 and “The Presence of Three and a Fraction in Daniel,” in To Understand the Scriptures:
Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: The Institute of
Archaeology, Siefgried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), 199–203.
20
The author of this study follows the ancient translations into Latin (Vulgate) and Greek (LXX)
in reading the hiphil of biyn in Daniel 1:17b as causative. Daniel received this gift from God; it was
not an inherent, natural quality. The sentence is a continuation of the sentence in verse 17a, and
the whole context emphasizes that all gifts are from God.
In short, the linguistic links in the depictions of the dream visions

of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel respectively, each in one of the two ma-
jor parts of the book, clearly place the two in the same category. Daniel
thus from chapter 7 occupies a position as a recipient of prophetic dream
visions similar to those Nebuchadnezzar had in the narrative section.21
Tests, Investigation, and Appointed Time

Similarities between chapters 1 and 8 in Daniel are often overlooked.
In chapter 8 we return to the Hebrew language used in the opening
chapter of the book. The perspective changes accordingly, and the two
chapters share many features in vocabulary, themes, and the role of the
characters or main groups.
In chapter 8, Daniel not only resumes the Hebrew language, but the
wording itself reminds the reader of the opening of the book. The chapters
are introduced by the same three Hebrew words: “In the third year of the
reign of . . .” The similarity between the reign of Jehoiakim (chap. 1) and
Belshazzar (chap. 8) is thus highlighted: both powers are but transitional.
In both chapters, attack on/desecration of the temple (by Nebu-
chadnezzar/the little horn) is a main focus: in chapter 1, Nebuchadnezzar
brings the holy items, the vessels of the temple, into a pagan temple; in
chapter 8, the little horn tramples upon the continual service, bringing
paganism into God’s holy temple. In both chapters the people of God and
their identity are threatened: in chapter 1, Nebuchadnezzar attempts to
“Babylonize” Daniel and his friends, spiritually destroying them; in chapter
8, the little horn brings some of the stars/people of God down and tram-
ples upon them. Both chapters highlight that God ultimately is the giver of
all power: God “gave” King Jehoiakim into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan 1:2, Heb. nātan); the host/army of the saints are “given over”—that is,
into the hand of the little horn (Dan 8:12, nātan).22
When it comes to the issue of time, it is remarkable that in both chap-
ters vindication takes place after periods of trial or testing and thereby
further connects the narrative part of the book with central perspectives
21
Daniel does of course receive a vision ( ezu) himself in the narrative section, when God
as a response to his and his friends’ supplication reveals the mystery to him during the night
(Dan 2:19). This vision functions, however, as an explanatory vision, intended to provide Daniel
with an interpretation of the initial dream vision of the king.
22
As in the New KJV and a number of modern translations—including the NIV, NASB, and
ESV—on the meaning of Daniel 8:12a. So also Daniela Gelbricht, “Thoughts on Daniel 8:10–14
and the Host” (unpublished paper, 2012), 35–37. For an alternative point of view on this sentence,
see Martin Pröbstle, “Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9–14” (PhD diss.,
Andrews University, 2006).
on time in the prophetic part. Chapter 1 twice contains the pattern of in-
vestigation after a set time period—first the test of the young Hebrews’
health after ten days of the non-pagan diet, and later the examina-
tion at the court of King Nebuchadnezzar after three years of education
(Dan 1:14–15, 18).23The same pattern can be detected in chapter 8: the pe-
riod of 2300 evenings and mornings (Dan 8:13–14) is followed by a period
that in Hebrew is called mô ēd (Dan 8:19). Variously translated, the expres-
sion “the appointed time” is most common in English. This is the period
of judgment, justification, and vindication—the historical equivalent of
the sanctuary ceremony of the Day of Atonement. Several scholars iden-
tify mô ēd with the eschatological judgment when it is employed as an
absolute term in the singular.
This noun is formed from the verb ya ād, “to designate, appoint/make
an appointment, meet with, or allocate” (Exod 30:36; 2 Sam 20:5; Amos 3:3).
Mô ēd is predominantly a cultic term, and the plural mô ădîm is the des-
ignation for the annual religious festivals in total (Lev 23:2–44).24 These
are the times Yahweh designated for special gatherings with His people in
the sanctuary. In combined expressions, the word may be used with the
“tabernacle” ( ōhel) in the wilderness, the ōhel mô ēd (as in Exod 27:21; 40:2;
1 Kgs 8:4), referring to the place where God reveals Himself to the peo-
ple. It may otherwise point to the people invited to meet with God—that
is, the congregation itself (Num 16:2).25 Thus it covers the range of times
and places, when and where God invites the people to meet with Him.
In only a few texts in the Old Testament, mô ēd is used in the abso-
lute singular without being linked grammatically to another noun in the
construct form. In some of these instances, mô ēd is clearly associated
with God’s appointed time for judgment, the Day of Atonement in the
sanctuary service.
23
With Goldingay, 5, the author of this study finds it convincing to read miq āt in Daniel 1:5 to
indicate that “some of them”—that is, the students—were to enter service at the royal court of
Babylon after the three years of study. The final examination was, therefore, of huge significance
for their fate and future employment.
24
In Daniel 12:7, the unusual use of mô ēd as a prophetic time indicator provides the reader with
a literary connotation to the sanctuary theme. The equivalent time period in 7:25 is indicated by
iddān, one of the common Aramaic words for “time.” In the context of this prophecy’s reference
to the little horn’s attempt to change “times” (zĕman) and “law” (dāt), the use of iddān makes
perfect sense; this word is combined with zĕman in the typical word pair “times and seasons” in
Daniel 2:21.
25
David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011), 179, also points to this usage in Qumranic literature.
In particular, the small book of Lamentations understands Judah’s

fall in 587/586 as a called upon them by Yahweh, and equates
the element of cultic holidays which terrifies the godless—holy
days which according to the language of the psalms bring about
ruin for the wicked just as they do blessing for the righteous—
with the destruction of the people as an enemy of God; the de-
velopment of eschatological notions from a cultic context can be
discerned here in an exemplary fashion (Lam 1:4, 15; 2:6ff, 22).26
So, the pattern set by the opening narrative in Daniel 1 with a time
period of definite duration, followed by investigation/testing and subse-
quent victory, provides a paradigm for the prophetic future of the end time,
the “appointed time” when God’s people live during an era when God in-
tervenes to judge and deliver. Using sanctuary language, the pattern oc-
curs again in the closing chapters of Daniel, where mô ēd is connected to
the theme of purification (Dan 11:35, cf. 12:9). The events in Babylon be-
come a microcosm for the universal challenges toward the end of history.
Prayer Time
One of the main features in the characterization of Daniel is prayer. In
both sections of the book, Daniel is portrayed as a man of prayer, a per-
son engaged in an ongoing dialogue with God. The secrets of Nebuchad-
nezzar’s dream are revealed to him because he is praying (Dan 2:17–19).
In contrast to prayers by the gentile kings (Dan 4:34; 6:19), Daniel’s prayers
belong “to the center of an ongoing process of interaction between God
and man. Each of them calls forth a divine revelation or intervention”27
(Dan 2:20–23; 6:11–12).
The prayer life of Daniel is not limited to the narrative part of the
book. The most conspicuous prayer is found in the middle of the prophetic
section (Dan 9:4b–19).28 Though scholars in general tend to disregard
this prayer as genuinely belonging to the book,29 it fulfills an important
26
K. Koch, “ ,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck,
Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
mans, 1997), 172. Other examples of this usage of mo’ed are Habakkuk 2:3, which exhibits strong
linguistic and thematic links to Daniel 8:17–19, and maybe the difficult text in Zephaniah 3:18.
27
For this particular point, see further Petersen, “Theology,” 289–290.
28
Daniel 2:20–23 and 9:4b–19 are the only recorded or stated prayers in the book, though a large
amount of references and allusions to prayer are found throughout; for a more detailed analysis,
see ibid., 292–294.
29
More than one hundred years ago, critical scholars in general found the prayer to be a later
addition, but in the twentieth century the view has changed, and the prayer is now often seen as
a natural part of the final edition of the book. As stated by Collins, Daniel, 348, “although this
function in binding the two parts of the book together.

This becomes evident when comparing two significant prayer chap-
ters from each part of the book—namely, chapters 6 and 930—in light of
the spatial31 and temporal movements within the book. Two of each such
movements are detected, as illustrated in the tables below:32
Table 2: Spatial Movements in the Book of Daniel

1. Spatial movement from Jerusalem, to Babylon, to Jerusalem
from Jerusalem in Babylon
in Babylon, but directed toward Jerusalem
to Babylon (2–6)
(6:11; 9:2, 16–17)
(1:1–3) language:
language: Aramaic
language: Hebrew (from 8:1)
Hebrew (from 2:4)
2. Spatial movement from earth, to heaven, to earth
from heaven to
into heaven in
earth (2:19; cf. back to earth:
vision (7:9–10;
toward 11; 4:10, 28; 5:5; a future
8:10–12); prayer-
heaven (2:18) 6:23) movement
on earth fellowship with
in prayer of to heaven from implied by
the heavenly
petition earth (4:31, 34) 2:35, 44–45
world (9:20–23
in praise and and 7:27
and 10:12–14)
prayer
prayer was not composed for the present context, it was included purposefully by the author of
Daniel 9 and was not a secondary composition.” Yet, as also indicated by this comment, the very
theory of the book’s long and complex redaction history makes it difficult to assess the actual
theological relationship of the prayer to its literary context. But also conservative scholars tend
to overlook the function of the prayer in the theology and structure of the book; so for instance
William H. Shea, who in discussing the unity and structure of Daniel with particular reference to
chapters 7, 8, and 9 almost totally ignores the prayer in 9:4b–19 (“Unity of Daniel,” in Symposium
on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 2 [Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 1992], 165–255).
30
It is immediately obvious from the recorded or stated prayer in Daniel 9:4b–19 that this chap-
ter is concerned with prayer. Though no recorded prayer is present in chapter 6, this chapter
more than any other of the narratives in Daniel is permeated by references to prayer, allusions to
prayer, and the theme of prayer and worship (Petersen, “Theology,” 127–131).
31
The realization that a geographical and spatial perspective is important should be evident to any
student of apocalyptic literature where heavenly journeys often occur; it is also in any narrative
text decisive for its interpretation to be aware of the scenic movements within time and space.
In other areas of scholarship—for instance, Lukan studies—the geographical perspective has un-
dergone a recent renaissance, not least because of Luke’s report of the ascension of Jesus. See, for
instance, Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts, Society for New Tes-
tament Studies Monograph Series 146 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 22–56.
32
See Petersen, “Theology,” 303–312, for more detailed comments to these tables of the progres-
sion within the book.
The first spatial movement takes place on the level of history. The
events in Daniel 1:1–3 bring us from Jerusalem to Babylon. Though re-
maining in the land of exile, we are given the inclination of the return
movement directing us back toward Jerusalem. It is illustrated by the shift
of languages that turn from Hebrew to the lingua franca of the empire,
Aramaic, and then in 8:1 back to Hebrew, the language of the people
of God.
The specific direction of this return movement toward Jerusalem is in
particular indicated by the prayers in Daniel 6:11 and 9 (vs. 2, 16–17), the
only chapters besides chapter 1 where the city is explicitly named.33
Table 3: Temporal Movements in the Book of Daniel
Time of Babylon Media/Persia
Darius/Cyrus’ Cyrus’
Nebuchadnezzar Belshazzar
first third
Movement I
1–4: 5 (final year):
A: narrative 6: prayer and
experience in judgment of
sequence deliverance
Babylon Babylon
(chaps. 1–6)
Movement I B: 7–8 (first and
10–12:
prophetic se- third year): 9: prayer and
vision of
quence animal king- angelic oracle
waiting
(caps. 7–12) doms
Movement II: 2 and 7: from Babylon to God’s kingdom
content of visions 8–9 and 10–12 from Media/Persia to the time of the end
The first temporal movement takes place in two chronological se-

quences on the level of history. The consecutive chronological sequence
of the narratives is broken with the introduction of the vision in chap-
ter 7, where we are led back to the first year of Belshazzar. From this
chapter, the visionary section has its own consecutive, chronological se-
quence. The juxtaposition of these two chronological sequences, the nar-
ratives and the giving of the visions, emphasizes the fact that the events
of chapters 6 and 9 are simultaneous.
The second temporal movement takes place on a more universal
level as it brings us from the time of the empire of Babylon down to the
33
The second spatial movement is of less significance in this context. It takes place on a more reli-
gious level. It leads us from earth toward heaven and indicates a future movement back to earth.
This movement highlights the communication, the two-way traffic, between heaven and earth.
The prayers play an important role by explicitly pointing toward heaven, both by being prayers
and by naming the addressee as the “God/King of Heaven” (cf. Dan 2:18, 4:34).
end of human history. This movement strengthens the previously men-

tioned thought that the events taking place in connection with the
deportation to and the exile in Babylon function as a microcosm, mirror-
ing the macrocosm of the end time.
For the particular purpose of this study, the clear links between
the prayers in chapters 6 and 9 help bind the two parts of the book to-
gether. Daniel in chapter 6 is found in prayer, turned towards Jerusalem
(Dan 6:11–12). We are told that he prayed, but the specific content of his
regular, intercessory prayer for Jerusalem is only known to us from the
recorded prayer in chapter 9.34
The Reversal of Roles
In the previous section, three examples were provided to illustrate

the connection between the two major parts of Daniel: the narratives
in chapters 1–6 and the prophecies in chapters 7–12. The examples were
drawn from an assessment of genre, from observations of the language
shifts of the book, and from the characterization of its main figure—three
important perspectives related to the overall coherence of Daniel. It was
shown that the dreams and visions of the pagan kings in the narrative
section belong to the same category as Daniel’s dreams and visions in
the prophetic section. It was further highlighted how events of the exile
function as a microcosm of the macrocosm of the end time; the appointed
time (mô ēd) of the end (Dan 8:19) is comparable to the experience of
investigation and justification/vindication of Daniel and his friends at
the royal court of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:14–15, 18–20).35 Finally, it
was demonstrated that in both parts of the book, Daniel is consistently
portrayed as a man of prayer. The significance of these three illustrative
samples for the characterization of God’s people in the end time will be
the next focus of this study.
34
The terms used for Daniel’s prayers further strengthen the link between the two chapters. The
Hebrew ta anun, from anan, used about Daniel’s specific supplication in 9:3, is paralleled by
the hitpe el of the Aramaic verb enan from the same root in 6:12. Only in these two chapters is
this root used for Daniel’s praying.
35
It is worth noting that “the appointed time” here describes a period beyond or after the specific
time period indicated by the 2300 evenings and mornings. That is implied by the question “until
when” (ad matay or ad ana, Dan 8:13; cf. 12:6).
The End-Time Reversal

In the long oral “dynastic prophecy” in Daniel 1136 and in the encoun-
ters with heavenly beings that frame this prophecy (chaps. 10 and 12), the
term maśkîlîm, commonly translated as “the wise” or “the insightful,” is
repeatedly mentioned as a descriptor of the people of God or of a group
within His people at the time of the end.37 The identity of this group has
been the focus of much critical discussion in the attempt to locate the
group within the various fractions in the Maccabean period.
From a literary perspective, however, assuming the compositional date
implied by the book itself, a different and theologically important per-
spective emerges. In chapters 11 and 12, the term maśkîlîm applies to those
wise persons who during the appointed time study and understand the vi-
sions and prophecies of Daniel (see Dan 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10). The same term
was used in the opening of the book to characterize Daniel and his friends
(Dan 1:4). To these four young Hebrews God “gave insight [haśkîl, the
hiphil form of the verb śākal, “be prudent, wise”] in all literature [“book,”
sēper] and wisdom”; to Daniel God even gave the gift of interpreting
“visions and dreams” (Dan 1:17).
So, in the end time, the wise people of God, the maśkîlîm, take the
same role that Daniel had in the narrative part of the book. As Daniel was
given wisdom (Dan 1:17, cf. 2:21) to understand the prophetic messages
given to the pagan kings, so God’s end-time people are given wisdom to
study and interpret the visions and dreams of Daniel. The role of Daniel
is reversed from interpreter to recipient. The maśkîlîm are the interpret-
ers. Their “knowledge” or “insight” (Dan 12:3, da at; cf. 1:4) has nothing
to do with the growth of scientific knowledge toward the end of the
world’s history; it is the prophetic insight arising from a study of God’s
revelation through Daniel. As Daniel possessed the wisdom to read the
books of both pagans (Dan 1:4) and inspired prophets like Jeremiah
(Dan 9:2), so also will the end-time people of God gain knowledge and
wisdom in their study of Daniel’s prophecy, Daniel’s book (sēper, Dan 12:4).
That this understanding in particular is related to the grand time proph-
ecy of Daniel 8 and therefore defines this period as “the appointed time,”
36
Also labelled a “regnal prophecy” by some scholars (Collins, Daniel with an Introduction,
99–100). With a view to the interlocking chiastic structure presented, it is worth noting that the
angelic discourse in Daniel 8:20–26 also belongs to the subgenre of oral, dynastic prophecy. Fur-
ther, in both chapter 8 and chapter 11, this prophecy is given in the midst of encounters with and
conversations between heavenly beings. The dialogues in Daniel 8:13–14 and 12:6–7 also share the
question of the lament, the “how long?” or “until when?”
37
Stephen Thompson, “Those Who are Wise: the Maskilim in Daniel and the New Testament,” in
Merling, 215–216, provides a succinct summary of the features of the maskilim in Daniel.
the (Dan 8:19), is confirmed by the command to Daniel to “hide/

close” (from the verb sātam) the words and “seal the book” (Dan 12:4;
cf. 12:9), a clear reference to the words in Daniel 8:26 where the angel tells
him to “hide/close” (sātam) the vision of Daniel 8 regarding the “many
days” of Daniel 8:14.
Another small feature links this final period of judgment in the end
time to Daniel’s initial experience in Babylon. One of the terms used for
“standing in judgment/ passing judgment” is the Hebrew verb āmad. In
Daniel 1:4, āmad is used to describe the competence of those students
who are able to serve the king, to stand in his court. At the end of the train-
ing period, some of them will “stand [ āmad] before the king”—that is,
enter his service. Specifically, they are able to do so because they success-
fully passed their final test or examination. Therefore, when the students
were brought before Nebuchadnezzar at “the end of the time period”
(Dan 1:18), Daniel and his friends were found to far exceed their fellow
students—they were able to “stand” ( āmad) before the king. They had
passed the judgment. A similar expression is used to describe Daniel at
the end of the book, when the heavenly being exhorts him in 12:13 “to
rest, and stand [ āmad] up to” his lot at the end of the days. It would be
too narrow a reading to limit the sense of āmad to the resurrection. It
implies judgment, here with the positive connotation of deliverance. The
sense of judgment is further strengthened in the chapter as a whole by
the reference to Michael in 12:1. The judgment motif is dominant in the
context: there is salvation for those who are inscribed in the book of
life (Dan 12:1c), and the concept of “righteousness” (Dan 12:3) also be-
longs to the language of the court. The small unit of 12:1–4 is introduced
by the sentence, here quoted from NKJV, “At that time Michael shall
stand [from āmad] up, The great prince who stands [ āmad] watch over
the sons of your people.” Twice a form of this verb is employed, and one
central thought of the text is that Michael in this final battle will be his
people’s defender in court as well as in history.38
Dare to be a Daniel: Characterizing God’s People of the Eschaton

The conclusion of this study is that God’s people of the end time are
identified with Daniel and his friends. Daniel is a student of prophecy
and the recipient of divine gifts to understand and interpret the prophetic
38
The visionary description of the battle in Revelation 12:7–9 between Michael and the dragon
is likewise interpreted and understood as forensic: “Now the salvation and the power and the
kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers
has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God” (Rev 12:10, ESV, em-
phasis supplied).
visions of the kings. The maśkîlîm during the “appointed time” of judg-
ment are students of God’s prophetic word and interpreters of Daniel’s
own dreams and visions.
But this identification with Daniel goes far beyond the mere interpreta-
tion of divine prophecies. Throughout the ages, readers of all confessional
backgrounds have naturally read the narratives of the first part of the book
as “hero” stories that encourage believers to act like the young Hebrews
in exile.39 “Dare to Be a Daniel” is a homiletic children’s song that aptly
articulates a fundamental didactic message of these stories. On the basis
of these observations and comments, this study suggests that the juxtapo-
sition of narratives and prophecies and the reversal of the role of Daniel
are deliberately intended to provide a broader characterization of the
people of God during the time of judgement.
To the question regarding the nature of the people of God in the es-
chaton, the book of Daniel therefore says they are to be like Daniel and
his friends. The characteristics of the heroes of the narrative part of the
book are transferred to the maśkîlîm of the appointed time of the end, the
mô ēd, the time of judgment.
The author of this chapter contends that this aspect is far more im-
portant for the theology and interpretation of Daniel than any detailed
calculation of the future. It permeates the book as a whole, and the fo-
cus in Daniel is less on the details of the eschaton than on the nature of
the people of God during the final period of earth’s history. They are not
only characterized by their insight into the prophetic word and what
they teach and instruct regarding that word, but also by what they are as
genuine wise persons.
To be truly wise is to be humble. “The fear of the LORD is the be-
ginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7, ESV). This humility is a fundamen-
tal trait of Daniel’s character. Standing before Nebuchadnezzar with the
solution in hand, Daniel gives all glory to God (Dan 2:27–28). Standing
before the last king of Babylon, Daniel disregards Belshazzar’s attempt to
exhibit his power by the giving of gifts (Dan 5:17). Daniel acknowledges
that all wisdom and all power belong to God and are only His to share
(Dan 2:21, 23).
This wisdom of Daniel is not achieved by any inherent quality of his
own, but through the study of Holy Scriptures (Dan 9:1–2) and his prayer
life. Genuine wisdom brings the maśkîlîm into close, personal intimacy
with God. God’s people at the time of the end are to be characterized
39
It may be of interest that while Christian interpreters tend to focus mostly on the prophetic part
of Daniel, the rabbis of Judaism often deduce profound teachings from the narratives.
by a humility that only persons of genuine prayer are able to possess.

Note in the table that follows the striking contrast between the two main
characters of chapter 2:
Table 4: The Main Characters of Daniel 2

Nebuchadnezzar Daniel
When Nebuchadnezzar was in trouble, When Daniel was in trouble, he turned
he turned to his wise men (2:3–11). to God (vs. 14–18).
When the secret was revealed to the
The secret was revealed by God to Daniel
king, it went through a mediator—that is,
(v. 19).
Daniel (vs. 31–45).
When Daniel was shown the secret, he
When Nebuchadnezzar was told the
praised and gave thanks to God
secret, he thanked Daniel (vs. 46–47).
(vs. 20–23).
Conclusion: Daniel had personal contact
with God; Nebuchadnezzar did not.
Identified with the heroes of the first part of Daniel, the maśkîlîm are
people of integrity, loyal to the law of God like the four young Hebrews
during their training period (Dan 1): courageous when being forced
to worship an idol (Dan 3; cf. Rev 13:14–18), and upright and consistent
when threatened with death for their personal devotion to God (Dan 6).40
Their power to take a stand by kneeling to God alone had its source solely
in their personal friendship with and trust in the Lord. That is the very
point of the three young Hebrews’ answer to Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge
in Daniel 3:16–18—their “even if not”! Their decision to obey God did
not depend on efficiency or success, but on trust.41
Identified with Daniel, God’s people of the “appointed time of the end”
are to be persons of prayer who both praise/give thanks (Dan 2:20–23)
and send up their laments (Dan 9:4b–19). The long lament or penitential
prayer in Daniel 9 includes confession, and in confessing the wise do not
40
Note the similarity between chapters 3 and 6: the three young Hebrews are condemned to ex-
ecution because they refuse to pray to an idol; Daniel is thrown into the lions’ den to die because
he prays to God.
41
Translations at times struggle with their reply to Nebuchadnezzar. A thorough study of the
grammatical construction by J. W. Wesselius, “Language and Style in Biblical Aramaic: Ob-
servations on the Unity of Daniel II–VI,” Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 206–207, provides this
translation: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter, if the God whom
we serve is able to save us. And from the fiery furnace and from your hand/power, O king, he
will save. But even if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god and that
we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up.”
say only, “They have sinned,” but admit frankly and honestly, “We have
sinned” (Dan 9:5–6, 8, 10, emphasis supplied). In identifying with and
caring deeply for the lost, for the apostate people, the wise therefore be-
come intercessors.
Conclusion
Finally, the book of Daniel characterizes God’s people in the end

time as a people of waiting and hoping (Dan 12:13), fitting for those liv-
ing when the Day of Atonement is taking place (cf. Ps 130).42 Waiting
and experiencing the seeming delay is a central motif in the Old Testa-
ment and one that is dominant in Daniel: the specific petition of the prayer
in Daniel 9 is concerned with time:43 “do not delay” or “do not tarry”
(Dan 9:19; Hab 2:3–4). Jesus warns His people to wait with patience and
wisdom, to “watch and pray” (Matt 25:13; 26:41). Daniel is given a prom-
ise that those who do will be “blessed”—“happy is the one who waits”
(Dan 12:2, CEB).
Therefore, let us who are blessed to live during the “appointed time
of the end” be happy in Jesus.
42
Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel, 129, notes how Psalm 130 is “inspired by this great festival”—Yom
Kippur—seeing the link between the expression “all their sins” in Leviticus 16:21–22, 30 and
Psalm 130:8.
43
This is a basic conclusion of the thorough analysis of the prayer in Petersen, “Theology,” 149–183.
CHAPTER 6
When Did The 2300 Days Of

Daniel 8:14 Begin and End?
Fresh Evidence from Scripture,
Chronology, and Karaite History
Richard M. Davidson
This study1 seeks to determine if there can be more precision with

regard to 1) the exact starting date of the 2300-year prophecy in 457 BC
and 2) the exact ending date of the 2300-year prophecy in AD 1844.
To accomplish this, the following exegetical and hermeneutical foun-
dations are assumed: 1) the validity of the historicist approach toward
apocalyptic prophecy; 2) the validity of the year-day principle (i.e.,
that a historical year is represented by a prophetic day) in apocalyptic
prophecies; 3) the identity of the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 as the pa-
pal system; 4) the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8 referring to 2300 years
and the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9 referring to 490 years; 5) the
relationship of the time prophecies in Daniel 8 and 9 so that the 2300
days of Daniel 8:14 begin at the same time as the 70-week prophecy of
Daniel 9:24–25, with the going forth of the commandment to restore
and rebuild Jerusalem; 6) that the “going forth” of the commandment
to restore and rebuild Jerusalem took place in 457 BC, not 458 BC; and
7) the end of the 2300 days took place on the Day of Atonement in 1844.2
1
This study is a revision of a preliminary paper given at the Ellen White Issues Symposium, An-
drews University, April 3, 2017.
2
For a succinct presentation of the evidence for most, if not all, of these points, see, e.g., Roy
Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2006), esp. 62–67.
Two main sections organize the discussion that follows. While the
first section explores evidence with regard to the starting date of the
2300 day-year prophecy, the second section advances fresh arguments to
establish with more precision the ending date of this prophecy. Finally,
in light of the evidence, the conclusion arises that the beginning and end-
ing dates of the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14 are solid and secure.
The Exact Date for the Beginning of the 2300-Day Prophecy
Based upon the evidence presented elsewhere by several Daniel

scholars,3 we may conclude that the decree made by Artaxerxes in his
seventh year and Ezra’s subsequent return to Jerusalem took place in the
year 457 BC—not 458 BC, as many critics have claimed. But from when,
precisely, in 457 BC, is to be reckoned the “going forth [Heb. mō ā ] of
the command to restore and [re]build Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25)? 4
According to several recent Seventh-day Adventist commentators
on Daniel, the “going forth” of the decree refers to the time when
Artaxerxes issued the decree (that is, delivered it to Ezra), not when it
went into effect.5 Thus the date for the “going forth” of the command-
ment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem came in the spring of 457 BC.
According to this view, Ezra began his journey from Babylon on the first
day of the first month (Nisan) in the spring, and thus the decree went
forth (to Ezra) sometime shortly before this date (see Ezra 8:9).
By contrast, other Adventist commentators have understood the
decree to have “gone forth” when it went into effect in Jerusalem. Ac-
cording to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “the specifica-
tions of the decree were not carried out until after Ezra returned from
3
See, in particular, William H. Shea, “When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?”
Journal of Adventist Theological Society 2, no. 1 (1991): 115–138; Brempong Owusu-Antwi,
The Chronology of Daniel 9:24–27, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 2 (Ber-
rien Springs, MI: ATS Publications, 1995), 281–303; and LeRoy Edwin Froom and Grace Edith
Amadon, “Report of Committee on Historical Basis, Involvements, and Validity of the October
22, 1844, Position, Part IV: Date of Artaxerxes’ Decree to Restore and Build Jerusalem” (unpub-
lished paper by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists), 1–19.
4
All biblical quotations are from the NKJV, unless otherwise indicated.
5
See, e.g., Owusu-Antwi, 332: “Thus the terminus a quo of the 490 years intended with the
Seventy Weeks has been dated to 457 B.C., when the decree was promulgated to Ezra by
Artaxerxes I.” Cf. William H. Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27,” in 70 Weeks, Leviticus,
and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 3
(Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 84–88, who identifies the year as 457 BC
but does not indicate explicitly when the decree “went forth.”
When Did the 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14 Begin and End? 97
Babylon, which was the late summer or early fall of 457 B.C.”6 J. N.
Andrews states, regarding the decree going into effect,
The first great act of Ezra, by which the commandment went

forth, or was carried into execution, was, no doubt, to select and
appoint magistrates and judges who should restore the law of
God to its proper place as the civil law of Jerusalem, and en-
force that law with adequate penalties. In all probability, this
occurred in the great solemnity of the seventh month, then just
far enough in the future to give Ezra time to acquaint himself
with the people and to make the proper selection.7
Andrews conjectures that it was on “the great solemnity of the seventh

month” (presumably he means the Day of Atonement on the tenth day
of the month), but offers no specific textual evidence that it was indeed on
this day.
In harmony with this earlier understanding, Ellen G. White writes,
“The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, as completed by
the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, went into effect in the autumn
of 457 B.C.”8 Is there any way to determine from Scripture and other
relevant sources the meaning of the phrase “going forth” of the command-
ment, and to determine more precisely when in 457 BC this occurred?
As noted above, it is clear from Ezra 7 that the decree itself was
made by Artaxerxes sometime early in 457 BC, before Ezra started on
his journey to Jerusalem (see esp. Ezra 7:9). But is this the “going forth”
(Heb. mō ā ) of the word or decree? An examination of the meaning
and usage of the Hebrew noun mō ā elsewhere in the Old Testament
is helpful in providing clarity. The word mō ā occurs some twenty-five
times in the Hebrew Bible (not counting its usage as a proper name for
a person). Its semantic range involves at least four related meanings:
1) “place of departure”; 2) “exit, way out”; 3) “pronouncement”; and
4) “going/coming forth, appearance.”9 We are particularly interested in
6
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1977), 853.
7
J. N. Andrews, The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-
day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865), 49.
8
Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1917), 698–699 and
White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950), 410.
9
Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill,
1994–2000), 559, s.v. .
usages of the term with the third and fourth meanings, which parallel
our passage in Daniel 9:25.
With regard to the meaning of mō ā as “pronouncement,” a survey
of passages utilizing this term with this meaning yields the conclusion
that there is regularly an assumption that the pronouncement is not
only made, but that it has gone into effect. Moreover, the usage of mō ā
in Daniel 9:25 goes beyond the usages elsewhere in Scripture where the
word mō ā by itself denotes the pronouncement. In Daniel 9:25, we
have another word for the proclamation—“word” (dābār)—and the term
mō ā concerns the “going out” of the word. This is more in harmony
with the fourth meaning of mō ā in the Hebrew Bible, “going/coming
forth.” Looking at examples of this usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible,
we find that the word mō ā usually focuses not on the initial “going
forth” by itself, but on the effect of that going forth—that is, the appear-
ance to others.10
In light of the usage of mō ā elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it is
preferable to take the “going forth” of the word to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem as referring to the putting into effect of Artaxerxes’ decree,
and not to the time of its being initially written and/or proclaimed by the
king. This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that the text of
Ezra does not give us the date when Artaxerxes actually wrote/proclaimed
the decree and gave it to Ezra: it could have been several months be-
fore Nisan 1 in 457 BC. Clearly, the focus was not upon the time of the
decree’s first proclamation, but upon its going forth, in the sense of
formally going into effect.
In 1845, S. S. Snow argued with more certainty that the exact date
when the decree went into effect was on the Day of Atonement in 457 BC,
alluding to the nature of the sacrifices offered by Ezra and those who
returned from Babylon in that year (Ezra 8:35–36) as a reason for his
conclusion: “And this [the sacrifices offered by Ezra] must certainly
have been on the tenth day of the seventh month, as that was the day of
expiation, or atonement, and the offerings were not made, according to
the Law, on any other day.”11 Snow found significance in the particular
10
So in Hosea 6:3, the prophet says of Yahweh, “His appearance [mō ā ] is as sure as daybreak,
And He will come to us like rain, like latter rain that refreshes the earth” (NJPS). Elsewhere,
the word mō ā is best translated by the noun “import,” referring to the “import” (lit. the “going
out” [from one country into another]) of horses (1 Kgs 10:28; 2 Chr 1:16). Here again it is not
the act of going out but the effect of that act (importing the horses into one’s country) that is
emphasized by the word.
11
Probably originally written by S. S. Snow in his Jubilee Standard, May 15, 1845, as referred to
in his next issue of the Jubilee Standard, May 22, 1845, 84–85, but no longer extant (or at least
sacrifices offered as pointing to the Day of Atonement, but offered no

analysis of these offerings to substantiate his claim that they were not
made on any other day.
Following the brief hint provided by Snow, this study suggests that
several clues in Ezra 7–10 may indicate more precisely when in the year
457 BC this formal putting into effect of the decree took place.
The First and Major Stipulation of Artaxerxes’ Decree Was

the Offering of Sacrifices
The very first stipulation—and, in fact, the only specific activity
commanded in the first part Artaxerxes’ decree of Ezra 7, besides the
allowance for volunteer exiles to return to Jerusalem—is that the return-
ees were to use the money they took with them “to buy . . . bulls, rams,
and lambs, with their grain offerings and their drink offerings, and offer
them on the altar of the house of your God in Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:17).
The First Activity of the Returnees Was the Offering

of the Sacrifices
The first activity mentioned by Ezra as being carried out by the
returning exiles upon their arrival in Jerusalem (after delivering the
money to the priests for purchasing the animal sacrifices) was to offer
“burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-
six rams, seventy-seven lambs; and twelve male goats as a sin offering”
(Ezra 8:35). The animals mentioned as being sacrificed for the burnt
offering are the same ones, in the same order, as in the decree of Ezra 7.
The Offering of the Sacrifices Already Constituted the

“Going Forth” (Putting into Effect) of the Decree
Since the offering of the sacrifices constituted a major portion of
the decree of Artaxerxes, therefore the fulfillment of that offering would
in a very real way constitute the putting into effect (at least the first part)
of the decree, and thus would be a fulfillment of Daniel 9:25 (“the going
out [putting into effect] of the word/decree”). Daniel 9:25 stipulates that
the starting point of the decree is the time when the decree as a whole
began to be put into effect, and not necessarily that it had to include
the part dealing with the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem. But we
will see below that, at the same time, it probably involved this as well.
not discoverable by the author of the present study). See further discussion in n. 26 in the
present study.
The Offering of the Sacrifices Took Place During a

Four-and-a-half-month Period in the Last Half of 457 BC
Though no date is given for the offering of these sacrifices “for all
Israel,” it must have taken place sometime during the four-and-a-half-
month period between Ab 4 and Khislev 20 in the year 457 BC. Ezra
arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon on the first day of the fifth month
called Ab (Ezra 7:9)—which, as argued elsewhere,12 was August 22,
assuming the year 457 BC was an intercalated year according to the
Jewish reckoning. After a stay of three days, on the fourth day (August
25, 457 BC, according to the intercalated calculation) the money was
12
According to Ezra 7:9, Ezra departed Babylon on the first day of the first month. If this were in
the year 458 BC, he would have left on a Sabbath! (According to the tables given in Richard A.
Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75 [Providence, RI:
Brown University Press, 1956], 32, Nisan 1 in the year 458 BC came on April 8, which, according
to charts showing the day of the week for any date in the past, using algorithms, came on a
Saturday.) This is highly unlikely, given Ezra’s conscientious attention to the laws of God as a scribe,
which, perhaps not accidentally, is mentioned in the very next verse of his book after mentioning
his departure date (Ezra 7:10; cf. v. 6). If the year is 457 BC, there is not a problem with Sabbath
observance on any of the dates mentioned by Ezra, provided that 457 BC was an intercalated year
(i.e., a year in which an extra twelfth month of Adar was added before the first month of Nisan that
year), and thus the first month of Nisan started on April 26, a Friday, rather than on March 27, as
best fits the evidence. See the evidence in Jaurez Rodrigues de Oliveira, Chronological Studies Related
to Daniel 8:14 and 9:24–27 (São Paulo, Brazil: UNASPRESS, 2004), 19–22. De Oliveira, 20, points
out that if there had not been an intercalated extra twelfth month before the month of Nisan in 457
BC, then the fourth day of Ab, when Ezra records that they weighed out the money brought from
Babylon (Ezra 7:9; 8:32–33), would have been on a Sabbath, which is highly unlikely in view of Ezra’s
scrupulous observance of Torah. In order to avoid this possibility, Nichol, 3:365, arbitrarily moves
back by one day the Julian date equivalents for Ab 1–4 given by Parker and Dubberstein’s tables,
so that Ab 1 is July 22–23 (a Tuesday sunset-to-sunset) and Ab 4 is a Friday. However, de Oliviera
shows by means of the modern astronomical tables (RedShift 2 charts and visibility charts, ibid., 21,
125) that this position “is untenable, because the combined altitude and azimuth of the moon do not
allow the visibility of the new crescent at the sunset of July 22” (the date the Seventh-day Adventist
Bible Commentary suggests for Ab 1). But if one assumes an intercalated year in 457 BC, then all fits
without contradiction. De Oliveira, 20, summarizes the relevant dates and days of the week if 457
BC starts with Nisan in April and not in March: “Nisan 1 would correspond to April 25/26, sunset
to sunset, a Friday, and this would harmonize perfectly with the Biblical account. Ezra 7:9 and 8:15
show that Ezra started on his trip on Nisan 1 [Friday April 26], arrived at Ahava, and remained there
for three days. The immediate day after his arrival at Ahava (Nisan 2, which corresponds to April
26/27, sunset to sunset) would have been a Sabbath day.” This study adds to Oliveira’s comment the
fact that according to Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, the actual record of the intercalation of an
extra month in connection with the years 457 and 456 BC is unattested, and thus adding the extra
month of Adar in 457 BC (as de Oliveira suggests) instead of after 456 BC (as Parker and Dubber-
stein’s tables propose) does not contradict any known documentation. However, even if Babylonian
documentation is found supporting Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, they would reflect Babylonian
practice and would still allow for the Jewish practice based upon actual observation of the ripen-
ing of the barley (see discussion in this study, in the section “Rabbinic Calculation Versus Biblical
Reckoning of the Intercalated ‘Leap Months’”) to be one year different than the Babylonian system.
counted by the priests (Ezra 8:33–34), and then some time after this
(the date is not given) sacrificial animals were purchased and the offer-
ings were made in accordance with Artaxerxes’ decree (Ezra 8:35). Four
and a half months after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, a proclamation was
made for all Israel to gather on the twentieth day of the ninth month
(January 6, 456 BC, assuming the year was intercalated). So some time
during this four-and-a-half-month period the sacrifices described in
Ezra 8:35 were offered.
The Sacrifices Are to Be Equated with the Calendrical

Sacrifices of Numbers 28–29
The list of offerings in Artaxerxes’ decree encompasses the same
animals, and in the same order, as the lists of burnt offerings required of
the congregation as a whole at the time of the monthly and yearly
calendrical occasions, as detailed in Numbers 28–29: bulls, rams, and
lambs.13 (Since the daily and weekly [Sabbath] calendrical occasions did
not require all of these sacrifices, they are eliminated from the discus-
sion that follows.) The sacrifices of the returnees also included a goat as a
sin/purification offering as in the monthly and yearly calendrical offer-
ings of Numbers 28–29.
The number of sacrifices offered by the congregation of the return-
ees was generally at least twelvefold (or once multiples of seven)14 of what
was required in Numbers 28–29. The twelvefold multiplication was no
doubt to indicate, as explicitly stated in the text, that this was “for all
Israel,” the whole twelve tribes, and not just Judah. Israel was once again
to be recognized as a single united people.15
13
For a summary of these offerings for each of the festivals, see the table in Roy Gane, Leviticus and
Numbers, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 752–753. This
same order, with the same animals, is not found with any other offerings described in the Torah.
14
This included twelve (1 × 12) bulls, ninety-six (1 + 7 × 12) rams, and seventy-seven (7 × 11 or
7 × 10 + 7) lambs for the burnt offering; and twelve (1 × 12) male goats for the sin/purification
offering. The only exception to the multiples of twelve seems to be the seventy-seven lambs,
which is a multiple of eleven (not twelve) or a multiple of 10 (10 × 7) + 7 from the seven lambs
required in the calendrical calendar list of sacrifices in Numbers 28–29. Emphasis upon the
number seven may also be indicated by the number of rams, normally one, which is increased
to seven as well as multiplied by twelve. Many suggestions have been proposed to account for
this anomaly, and those commentators who see significance in the multiples of seven repre-
sented in this number are probably on the right track. Some suggest that the number seven is
also a number of completeness, and along with the multiples of twelve may signify “all of
Israel” that is represented in these sacrifices. In what follows this study suggests a possible further
significance in the number seven and its multiples in these sacrifices.
15
Scholars generally recognize this symbolism. See, e.g., Andrew E. Steinmann, Ezra and Nehe-
miah, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2010), 318. Note that 1 Esdras 8:63
The Sacrifices Were Offered During One of the Calendrical

Occasions of the Four-and-a-half-month Period
Since the offerings made by the returning exiles were calendrical
offerings, it is expected that the sacrifices were offered at the time of
one of the calendrical occasions during the four-and-a-half-month
period when those offerings were offered: a new moon, Feast of Trum-
pets, Day of Atonement, or Feast of Tabernacles. Ezra was “a skilled scribe
in the law of Moses” (Ezra 7:6) and he “had prepared his heart to seek
the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinanc-
es in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). Ezra 3 makes clear that during the return of
Zerubbabel (the seventh month of 536 BC) the regular calendrical offer-
ing schedule had already been restored in Jerusalem (vs. 2–6), although
these may have been stopped because of opposition by the local
enemies of the Jews by the time of Ezra’s arrival, nearly eighty years lat-
er. Nothing is said about the offering of the people of Israel described in
Ezra 8:35 being a special kind of offering (except for the multiples of
twelve to indicate all twelve tribes), contrary to the special sacrifices
offered at the dedication of the Temple in 515 BC (Ezra 6:15–17), so we
can reasonably conclude that these were offered at one of the calendri-
cal occasions during the four-and-a-half-month period described above.
Is there any way to determine which of the calendrical occasions may
constitute the best candidate for the time when the sacrifices described
in Ezra 8:35 were offered?
The Calendrical Sacrifices of One Occasion—the Day of Atonement, at

the Time of the Jubilee—Best Fit the Pattern of the Sacrifices Offered
in Ezra 8:35 and the General Context of the Passage16
There is a clue in Ezra 8:35 that seems to provide a key to narrowing
the possibilities for the specific festival venue. This concerns the number of
changes the number of lambs from seventy-seven to seventy-two, no doubt in an attempt to

make all the sacrifices reflect a multiple of twelve.
16
Some (especially critical scholars) argue that the description of the gathering of the people
to the open square in the seventh month, as described in Nehemiah 8, actually depicts the
celebration that took place during the four and a half months after Ezra returned to Babylon
in 457 BC, and thus the sacrifices described in Ezra 8:35 could have been offered at any of the
three festivals that took place in that month: Rosh Hashanah (which was also a new moon fes-
tival), Yom Kippur, or the Feast of Tabernacles. However, if one takes the text as it stands, the
identification of this occasion with that described in Nehemiah is ruled out because Nehemiah
is named as governor and one of the participants in this worship experience (Neh 8:9), and
Nehemiah did not come to Jerusalem till 444 BC, more than a dozen years after the sacrifices
described in Ezra 8:35 were offered. So Nehemiah 8 refers to a later event in the teaching career
of Ezra, and does not assist in locating the venue for the sacrifices of Ezra 8:35.
sacrifices for each kind of animal that were offered and how this pattern
fits the various calendrical occasions that took place during the period of
four and a half months that forms the parameters of our search. As noted
above, the number of sacrifices offered by the congregation of returnees
under Ezra’s guidance represented at least a multiple of twelve or seven
from the original required number. But the numbers for one of these
sacrifices seems particularly significant. According to Numbers 28–29, all
of the monthly-yearly calendrical occasions required a sacrifice of two
bulls—except for the Feast of Trumpets (Num 19:2), the Day of Atonement
(Num 29:8), and the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Num 29:36),
which all required only one. If it was the intent of the congregation of
returnees to offer at least a multiple of twelve (or seven) of what was re-
quired, then they can be said to have done this only if the festival occasion
was the Feast of Trumpets, or the Day of Atonement, or the last day of
Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). The requirement of one bull on these
occasions was multiplied by twelve, and this is what the congregation
offered. Thus this pattern of the twelvefold multiplication in the number
of sacrifices seems to eliminate the new moon festivals of the sixth, eighth,
and ninth month, as well as the seven days of Tabernacles, and to point
toward the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), the Day of Atonement
(Yom Kippur) or the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) as the
best candidates for the background occasion for these sacrifices. Can we
decide which of these is more likely?
The possibility of the background occasion being that of the last
(eighth) day of Sukkot seems weakened by the fact that the first seven
days of Sukkot required numerous sacrifices—in fact, a number that
exceeds all of the other festivals combined—and the omission of any
mention of other elaborate sacrifices preceding this one makes it unlikely
that the eighth day would be singled out from the rest. The possibility of
the Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the seventh month also seems
weakened, in that several of the events connected with Ezra’s jour-
ney and arrival at Jerusalem were mentioned as occurring on the first
day of a month: the departure from Babylon on the first day of the first
month (Ezra 7:9), the arrival in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth
month (Ezra 7:9), and the completion of the examination of those taking
multiple wives on the first day of the first month (Ezra 10:17). If these
sacrifices had been offered on the first day of the seventh month, it seems
likely that this also would have been dated. These are arguments from
silence, or better, arguments from negative evidence. They are not deci-
sive by themselves, but become more persuasive when viewed in light of
positive evidence pointing toward the Day of Atonement as the strongest
possibility for the time in which the sacrifices of Ezra were offered.
This evidence derives from an additional diagnostic tool in deciding

the precise day on which the sacrifices were offered, which emphasizes
offering sevenfold the ordinary calendrical number of burnt offering
sacrifices with regard to the lambs. Instead of the usual seven lambs in
the calendrical offerings of Numbers 28–29, those returning from Babylon
offered seventy (7x10) lambs in addition to the seven prescribed (for a
total of seventy-seven).17 This emphasis upon the multiples of seven may
have an allusion to the Day of Atonement, during which the blood was
applied in the sanctuary a total of forty-nine (7x7) times.
The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was also the one festival of the
year in which multiples of seven played a significant role every forty-nine
years. The year of Jubilee began on this day every forty-nine (7x7) years
(Lev 25:9). The Jubilee year was built upon the principle of multiples of
seven: “And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven
times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to
you forty–nine years. Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to
sound on the tenth day of the seventh month” (Lev 25:8–9). Inasmuch
as the use of “seventy weeks” (7x7x10) in Daniel 9:24–27 has been widely
recognized even beyond Adventist circles as alluding to the Jubilee cycles,18
the reference to seventy (7x10) lambs (in addition to the seven already
prescribed) may specifically allude to the Jubilee cycle, which start-
ed at the time of the Day of Atonement. Further allusion to the Day of
Atonement may be found in what immediately follows the record of
offering of sacrifices at the end of Ezra 8. The language of Ezra 9 has many
intertextual allusions to the Day of Atonement, with Ezra fasting (v. 5),
and confessing the sins of his people (vs. 6–15).19
17
As mentioned in n. 14 of this study, additional emphasis upon seven is indicated with regard
to the rams: instead of the usual one ram prescribed in Numbers 28–29, the returnees offered
seven more, and this number (eight) was then multiplied by twelve (for a total of ninety-six).
18
For Adventist commentators, see, e.g., Jacques Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald, 2000), 140: “The 70 years (7 x 10) lead to the messiah of the sabbatical
year, whereas the 70 weeks, or “seventy sevens” (7 x 7 x 10), lead to a messiah of jubilee.” For
non-Adventist commentators, see, e.g., André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (Atlanta, GA:
John Knox, 1979), 178: “He [Daniel] comes to understand that the seventy years spoken of by
Jeremiah in fact signify seventy weeks of years; that is, not ten sabbatical cycles . . . but ten times
seven sabbaths of years, followed by the Jubilee (see Lev 25.8–18). In brief, Daniel announces
the coming of the ultimate Jubilee, Eschaton.”
19
It is not clear whether Ezra’s experience of fasting and confession actually took place on the
Day of Atonement or later in the year. Ezra 9:1 seems to imply that this prayer and confession
happened immediately after the sacrifices. However, the reference to “three days” in Ezra 10:8–9
has been taken to mean that Ezra 9 is connected closely with the gathering on the twentieth day
of the ninth month. It seems unlikely that the whole process of proclaiming a gathering through-
out Judah and Benjamin, and everyone coming to the gathering, took place within three days of
The Day of Atonement setting for the sacrifices, and in particular a

Jubilee setting for this particular Day of Atonement, seems further sup-
ported by what is demonstrated elsewhere by those who have researched
the dating of Old Testament sabbatical and Jubilee years.20 According to
this research, the fall of 457 BC marked the beginning of a Jubilee year.
If this dating is correct, then Yom Kippur of 457 BC was not just any Day
of Atonement; it was also the commencement of the Jubilee, which came
only every forty-nine years!
Leviticus 25:10, 13 says, “It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you
shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family. . . .
In this Year of Jubilee, each of you shall return to his possession.” (Note
the use of the word “return” [Heb. šûb] three times in this passage.) It
seems very likely that Ezra and his fellow returning exiles were not just
coming back at a time without significance. They were returning to their
possession, and marking this return on the very day when God ordained
that all those who had lost their possession should return to claim it!
Ezra, expert in Torah, could not have been unaware of the approach of
the Jubilee earlier in the year 457 BC while still in Babylon, and very like-
ly he made King Artaxerxes aware of such timing, which resulted in the
specific wording of the decree that referred to the sacrifices to be made at
that Jubilee period.
The Specific Part of Artaxerxes’ Decree Enabling the Restoring and

Rebuilding of Jerusalem also Probably Started Going into Effect on
the Day of Atonement in 457 BC
Immediately after describing the offering of the sacrifices by the re-
turnees in the previous verse, Ezra states what happened next, probably
at that same occasion: “They also delivered the king’s commissions to the
king’s satraps and to the governors of the province Beyond the River, and
Ezra’s initial meeting with the congregation before the house of God (Ezra 10:1). The “three days”
may imply that the people were given three days to respond after the issuing of the proclamation
(the date for which is not given), and that the proclamation actually went forth sometime after
Ezra’s Day of Atonement experience. In any case, the immediate juxtaposition of this chapter with
the reference to the Day of Atonement sacrifices seems to supply a Day of Atonement “aura” in
the immediate context.
20
See esp. Douglas Waterhouse, “Is It Possible to Date the Sabbatical-Jubilee Years?” (unpublished
manuscript, Andrews University, n.d.), 1–15; cf. Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical
Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual
44 (1973): 153–196; Wacholder, “Chronomessianism: The Timing of the Messianic Movements
and Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles,” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 201–218; and
William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, rev. ed., Daniel
and Revelation Committee Series 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 77–79.
they aided the people and the house of God” (Ezra 8:36, ESV).
Some commentators suggest that this delivery of the king’s orders
to the satraps and governors had taken place at an earlier time, perhaps
on Ezra’s journey from Babylon to Jerusalem, stopping at Aleppo or
Damascus.21 However, recent text-linguistic studies demonstrate that the
Hebrew grammatical construction that begins this verse—the wayiqtol
(Qal impf. + waw consecutive) form of the verb—implies continuation
of the narrative, and does not allow for a flashback to an earlier event.
If this Jubilee celebration was already in the purview of Ezra and King
Artaxerxes as the decree was being issued, then it is not unlikely that
the satrap of the province named “Beyond the River” (and perhaps the
satrap of the province of Egypt, since the term “satraps” is plural in
Ezra 8:36) either attended this celebration himself, or sent official repre-
sentatives. The “giving” (Heb. nātan) of the king’s decree to the satraps
(or their representatives) and the local governors likely took place on
this day of Jubilee celebration. (Note that the Hebrew word here is “give
[nātan]” and not “send [šāla ],” implying that the rulers or their repre-
sentatives were at hand to receive the king’s orders and it did not need to
be “sent” to them.) If so, then even the part of the king’s decree relevant
to “restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem” began to be fulfilled on this
day, the Day of Atonement (or after sundown of this day, if the handing
over of the decree to the satraps was considered “work” [Heb. m lā’k ],
which was forbidden on the actual day from sunset to sunset, Lev 23:28–32).
Brempong Owusu-Antwi shows that the term “restore” (Heb. šûb in
the hiphil causative) used with regard to Jerusalem in Daniel 9:25 means
to restore governmental autonomy for the nation of Israel with the right
to make judicial decisions, and, implicitly, therefore, rebuild the city.22
The use of the second term in Daniel 9:25, to “[re]build” (Heb. bānah)
Jerusalem, refers to the physical reconstruction of Jerusalem. The sec-
ond pair of terms in Daniel 9:25 indicates that the returning exiles would
restore and rebuild the rĕ ôb and the ārû . Owusu-Antwi demon-
strates that the rĕ ôb, “square,” refers to the place in the city where the
judges and magistrates met to make judicial decisions, and the word
ārû in this context means the judicial “decision-making” that took place
in the city square.23 Moving to the actual wording of Artaxerxes’ decree
in Ezra 7, it is shown that the allowing for the appointment of “magistrates
and judges” to “judge all the people who are in the region Beyond the
21
Nichol, 3:379.
22
Owusu-Antwi, 131–148.
23
River” (Ezra 7:38) precisely matches the decree mentioned in Daniel 9:25,
and was fulfilled when the decree was put into effect in the autumn
of 457 BC.24
The last part of Ezra 8:36 does start with a verbal form (w+qatal,
pf. + waw conjunctive) that often implies a summary that jumps forward
to anticipate what will continue to happen in the future: “So they [the
satraps and the governors] gave support to the people and the house of
God.” This indicates that in the period of time following their receiving
the decree brought by Ezra from Artaxerxes, the satraps and governors
honored the edict of the king, and allowed the process of restoration
and rebuilding of Jerusalem implied in the king’s decree to go forward.
By the ninth Jewish month of this year (end of December/beginning
of January), the restoration of the autonomy of Israel’s political gover-
nance with the right to make legal decisions was well underway. All “the
descendants of the captivity” gathered on the twentieth day at the “open
square” (rĕ ôb) of the house of God (Ezra 10:7–9), and for an extended
period of time (lasting till the first day of the first month) a judicial
procedure or decision-making took place regarding those who had tak-
en pagan wives (Ezra 10:10–17). By explicit reference to the rĕ ôb, “open
square” (Ezra 10:9), where judicial decisions were made, and reference
to the judicial decision-making in the remainder of the chapter, this
passage makes clear allusion to what was predicted by the prophecy of
Daniel 9:25: “It shall be restored and rebuilt, square [rĕ ôb] and decision-
making [ ārû ].”25
In light of the above arguments, this study suggests that the “going
forth of the command to restore and [re]build Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25)
certainly went forth (that is, began to go into effect) in the fall of 457 BC
and, to be more precise, probably began to go into effect on the tenth day
of the seventh month of 457 BC26—the start of the Jubilee, which that
24
25
Translation by Owusu-Antwi, 148–149.
26
As noted in the introduction, this study is not the first to make this suggestion, although the
author has not found elsewhere the narrative evidence presented above. Snow, Jubilee Stan-
dard, May 22, 1845, 84–85, writes the following in an article entitled “Prophetic Chronology—
Continued”: “From Ezra viii. 35, 36, we also showed that on that day of atonement or expia-
tion, when the children of Israel who had returned from captivity offered their bullocks, rams
and goats, according to the law, the ‘king’s commissions’ were delivered to the properly consti-
tuted executive officers, who were commanded under penalty of death, banishment, confiscation
of goods, or imprisonment, to furnish Ezra and the Jews whatever they required according to
the law of God, and to do it speedily. See Ezra vii. 21–26. Did they obey that command?
Certainly. The laws of the Medes and Persians were not to be trifled with. See the last clause
of chap. viii. 36, ‘And they furthered the people and the house of God.’ Here we find the ‘going
year (following the intercalation year calculation) fell on October 30. That
said, the next section will address the ending of the 2300-day prophecy.
forth of the commandment,’ on the 10th day of the 7th month. . . . But the point of consumma-
tion was its ‘going forth,’ or going into effect, in the commencement of the building of the city.
And this, we have shown, was at the great day of expiation, after Ezra and the Jews had returned
from Babylon. There the first step was taken after the completion of the decrees or command-
ment, towards building the city, when ‘they delivered the king’s commissions unto the king’s
lieutenants, and to the governors, which were on this side the river: and they furthered the
people, and the house of God.’ We come then to this necessary and unavoidable conclusion:—
that as the 2300 days began, so they must end, on the tenth day of the seventh month.” This
extant edition of Snow’s journal refers to an earlier part of the same study on “Prophetic Chro-
nology,” where he gives his evidence for the conclusions presented here, but the author of the
present study has been unable to locate this earlier issue of Jubilee Standard, probably May
15, 1845. Fortunately, this material seems to have been incorporated into Snow, The Book of
Judgment Delivered to Israel by Elijah the Messenger of the Everlasting Covenant (New York: G.
Mitchell, 1848), 189–193. Here Snow first argues from the typology of Daniel 9:27 (“in the midst
of the [seventieth] week he will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”): he locates the
fulfillment of this prophecy as the tenth day of the first month, on which date the Passover
lamb was set aside for slaughter, and in the antitype Jesus was condemned to death by the
Sanhedrin. He then argues that “the [seventieth] week began and ended on the tenth day of
the seventh month. For from the middle of the week to the end are just 3 ½ years. Commencing
on the tenth day of the first month, three years would of course end on the same day of the
first month, and six months more brings us to the tenth day of the seventh month. Therefore
the 70 weeks must have ended on that day, and, as a necessary conclusion, they must have
begun on that day” (ibid.,192). Then Snow turns to Ezra 8:35, 36: “Accordingly we find, Ezra
viii.35, 36, that at the time when the Israelites offered their bullocks, rams, and goats, ‘they
delivered the KINGS’ COMMISSIONS to the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors on this
side of the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.’ This was the going forth
of the commandment, i.e., its delivery into the hands of those officers who alone had power to
carry it into execution. And this must certainly have been on the tenth day of the seventh
month, as that was the day of expiation, or atonement, and the offerings were not made, ac-
cording to the Law, on any other day” (ibid., 193). Snow recognizes the significance of the
particular sacrifices offered as pointing to the Day of Atonement, but does no analysis of these
offerings to demonstrate that they were not made on any other day. Similarly, John Nevins
Andrews, The Commandment to Restore and to Build Jerusalem (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-
day Adventist Publishing Association, 1865), 49, states, “‘The commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem’ is now complete as a law of the Persian empire. It will be of interest to discover,
as nearly as possible, the first of those acts under Ezra, in which this complete mandate went
into effect; for it is this that marks the commencement of the sixty-nine weeks. . . . The first
great act of Ezra, by which the commandment went forth, or was carried into execution, was,
no doubt, to select and appoint magistrates and judges who should restore the law of God to
its proper place as the civil law of Jerusalem, and enforce that law with adequate penalties. In
all probability, this occurred in the great solemnity of the seventh month, then just far enough
in the future to give Ezra time to acquaint himself with the people and to make the proper
selection. Closely connected with this work, was his act of delivering the king’s commissions
to his lieutenants and governors on that side of the river, who furthered the people and the
house of God. Ezra 8:36.” Andrews conjectures that it was on “the great solemnity of the
seventh month” (presumably he means the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the month),
but offers no substantial textual evidence that it was indeed on this day.
The Exact Date for the Ending of the 2300-Day Prophecy
The second half of this study turns to the question: on what ex-
act date did the 2300-day prophecy end and the antitypical Day of
Atonement begin? As pointed out earlier, and substantiated elsewhere,
we have a firm answer regarding the year for the beginning of both
the 70-week and the 2300-day prophecies: 457 BC. Starting from this
date (employing the year-day principle implicit in both Daniel 8 and 9,
as demonstrated by many scholars), we may do the math to find the end
of the 2300-day/year prophecy, and hence the start of the antitypical Day
of Atonement. From 457 BC, we may move forward 2300 years (remem-
bering that there is no “zero” year moving from BC to AD, which the
Millerite Adventists at first failed to recognize) and come to AD 1844.
In this year, according to the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, the antitypi-
cal Day of Atonement was to begin in heaven, involving the cosmic
investigative judgment of the professed people of God.
But can we be any more precise in giving the exact date in 1844
when the antitypical Day of Atonement started? There is weighty evi-
dence to conclude that the date for the commencement of the investigative
judgment and the antitypical Day of Atonement took place on October
22, 1844. Here are some of the major lines of evidence leading to this
conclusion:
Day of Atonement Typology

According to the typology of the Hebrew festivals (Leviticus 23),
each festival began to be fulfilled right on time, not only as to the year
predicted, but as to the time corresponding to the respective festi-
val.27 So Christ died not only in the year 31 AD, in the middle of the
seventieth week of the 70-week prophecy, but He also was crucified at
the right time of year—at Passover time, in fulfillment of the Passover
typology. Similarly, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the waiting disci-
ples at the time when the day of Pentecost “had fully come” (Acts 2:1), in
fulfillment of the Pentecost typology. As with the spring festivals, so we
can expect that the antitype of the fall festival, the Day of Atonement,
would begin on the date for the Day of Atonement in 1844.
In 1844, according to the rabbinic calendar, the Day of Atonement
fell on September 23. However, the Millerite Adventists, in the months
27
See Richard M. Davidson, “Typology of the Festivals in Leviticus 23,” chap. 14 and “Palace of
Praise: Sanctuary Celebration,” chap. 29 in Song for the Sanctuary: Experiencing God’s Presence
in Shadow and Reality (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2021); cf. the similar rea-
soning of the Millerite Adventists, as summarized by White, The Great Controversy, 399–400.
before the fall of 1844, became convinced that the rabbinic calendar
for 1844 did not represent the true date for Day of Atonement for that
year, based upon the biblical way of calculating the festivals. Rather, they
argued for October 22 as the correct date for the Day of Atonement in
1844. Why did they come to this conclusion? Does their position have
solid support? In order to assess the situation, we need to understand
the ancient Jewish calendar and the biblical principles for calculating the
beginning of the new religious year.
Rabbinic Calculation Versus Biblical Reckoning of the

Intercalated “Leap Months”
The ancient Jewish calendar utilized a combination of lunar and
solar calculations (a “lunisolar year”). The months were regulated by
the sighting of the new moon each month, but twelve lunar months (of
29.53059 days each) is nearly eleven days shorter (10.8752 days shorter,
to be more precise) than the solar year (which is 365.242 days). Hence
it was necessary to add (intercalate) an extra month (which we will call
a “leap month”) about every three years (actually almost exactly seven
times every nineteen years) to keep the lunar calendar in sync with the
solar calendar.
The biblical way of determining when to add (intercalate) the “leap
month” was connected to the ripening of the Judean barley harvest. At
Passover time, on the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(the sixteenth day of the first month Nisan), the priest was required to
wave a sheaf of ripe barley (Lev 23:10–12; cf. Exod 13:4; 23:15; Deut 16:1, 9).
Some two or three weeks earlier, the barley came into the stage of ripe-
ness called “Abib” (Heb. ’abib, hence the name for the first month—Abib,
also called Nisan). In its “Abib” stage barley has three characteristics:
1. It is brittle enough to be destroyed by hail and has begun to light-

en in color (it is not “dark”) [Exod 9:31–32].
2. The seeds have produced enough dry material so it can be eaten
parched [Lev 2:14].
3. It has developed enough so that it will be harvest-ready 2–3 weeks
later [Deut 16:9].28
28
Cited from the detailed summary by Nehemiah Gordon, “Aviv Barley in the Biblical Calendar,”
Nehemia’s Wall, February 24, 2016, http://www.karaite-korner.org/abib.shtml (accessed January
2, 2015). Biblical references are added in brackets from other parts of the article.
The biblical calendar year began with the first new moon after the
barley had reached the “Abib” stage of ripeness, so it would be harvest-
ready in time to wave the sheaf on Nisan 16. So toward the end of the
twelfth month (Adar) of the previous year, the priest would go into the
field to determine if the barley was in its “Abib” stage, and would thus
be harvest-ready by the middle of the next month. If it was not, he would
proclaim a “second Adar” (or thirteenth “leap month”) to be intercalated
before the start of the new (religious) year in the month of Nisan. Thus
in the biblical calendar system, the intercalation of “leap months” came
as a result of direct observation, not mathematical formulas.
The rabbinic method for intercalating of “leap months,” which accord-
ing to Jewish tradition was worked out by Rabbi Hillel (110 BC–AD 10),
was pre–calculated and not based upon observation of the barley har-
vest. Probably while the Jews were in exile in Babylon, away from the
opportunity to observe the Judean barley harvest, they became ac-
quainted with the methods of intercalation used by the Babylonians and
Persians. Based upon a fixed mathematical formula similar to the
Babylonians, the rabbinic system added a “second Adar” (or “leap month”)
seven times in every nineteen years (years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19)29 before
starting the new religious year (with the month of Nisan). This mathe-
matical way of calculating which years in which to add the “leap months”
was fixed in practice at least by the fourth century AD, and is still in
use today among Orthodox Jews. This system made it possible for
those Jews who did not live in Palestine to calculate the yearly calendar.
The question that concerns us is the following: in the year 1844, when
the rabbinic calendar specified September 23 as the Day of Atonement,
was this specification accurate according to the biblical way of deter-
mining the start of the Jewish year, or should there have been an extra
month added at the end of the previous year in order for the bar-
ley harvest to be ripe for the waving of the wave-sheaf? In other words,
according to the biblical way of calculation, was the Day of Atonement
on September 23 or October 22 in AD 1844?30 Were there any eyewitnesses
29
This system worked for all practical purposes because 235 lunar months have almost exactly
the same number of days as nineteen solar years. The Babylonian system was fixed in place by
the fourth century BC, but probably functioned in a similar way for a century or more earlier,
after a period of experimentation. According to the Babylonian fixed calculations, six of
the seven intercalated months per nineteen years were added as a second Adar (thirteenth
month), but in year 17 the intercalated month was added as a second sixth month of Ululu
(Heb. Elul). Since this practice would have interfered with the seven-month cycle of Hebrew
religious festivals, the rabbinic intercalation of year 17 was also added as a second Adar
(thirteenth month).
30
For the demonstration from astronomical data that the tenth day of the seventh month in
to the Judean barley harvest timing in 1844 that can help us answer this
question? The answer is yes, the Karaites, which brings us to our next point.
The Karaite Jews and the Day of Atonement in 1844

The Karaite Jews are an ancient sect of Judaism, originating in the
ninth century AD. Unlike rabbinical (“Orthodox”) Jews, the Kara-
ites rejected as authoritative the so-called oral torah of the rabbis, and
insisted on basing all their beliefs solely on Scripture (the Hebrew Bible).
They, like Protestant Christians started to do centuries later, upheld the
principle of sola Scriptura—the Bible and the Bible alone as the rule of
faith and practice! The name “Karaite” literally means “People of the
Scripture.” During the “Golden Age of Karaism” (AD 900–1100), the
Karaites comprised about forty percent of world Jewry. What is of spe-
cial significance for our discussion is that Karaite Jews rejected the
pre-calculated rabbinic formulas for determining to which years in the
nineteen-year cycle one should add the intercalated months; instead
they based their calculation upon the biblical method of observing the
ripening of the Judean barley harvest.31
However, over the centuries many Karaite communities, not having
easy access to the data about the Judean barley harvest in Palestine, accepted
the rabbinic method of calculation, until by the middle of the nineteenth
century it seems that almost all Karaites had adopted the pre-calculated
rabbinic method of mathematical calculations rather than the visual sight-
ing of the new moon crescent and the ripening of the barley harvest in
Palestine.32
However, under what the author of the present study believes to be
the providence of God, a remnant of Karaites remained faithful to the
biblical way of calculating the calendar until the Millerite Adventists
could learn the truth about this. In the years surrounding 1844, there
was a little group of Karaite Jews in Jerusalem who still maintained the
biblical way of calculating the festival calendar based upon the Judean bar-
ley harvest, even though most, if not all, other Karaite groups outside of
1844, assuming a new moon in October, would fall on October 22, and not an earlier or later
date, see Froom and Amadon, 1–52.
31
For a discussion of the Karaites and their continuation of the biblical method of calendrical
calculation as opposed to the rabbinic departure from the biblical method, see LeRoy Edwin
Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 2:196–199, 4:792–797.
32
Moshe Gil, “The Origins of the Karaites,” in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to Its History and Literary
Sources, ed. Meira Polliack, Handbuch der Orientalistik Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere
Osten 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 111.
Jerusalem had abandoned this method in favor of the Orthodox fixed

formula of intercalations.33 Even this group of Karaites in Jerusalem
seems to have abandoned the method only a decade or so after 1844.34
So far (at the time of this study) no actual barley harvest records
of the Jerusalem Karaites for the years surrounding 1844 have been
discovered. However, travelers’ reports from about this time, such as the
one by E. S. Calman, make clear that the Karaites in Jerusalem were keep-
ing the festivals according to the biblical way of calculation, which was “in
general” one month later than the rabbinic calendar.35 The Millerite
Adventists were led in particular to Calman’s report and often cited it in
their literature as they discussed the Jewish calendar and the reasons to
33
For a summary of the evidence that Karaite Jews were in Palestine in the years surrounding 1844,
see, e.g., Nathan Schur, History of the Karaites (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 90–91.
34
After the Crimean War (1853–1856) and loss of monetary support from the Crimea, the
numbers of Karaites in Jerusalem sharply declined (Schur, 91), and may have even disappeared
for a time, and this may account for the abandonment of the fixing of the start of the religious
year based upon the ripeness of the barley harvest, until Karaites settled in the state of Israel
in the twentieth century and renewed the practice of calendar calculation.
35
A Jewish rabbi who converted to Christianity, E. S. Calman, “The Present State of the Jew-
ish Religion,” American Biblical Repository (April 1840): 498–426, writes, regarding the festivals,
“I will begin by stating one fact of great importance, of which I was totally ignorant before I
came to this country, which will prove that the seasons of the festivals, appointed by God
for the Jewish nation, have been annulled and subverted by the oral law of the Scribes and
Pharisees, which is now the ritual of the Jews” (ibid., 411–412). After reviewing the biblical
basis for establishing when to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread, Calman continues, “But
at present, the Jews in the Holy Land have not the least regard to this season appointed and
identified by Jehovah, but following the rules prescribed in the oral law, namely, by adding a
month to every second or third year, and thus making the lunar year corresponding to the so-
lar. And when the 15th day of Nisan . . . , according to this computation arrives, they begin to
celebrate the above-mentioned feast, although the khodesh ha’abib [month of the Abib] may
have passed, or not yet come. In general the proper season occurs after they have celebrat-
ed it a whole month, which is just reversing the command in the law, which directs that the
khodesh ha’abib precede the festival, and not the festival the khodesh ha’abib. Nothing like ears
of green corn have I seen around Jerusalem at the celebration of this feast. The Karaite Jews
observe it later than the Rabbinical, for they are guided by Abib, ’abib, and they charge the
latter with eating leavened bread during that feast. I think, myself, that the charge is well found-
ed. If this feast of unleavened bread is not celebrated in its season, every successive festival is
dislocated from its appropriate period, since the month Abib, ’abib, is laid down in the law of
God as the epoch from which every other is to follow” (the Hebrew words are transliterated)
(ibid., 411–412). Another traveler’s report by F. C. Ewald, Journal of Missionary Labours in
the City of Jerusalem (London: 1845), reports on his conversations with Karaite Chief Rabbi
Abraham Halevi (e.g., Ewald, 109), and indicates (ibid., 221) that in the year 1843 the Feast of
Tabernacles fell on the same date for both Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism (beginning October 11).
Unfortunately, Ewald does not report on the festivals in the crucial year 1844, or this could have
settled the matter once and for all!
accept October 22, and not September 23, as the true biblically calculated
Day of Atonement in 1844.36
The Millerites also quoted citations from reputable scholars who sug-
gested that the rabbinic method of calculation— which tended to start the
religious year in March rather than April, and the civil year in September
rather than October—was probably influenced by the Roman calen-
dar, which started in March, and their desire to be more in sync with
common Roman practice or, alternatively, perhaps they were overruled
by Roman authority.37
Modern Karaite Jews in the state of Israel have once again begun
to calculate the beginning of the religious year by the biblical meth-
od, adding an extra twelfth month when necessary so the barley will be
ripe in time to wave at Passover time, and recent calendars based upon
this method often lead to celebrating the Day of Atonement in Octo-
ber (even the latter half of the month) rather than in September, almost
identical to the situation which seems to have been present in 1843–1844.38
The Season for the Barley to Be Ripe

Coupled with this argument from the practice of the Karaites, the
Millerites combined an argument based upon the Palestinian climate
and agricultural seasons. Reference was often made to Johann Buhle’s
“Economical Calendar of Palestine,” based upon empirical “research
of travelers of acknowledged authenticity,” which makes very clear that
36
See, e.g., Midnight Cry, April 27, 1843, 30 and Silvester Bliss, “The Seventh Month Movement,”
The Advent Shield and Review, January 1845, 276–277. For other Millerite and early Adventist
sources that refer to the Karaites and their calculation of the festivals, see the following: Mid-
night Cry, April 27, 1843, 30; February 22, 1844, 243–244; March 21, 1844, 284; April 4, 1844,
297; April 25, 1844, 325; May 2, 1844, 353–355; June 27, 1844, 397; October 10, 1844, 105–107;
October 11, 1844, 118; October 31, 1844, 140; Signs of the Times, June 21, 1843, 123; December 5,
1843, 133–136; True Midnight Cry, August 22, 1844, 1–4; Advent Herald, March 27, 1844, 60–61;
April 3, 1844, 68–69; April 24, 1844, 92–93; August 14, 1844, 15; August 21, 1844, 20.
37
See Himes, Advent Shield, 277, citing Johann Jahn, Jahn’s Biblical Archaeology (Andover, MA;
New York: Gould, Newman and Saxton, 1839), 111–112.
38
For example, the Jewish year equivalent to AD 1999–2000 presented a calendrical situation
almost identical to that of 1843–1844, and according to the Karaite firsthand examination of
the barley in Israel, it was necessary to add a leap month—even though according to rabbinic
reckoning no extra month was added. Thus the Day of Atonement in 1999, figured according to
the biblical way of reckoning, came during the last part of October (October 20), not in Septem-
ber, just like in 1844. See the discussion by Israeli Karaites in several articles on the subject of
calendar calculation based upon the barley harvest, posted on The Karaite Korner, http://www.
karaite-korner.org. It should be recognized, however, that global warming may have had its ef-
fect in making the barley harvest quite erratic, as is evidenced by the widely diverging Karaite
calculations of the Abib from year to year in recent decades.
although the barley is often ripe in Jericho by the end of March, it is not
ripe in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Palestine until some two weeks later.39
Based upon this agricultural data of the seasonal climate in
Palestine reasonably contemporary with the time of the Millerites,
Millerite Adventists rightly concluded that the Jewish religious year
needed to start with a new moon in April, not March, so that the barley
could be ripe some two weeks later. It could not start with a new moon
in March in 1844, as would be true if one accepted a Day of Atonement
in September and not October that year. Thus, according to climate
considerations, the Day of Atonement would need to come in October
of 1844—October 22, to be precise.
A Five-Hundred-Year Precedent for the Beginning of the Year

in Babylonian Chronology
This study refers to the charts of Parker and Dubberstein.40 The au-
thor of the present study was intrigued to examine whether or not,
throughout the entire period of the 70-week prophecy (457 BC to AD
34), the nineteen-year intercalation cycle as practiced by the ancient
Babylonians and those powers who continued them, ever had a year
begin as early as needed in order to have a September 23 Day of
Atonement (tenth day of the seventh month). As one checks the record
of this period of nearly five hundred years, one will search in vain for
even one time when the calendar even came close to starting at such an
early date!41 The earliest attested date during this whole period of the
39
Johann Gotlieb Buhle, “Economical Calendar of Palestine,” in Agustin Calmet, Dictionary of
the Holy Bible (Boston, MA: Crocker and Brewster, 1832), 700–707, a calendar originally pub-
lished in 1785, cited, e.g., in Himes, Advent Shield, 275: “MARCH. . . . “The inundation of the
river Jordan, caused by the melting snow on the mountains, is about the end of this month, at
which time, barley is often ripe at Jericho, when it is about fourteen days earlier than at Jerusalem.
. . . APRIL. . . . Barley is ripe in the beginning of April, in the plain of Jericho. . . In all other parts
of Palestine, it is in ear at this time, and the ears turn yellow about the middle of this month.”
Some have argued that the data from a calendar originally published in 1785 is too far distant
from the 1840s to be relevant, but recent studies have shown that the period of time including
the late eighteenth century throughout at least 1848 constituted “The Little Ice Age” (see Brian M.
Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300–1850 [New York: Basic Books, 2000]),
and these cold climates would make the ripening of grain in Palestine even later than usual.
40
See n. 12 in this study.
41
According to Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, the earliest occurrence of the first day of Nisan
during this whole period is March 26 (and this only rarely), which makes for the Day of Atone-
ment on September 27, still five days beyond the range necessary to fit a September 23 Day of
Atonement. It is true that a few earlier dates are listed in the tables before 457 BC (especially in
the time of Nabopolassar), when the nineteen-year cycle had not yet been fixed, and the Babylo-
nian astronomers were experimenting (sometimes less successfully than others) with calculation
seventy-week prophecy for the tenth day of Tishri is September 30 (one

day shy of being an October date), and this only occurred very rarely.
Even though Babylon and later superpowers were not concerned about
coordinating the calendar with the ripening of the barley harvest, as
were the Jews, nonetheless the regular and consistent time for the start of
the new year was later than needed to have a September 23 date for the
Day of Atonement. Such has implications for the dating of the Day of
Atonement in 1844. If the date is September 23, then such is out of sync
with the dating during the nineteen-year cycle of the time during the
70-week prophecy, the time during which the 2300-day prophecy be-
gan. Therefore, it would be out of sync with the time of the ending of the
2300-day prophecy as well. This leads to the next point.
Direct Mathematical Computation: William H. Shea

In a penetrating study, William Shea proposes that the whole
issue of the Karaite calendar may be bypassed to determine the correct
date of the Day of Atonement in 1844 by direct mathematical computa-
tions connected with ancient calendrical practices.42 Shea reviews the
presence of the nineteen-year cycle of the ancient Hebrew calendar,
based upon “the fact that 235 lunar months have almost exactly the same
number of days as 19 solar years.”43 Shea also points out that accord-
ing to the tables of Parker and Dubberstein, for the years 457 BC and
following there are basically three different positions for the Julian dates
of the Day of Atonement in the intercalary cycle: A) late, B) intermedi-
ate, and C) early. Each of these positions are about eleven days apart,
since, as pointed out earlier, the lunar year (about 354 days) is approxi-
mately eleven days shorter than the solar year (about 365 days), and
thus the date for the Day of Atonement, based upon the lunar calen-
dar (tenth day of the seventh month, Tishri), falls back by about eleven
days every year, until the extra (intercalated) month is added to advance
the calendar forward again and keep it in line with the solar calendar.
So, looking at the time period surrounding the year 457 BC, according
to the Parker and Dubberstein tables, we find the following pattern:
• in 459 BC Tishri 1 was October 12 (the A or late position),

• in 458 BC, it was October 2 (the B or intermediate position), and
methods for intercalation of months. But after 457 BC, and all the way through to AD 75, there
is no record of such an early date for the start of the year.
42
Shea, Selected Studies, 132–137.
43
Ibid., 135.
• in 457 B.C. it was Sept 21 (the C or early position). Then came an

intercalated month and so
• in 456 BC it was back to October 10 (the A or late position).
Since this pattern is consistent for each of the successive nineteen-

year cycles, Shea suggests that we can simply divide the 2300 years of
Daniel 8:14 by 19, and see if the answer comes out even. If so, then the
date for the Day of Atonement will be in the same position (early) as in
457 BC. If our division comes out with one year left over, then the 1844
date will be the next position—that is, the intermediate position etc.
So, Shea does the math: 2,300 ÷ 19 = 121, with one left over. There-
fore, Shea concludes, we can go to the Parker and Dubberstein tables
to see what position Tishri 1 in 457 BC was (late, intermediate, or
early), and then move forward one position to have the correct position
in 1844. Since, according to the Parker and Dubberstein tables, Tishri 1
was in the early or C position in 457 BC (September 21), then it math-
ematically follows that Tishri 1 in AD 1844 should be one position
further in the cycle—that is, reverting to the late (A) position with the
addition of an intercalated year (as in 456 BC). If Tishri 1 in 1844 was in
the late position, then the late date of October 22 is the correct date for
the Day of Atonement that year.
Shea’s methodology seems solid, but this study suggests that two
additional factors need to be taken into account that Shea did not con-
sider. First, Tishri 1 (and the Day of Atonement) was most probably not
in the early position in 457 BC, as speculated (without textual documen-
tation) by Parker and Dubberstein and accepted by Shea, but because
of the intercalated month in 457 BC it was in the late (A) position,
with the Day of Atonement late in October that year. We have dis-
cussed this elsewhere and referred to it in the first part of this study.
Secondly, Shea correctly recognizes that “235 lunar months have
almost exactly the same number of days as 19 solar years,” but he does
not take into account exactly how many days are accumulated over the
period of 2300 years by that very slight slippage. The results of this
calculation are startling and exciting! Over the period of 2300 years,
there was a slippage of about eleven days—the very number that is the
equivalent of one year’s difference between the positions A, B, and C as
described above.44 In other words, instead of there being one day left
44
There are 29.53059 days in a lunar month, and 365.2422 days in a solar year. 29.53059 × 235
= 6,939.6887. And 365.2422 × 19 = 6,939.6018. There is a difference of .08685 between the two,
which means that every nineteen years there are added .08685 days too many, and the Hebrew
calendar “creeps” forward by that much. Between 457 BC and 1844 there are 121 nineteen-year
over after dividing 2,300 by nineteen, this one day is offset by the elev-
en-day (or one position in the cycle) slippage of the nineteen-year cycle
over a period of 2300 years. The result is that 1844 has the same position
(the late or A position, as described above) in the intercalary cycle as
457 BC! If the Day of Atonement was in the late (October) position in
457 BC, then 2300 years later, in 1844, it was in exactly the same late
position—October 22, and not September 23!
The Rabbinic Calendar “Creep” Forward Over the Centuries

One crucial implication of the computations referred to in the pre-
vious point is that by the time of the Millerites’ preaching in the 1840s,
the rabbinic calendar, unchecked by calibration to the barley harvest,
had been allowed to creep forward by nearly eleven days, so that the new
year was frequently, almost regularly, occurring too early for the
barley harvest to be ripe. Between the years 1800 and 1850, according
to the rabbinic calendar the earliest date for Yom Kippur was September
14 (1842) and the latest date was October 14 (1815). These dates average
ten or eleven days earlier than the dates for Yom Kippur during the
period of the 70-week prophecy (457 BC–34 AD).
It is no wonder that the eyewitness Calman could state (ca. 1840)
that the Karaite (biblical) way of calculation for the festivals was “in gen-
eral” one month later than the rabbinic calendar. It wasn’t just a matter of
a choice of which year to add the extra month to; the entire system of
the rabbinic calendar was running one-third of a month ahead of the
biblical method of calculation. To use William Shea’s reference to “po-
sitions” of the date for the Day of Atonement, as mentioned in the
previous point, the Karaite system in the 1840s was still operating on the
A, B, and C positions, but the rabbinic calculations had shifted to the B,
C, and D positions, with the early B position never being as early as
the Karaite/biblical A position, and the late D position always being
too late for the Karaite/biblical position calibrated to the barley harvest.
The disparity between the rabbinic and Karaite calendars is appar-
ent when looking at the rabbinic calendar nineteen-year cycle from the
years 1827 (year 1 of the cycle) to 1845 (year 19 of the cycle). During
this period at least nine times (and perhaps eleven times) out of the
nineteen the rabbinic reckoning for the new year came too early to be
cycles, which means there were 121 x .08685 = 10.50885 extra days added to the calendar, which
has caused the calendar to “creep” forward by nearly eleven days, virtually equivalent one year’s
time difference between a solar and lunar year—or in other words, equivalent to the difference
between “positions” A, B, and C. It is the equivalent of skipping one of the years in the nineteen-
year cycle.
acceptable in a Karaite calendar that correlated with the ripening of

the barley.
For example, in 1842 (year 16 of the nineteen-year rabbinic cycle)
the new year (Nisan 1) came on March 12, an impossibly low year for
any barley harvest correlation with Passover. In the next year, 1843 (year
17 of the nineteen-year cycle), the rabbinic calendar added the second
Adar, and still this (late) A position for Nisan 1 was only April 1. In the
year 1844 (year 18 of the nineteen-year cycle), the rabbinic calendar did
not add the second Adar, and Nisan 1 was March 21, a date too early for
the barley to be ripe in Jerusalem so a ripe sheaf could be waved on Nisan
16. In the year 1845 (year 19 of the nineteen-year cycle), the rabbis added
a second Adar, and Nisan 1 was April 8. Thus, in the four years of
1842–1845, according to the rabbinic calculation, each of those years
in which a second Adar was not added was too early for the barley
harvest correlation with Passover.
F. C. Ewald’s Testimony of Calendar Convergence in 1843

According to the eyewitness account of F. C. Ewald, both Karaites
and Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem kept the festivals on the same day
this year of 1843, and this convergence of dates is regarded as an unusual
occurrence.45 This report is important in showing that in 1843–1844 the
Jerusalem Karaites were indeed still calculating the new year based
upon the ripening of the barley harvest, contrary to modern claims
even by contemporary Karaites.46 Ewald’s comment on this convergence
45
Ewald, 221.
46
Some Karaite Jews in Israel have publicly stated that by the year 1844 all Karaite Jews
worldwide were following the rabbinic methods of calendar calculation, and thus there were
no Jews in Palestine around the year 1844 who calculated the calendar based upon the bar-
ley harvest. Detractors from Adventism have touted this information as “proof ” that “the Day
of Atonement in 1844 is the same as the Rabbinic Day of Atonement which is late September
and not late October” (Robert K. Sanders, Truth or Fables, http://www.truthorfables.com, 2,
citing a letter from Karaite Nehemiah Gordon dated November 27, 1998 from the Karaite
Korner). Unfortunately, neither Sanders nor Gordon were apparently aware of the published
travel accounts of people such as Calman and Ewald, documenting the existence of Jews in
Palestine in 1836 (Calman) and as late as 1843–1844 (Ewald, 221), who still kept the biblical
method of calculating the calendar based upon the Jerusalem barley harvest. The evidence
cited by Gordon is from Egypt and the Crimea, where indeed Karaites had long since begun
to follow the rabbinic methods of calculating the calendar. He does mention one reference by
Karaite Hacham Shlomo ben Afedah Hacohen (written in 1860), which states that “for some time
now the quest for the Abib has been abandoned even in the Land of Israel,” but this statement
does not define “for some time now,” and in light of the traveler’s reports cited above (esp. Ewald),
we may conclude that in the year 1843–1844 the “quest for the Abib” was still undertaken by
Karaites in Jerusalem. That this practice was discontinued shortly afterward only confirms
God’s amazing timing in preserving the biblical practice among Karaite Jews during the time of
probably also implies that although this early date was an intercalated
year for the Orthodox Jews, this was not an intercalated year for the
Jerusalem Karaites (whose intercalations regularly yielded a new year
much further into April).
The disparity between the rabbinic and Jerusalem Karaite calendar
continued, as in 1844 (year 18 of the rabbinic nineteen-year cycle) the
rabbinic calendar did not add the second Adar, while, as we are arguing,
the Karaites in Jerusalem did add this second Adar in order to correlate
with the barley harvest. In this year, according to the rabbinic calcu-
lation, Nisan 1 came on March 21, too early for the barley to be ripe by
Nisan 16, and thus it was necessary for the Karaites to add the second Adar.
In 1845 (year 19 of the rabbinic cycle) the rabbinic calendar added a sec-
ond Adar while, as we argue, the Karaites in Jerusalem did not need to.
Thus the rabbinic and Jerusalem Karaite calendars were very diver-
gent due to the nearly eleven-day slippage in the nineteen-year cycle
from 2300 years earlier at the start of the 2300-day prophecy, and any
convergence (such as reported by Ewald) in a given year only highlights
the more-frequent—in fact, regular—differences. The evidence indicates
that the chances are very great that 1844 was such a divergent year, in
which the Jerusalem Karaites, following the agricultural cycle as direct-
ed in Scripture, added the second Adar to “guard the Abib,”47 while the
rabbinic calendar made no addition, even though the new year started
too early for the barley to be ripe in time for Passover.
Ezekiel’s Typological Day of Atonement

Shifting away from calculations related to intercalated months and
nineteen-year cycles, this study turns to a crucial typological correspon-
dence that cannot be explained as mere coincidence. A discussion else-
where of the covenant lawsuit motif48 looks at the typology of the final
investigative judgment as set forth in the book of Ezekiel. The entire
book of Ezekiel is structured around the theme of Yom Kippur, with the
opening section dealing with the investigative judgment motif of Yom
Kippur, the closing vision of the prophet dealing with the “cleansing/
the Great Advent Awakening and the Seventh Month Movement of the early 1840s so that the
Millerite Adventists could learn the biblical method and not blindly follow the rabbinic calendar.
47
The Karaites quote Deuteronomy 16:1 as follows: “Guard the month of Abib, and [then] keep
the Passover to the LORD your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought
you out of Egypt by night.” “Guarding” the month of Abib is seen as a command to preserve the
proper intercalation of months so that the barley harvest will be ripe in time for the wave sheaf
during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
48
Davidson, Song for the Sanctuary, chap.16; cf. Shea, Selected Studies, 13–20.
restoration” of the sanctuary motif of Yom Kippur, and the center of the
book highlighting the judgment of the “Fallen Cherub” (Ezek 28:11–19,
the antitype of Azazel in Lev 16).49
What is particularly striking in this typology is the timing of the
last vision, given “at the beginning of the year [bĕrō,š hašān ], on the
tenth day of the month” (Ezek 40:1)—that is, the tenth day of the sev-
enth month, which is the Day of Atonement. On what particular Day of
Atonement does God choose to give Ezekiel this vision that pertains
to the eschatological Day of Atonement? He chooses the year in which
the computation of the exact date in our modern equivalent is nothing
less than October 22!50 In this most expansive Old Testament type of the
investigative judgment, God gives not only the major features and is-
sues of the investigative judgment message51 but gives the vision on ex-
actly the same date of the year in which the antitypical Day of Atonement
would begin—October 22. It is difficult to see this date as only coinci-
dental. The details of the typology are perfect, even pointing to the right
date for its fulfillment!
The Typological-Chronological Precision of the 2300 Years at

Their Beginning and End
This last piece of evidence is “icing on the cake.” It may not be a
necessary feature of the typological fulfillment of the festivals that there
be chronological precision and consistency. But if there is such pre-
cise consistency divinely built into such typological chronology, the
following is worth noting. This study discussed earlier that the weight
of evidence points not only toward the fall of 457 BC as the start of
the 2300-day and 70-week prophecies, but more precisely toward
the Day of Atonement as the probable exact date when the decree of
Artaxerxes went into effect that year. We also learned that since 457 BC
was probably an intercalated (“leap month”) year (or else Ezra would
have begun his return on a Sabbath), and that Day of Atonement (Tishri
10) took place that year in the last part of October (not September)—
October 30, 457 BC, to be exact. If consistency and precision are involved
49
See detailed discussion in Richard M. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book
of Ezekiel,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David
Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: The Institute of Archaeology/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological
Museum, 1997), 71–93.
50
Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48,
Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress,
1983), 346; Parker and Dubberstein, 28.
51
See Davidson, Song for the Sanctuary, chap. 16.
in the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, then we could expect

that the end of the 2300-day prophecy, like its beginning, would take
place 1) on a Day of Atonement, 2) in the last part of October, and
3) in an intercalated (“leap month”) year. Such is the case: in 1844, the
Day of Atonement took place in late October of an intercalated (“leap
month”) year, just like 2300 years earlier. Only if one intercalates an
extra month in the year 1844, bringing one to October 22 instead of
September 23, do this precision and consistency become evident.
Conclusion
In light of the evidence presented above—including the evidence

from the Karaite calendar and typology, but especially the direct calcu-
lation based upon Shea’s methodology—this study concludes with a
high degree of probability (although without the barley harvest records
for the Jerusalem Karaites from 1844 it cannot yet be proven absolutely)
that in the year 1844, the Day of Atonement occurred on October 22,
not September 23, and this date marks the beginning of the antitypical
Day of Atonement predicted in Daniel 8:14.
In summary, the beginning and ending dates of the 2300-day
prophecy of Daniel 8:14 are solid and secure with regard to the year
(457 BC and AD 1844). We may also be more precise in regard to the
exact dates—probably beginning on the Day of Atonement in 457 BC
(October 30), and certainly ending on the Day of Atonement in AD
1844, which in that year, according to the biblical reckoning, almost
certainly fell on October 22, not September 23.
CHAPTER 7
“The Great And Terrible Day Of

The Lord”: The Power Of Emotions
And Emotive Language In Biblical
Apocalyptic Texts
Chantal J. Klingbeil
Gerald A. Klingbeil
Emotions are a crucial part of human existence. They are part of com-
plex coping mechanisms installed by a Creator God whose own emo-
tions—and particularly the biblical assertion that He is love (1 John 4:8)—
are reflected in humanity’s creation in the imago Dei, the “image of God”
(Gen 1:27).1 Joy, exuberance, anticipation, pleasure, delight, and happi-
ness must have all been part of God’s original design for humanity for
they characterize our existence today. Unfortunately, anger, sadness,
sorrow, fear, depression, dejection, misery, and fury became part of our
emotional repertoire following the fall in Genesis 3.
The study of emotions in the Bible is an area of research that has
only recently enjoyed increasing interest.2 Many of these studies focus on
1
2
For a more comprehensive review of current research into emotions in the Bible, see Gerald
A. Klingbeil and Chantal J. Klingbeil, “‘My Heart Is Fainting in Me’ (Jer 8:18): Emotions and
Prophetic Writings in the Bible,” in The Gift of Prophecy in Scripture and History, ed. Alber-
to R. Timm and Dwain N. Esmond (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2015), 142–144. A
more limited number of research focusing on emotions in Revelation and apocalyptic literature
has been published in the last decade. See, e.g., David Arthur DeSilva, “The Strategic Arous-
al of Emotion in John’s Visions of Roman Imperialism: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of
Revelation 4–22,” Neotestamentica 42, no. 1 (2008): 1–34; DeSilva, “The Strategic Arousal of
Emotion in the Apocalypse of John: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of the Oracles of
emotions expressed in texts.3 A casual look at commentaries and general

introductions to apocalyptic literature illustrates the point that there is
seldom any reference to the emotions or emotional expressions of the
biblical text or the author. In the words of Paul Kruger, “emotions were
for a long time regarded as part of the irrational, uncontrollable, and
subjective aspects of humankind that do not justify serious study.”4
This study focuses on the little explored field of the emotions and
emotive language in biblical apocalyptic literature, concentrating on
selected texts from Daniel and Revelation.5 The authors of this study
presuppose the wholistic nature of human beings in this research,6 as re-
flected in both Old and New Testaments. This means that since we were
created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26–27), we assume
that our emotions and emotive makeup also reflect in some way God’s
emotions—even though we recognize that ours are subject to sin while
His are not.7 This wholistic view of human beings suggests that emotions
the Seven Churches,” New Testament Studies 54, no. 1 (2008): 90–114; Andrew Harker, “The Af-
fective Directives of the Book of Revelation,” Tyndale Bulletin 63, no. 1 (2012): 115–130; and David
Seal, “Emotions, Empathy, and Engagement With God in Revelation 6:9–11,” Expository Times
129, no. 3 (2017): 112–120.
3
However, Sara Kipfer, ed., Visualizing Emotions in the Ancient Near East, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 285 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2017), offers a new angle focused on
the expression of emotions in ancient images and iconography. The volume contains eleven
contributions, divided into case studies and more theoretical discussions, that seek to discover
and adequately interpret emotions that have become “fossilized” in iconographic depictions.
4
Paul A. Kruger, “Depression in the Hebrew Bible: An Update,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies
64 (2005): 187.
5
An example of understanding emotions as a rhetorical device in extrabiblical apocalyptic lit-
erature can be found in Steven Weitzman, “Warring Against Terror: The War Scroll and the
Mobilization of Emotion,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40 (2009): 213–241. While Weitzman’s
focus is on military strategy, his textual analysis highlights the importance of emotions to
manipulate troop psychology. The close link between text and emotive response also underlies
the present authors’ research.
6
See Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 2012), 109–116.
7
Emotions represent only one of the characteristics of being created in God’s image and likeness.
Earlier research argued that the capacity to speak and express complex emotions in language
was part and parcel of having been created in the image of God. Cf. Gerald A. Klingbeil, “‘He
Spoke and It Was’: Human Language, Divine Creation, and the imago Dei,” Horizons in Biblical
Theology 36, no. 1 (2014): 42–59, esp. 45–49. Other elements reflective of God’s image and like-
ness include freedom of choice (between good and evil), the ability to think and reflect (also
in abstract terms), and even physicality. More comprehensive research of this important topic
includes Annette Schellenberg, Der Mensch, das Bild Gottes? Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung
des Menschen im Alten Testament und in den weiteren altorientalischen Quellen, Abhandlungen
zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 101 (Zürich: TVZ, 2011), and, more recently,
Catherine L. McDowell, The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind
“The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord” 125
are an integral part of the overall human existence.8 As argued in ear-

lier research,9 the authors propose that emotions and emotional expres-
sions are an integral part of God’s prophetic message communicated
through His prophets. They contribute to the meaning of that message
and are not accidental literary byproducts.
Before attempting to describe the emotional involvement of proph-
ets in a divinely given vision and the reaction of the prophet to this vision,
this study will offer a working definition of emotions and attempt a brief
review of how emotions work. This will be followed by a discussion of
selected negative and positive emotional expressions in the apocalyp-
tic books of Daniel (focusing on chapters 7–12) and Revelation, as well as
some of the emotive responses that the reader of these books is encour-
aged to experience. Finally, we offer some tentative conclusions growing
out of this pioneering research.
How Emotions Work: Toward a Definition of Emotions
Because emotions are so intrinsically interconnected with our gen-

eral makeup as human beings, it is often difficult to adequately define
them. To complicate matters further, emotions have to do with expres-
sion as well as experience. In other words, we experience emotions and
then also express emotions. They are communicated in the form of
facial and linguistic expressions—in verbal or physical expressions and
in written forms. Thus it may be more useful to define what an emotion
does, rather than what it is.
Klaus Scherer provides an excellent definition of emotion, regarding
what it does. He suggests that an emotion is “an episode of interrelated,
synchronized changes in the states of all or most of the five organismic
subsystems in response to the evaluation of an external or internal
stimulus event as relevant to major concerns of the organism.”10
It should be noted that emotions are normally triggered by stimulus
events. In other words, something happens to trigger an emotion in a
in Genesis 2:5–3:24 in Light of mīs pīt pî and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt,
Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 15 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2015).
8
Aecio E. Cairus, “The Doctrine of Man,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed.
Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000),
205–232.
9
See G. A. Klingbeil and C. J. Klingbeil, in n. 2.
10
Klaus R. Scherer, “What Are Emotions? And How Can They Be Measured?” Social Science
Information 44, no. 4 (2005): 697.
person. Sometimes another emotion is triggered or amplified by our evalu-

ation of the event afterwards. Elizabeth Phelps, a psychologist at New
York University, reminds us of the close link between the mind and
emotions.11 Emotions are generated by thoughts and memories and these
then react upon the mind processes and strengthen or inhibit certain
mental processes. It is even possible to generate an emotion by imagined
representations.12
Emotions serve in a certain sense as “relevance detectors.” We gener-
ally get emotional about people and things we care about. It has been sug-
gested that emotions are also the biggest influence on behavior and can
interrupt a behavioral sequence and serve as the trigger for setting new
goals and plans.13
Emotions impact communication and social interaction. The physical
appearance, albeit often involuntary, of facial expressions leads to a reac-
tion in one’s conversation partner. Subtle changes in nonverbal expressions
may indicate dissonance from verbal expressions and communication.14
Finally, an emotion is more than a feeling. While seemingly elusive
and hard to define, emotions, unlike feelings, do produce measurable dif-
ferences in the central nervous system.15 Recognizing the close relationship
between mind and emotions, we now turn our attention to the question
of how emotions interact with prophetic text.
Prophetic Emotional Responses
Although the text does not often directly address the emotions of
the prophetic author of an apocalyptic text, a variety of techniques are
used to portray the prophet’s emotions. As has been noted by Phinney,
most prophetic books use a combination of third-person narrative and
the prophet’s own voice in their portrayals in order to indicate personal
(and, at times, emotional) responses.16
11
Elizabeth Phelps, “Hold That Thought,” Discover (July–August 2014): 31.
12
Scherer, “What Are Emotions?” 700.
13
Ibid., 701–702. Cf. Klaus R. Scherer, “Physiological Models of Emotion,” in The Neuropsychol-
ogy of Emotion, ed. Joan C. Borod, Series in Affective Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 138.
14
See Paul A. Kruger, “The Face and Emotions in the Hebrew Bible,” Old Testament Essays 18
(2005): 651–662, for facial expressions associated with certain emotions in the Old Testament.
15
Scherer, “What Are Emotions?” 709.
16
David Nathaniel Phinney, “The Prophetic Persona in the Book of Ezekiel: Autobiography and
Portrayal” abstract (PhD diss., Yale University, 2004).
One of the most common ways of expressing emotions in the

biblical text (and particularly the Old Testament) is to speak of emo-
tions as bodily occurrences.17 Even in English emotions are often spoken
of as “bodily” experiences. For example, we may say that on hearing
bad news “we went weak in the knees,” or that a person’s statement made
one’s “blood boil.” Kruger includes a helpful list of nineteen physiologi-
cal changes marking fear in the Hebrew Bible.18 They include physical
agitation (involving “trembling” [Exod 19:16], “quivering” [Exod 15:15],
“shaking” [Exod 20:18], or “quaking” [Exod 15:14]), an increased heart
rate (Ps 38:11), blood leaving one’s face (the Hebrew qibĕ û pā rûr
in Nahum 2:11 literally means “gathered paleness”), hair straighten-
ing (Job 4:14–15), inability to move (Exod 15:16), inability to breathe
(Dan 10:17), etc. Similarly, Kruger lists numerous metaphorical ex-
pressions involving anger, including the body as a container for anger
(Isa 30:27; Ezek 38:18), increasing anger that produces steam (2 Sam 22:9;
Job 4:9), anger as fire (Isa 30:27; Jer 4:4; etc.), or anger as an opponent
(Ps 69:25) or a dangerous animal (Ezek 43:8).19 The positive emotion of
joy often involves semantic domains of singing and proclaiming.
Furthermore, joy can be seen in distinct body parts. Joy makes a
cheerful face (Prov 15:13) and lights up the eyes (Prov 15:30). Joy is
also marked by a mouth filled with laughter (Job 8:21; Ps 126:2).20
17
Strong emotions can be measured physiologically. Elevated blood pressure, sweating, increased
heartbeat, and muscle spasms, among other physical phenomena, can indicate bodily emotive
responses.
Paul A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of Fear in the Hebrew Bible,” Jour-
18
nal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27 (2001): 79–87.

19
More examples can be found in Paul A. Kruger, “A Cognitive Interpretation of the Emotion of
Anger in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26 (2000): 187–191.
20
The Psalms are an emotional hotbed, expressing the full range of human and divine emotions.
The issue of the imprecatory psalms (e.g., Pss 5, 17, 28, 35, 40, 55, 59, 70, 71, 79, 80, 94, 129, 137,
139, 140) and their relationship to biblical theology and ethics has engendered numerous mono-
graph-length studies. See, e.g., John N. Day, “The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (2002): 166–186; Nancy L. DeClaissé-Walford, “The Theology of the Impre-
catory Psalms,” in Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary
Scholarship, ed. Rolf Jacobson (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 77–92, 176–178; and Brent A.
Strawn, “Sanctified and Commercially Successful Curses: On Gangsta Rap and the Canoniza-
tion of the Imprecatory Psalms,” Theology Today 69, no. 4 (2013): 403–417. Space limitations will
not allow an appropriate discussion in this study of these challenging expressions of emotion of
revenge directed toward enemies and adversaries. Considering the wholistic nature of biblical
theology and inspiration, the Evangelical argument that these emotions are consistent with an
Old Testament covenant but inconsistent with the New Testament covenant must be dismissed.
Rather, the existence of a full range of human emotions in the Psalms is a good reminder of the
fact that all emotions can be brought to God and can be expressed to Him. Furthermore, one of
the key motifs of the imprecatory psalms involves divine justice. Their existence in the Psalter
Beyond these more general descriptions of emotions, we will now look

at specific examples of the authors’ emotional involvement in their apoca-
lyptic messages.
Prophetic Emotional Involvement in Divine Visions
Apocalyptic visions are not detached academic exercises for

Daniel and John (and other prophets who received visions pointing to
final events). They not only observe events and places in vision, but are
often active in the vision, becoming emotionally involved in the scenes
portrayed. John is told to eat a book during the vision (Rev 10:9).21 He
also is given a measuring rod and told to participate by measuring
(Rev 11:1). Furthermore, both Daniel and John often participate in visions
by asking and being asked questions (e.g., Dan 10:20; 12:8; Rev 1:13; 17:7).
Both prophets also feel a range of emotions in vision. When catch-
ing a glimpse of God’s glory, they often experience the sensation of fear
and awe. After seeing someone “like the Son of Man” (Rev 1:13), John
falls at His feet “as dead” (Rev 1:17). Daniel’s experience is similar. In his
vision Daniel notices a ram and a goat, and is trying to make sense of
what he is seeing when Gabriel approaches to explain. Daniel reports
that he was frightened and fell on his face (Dan 8:17; cf. 10:8).
Fear, however, is not the only emotion experienced in vision. For
example, emotional participation in a vision is illustrated by John,
who becomes so intricately involved in the vision of the scroll with the
seven seals that he weeps much (Rev 5:4) when no one is found wor-
thy to open the scroll. Notice the extreme emotion accentuated by the
intensification of the verbal action.
Not all of John’s emotional involvement in vision is negative, as il-
lustrated by his reaction to the woman drunk with the blood of the
saints in Revelation 17. When John sees her he marvels with “great amaze-
ment” (Rev 17:6). The literal translation of the Greek text would be “I
points toward God’s judgment day when true justice will prevail. In the face of ever-increasing
injustice and human suffering, this is a good reminder of divine justice transcending all evil
powers. This justice is rooted in God’s character, His law, and His grace.
21
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 550, argues that the “eating” of the scroll clearly echoes
Ezekiel 2:8–3:3, which is part of Ezekiel’s call narrative. “The prophet’s [Ezekiel] eating of the
scroll signifies his identification with its message. . . . John’s eating of the scroll has the same
meaning as Ezekiel’s, although the historical situation is different. It represents for both
prophets their total identification with and submission to the divine will as a prerequisite for
their service as prophetic instruments in God’s hand. Their message carries with it the power
of God’s word because it is, in fact, God’s word” (ibid., 555–556).
marveled a great marvel,” expressing great astonishment.22 Translators

and commentators have struggled to understand this expression because
this emotion could express a positive sense of awe.23 The same Greek
word is used in Revelation 13:3, describing the astonishment or marvel
of the whole world as it witnesses the miraculous recovery of the beast
from its fatal wound. In Revelation 13 this astonishment transforms
observers into followers. John’s emotional expression in Revelation 17:6
must have been so obvious as to evoke a question by the accompanying
angel in verse 7.
For the prophet Daniel the intensity of the emotion he experiences
in vision and the struggle to make sense of it results in him becoming so
anguished as to even become physically ill. Following his vision of the
2300 evenings and mornings, Daniel lay ill for several days. He was
“astonished” by the vision because it was for him at that time beyond
understanding (Dan 8:27).
Emotional Responses in Daniel and Revelation
Beyond the obvious recognition of emotional involvement or re-

sponses to divine messages, the following discussion distinguishes more
specifically between negative and positive emotions depicted in the
books of Daniel and Revelation. We will attempt a more systematic
approach without claiming completeness.
Negative Emotions in Daniel and Revelation

Apocalyptic literature normally covers big action and sweep-
ing events; yet it is also punctuated with strong, almost larger than life,
contrasting positive and negative emotions and emotional responses to
the climactic events described.
Even a superficial reading of Revelation cannot miss the descriptions
of vivid physical pain experienced by the wicked and the correspond-
ing emotions of terror and fear this invokes. For example, after the fifth
trumpet, men are described as being in agony as if stung by scorpions.
22
See Robert G. Bratcher and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on the Revelation to John, UBS
Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 246. David E. Aune, Revelation 17–
22, Word Biblical Commentary 52C (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998), 938, interprets the term more as
perplexity and puzzlement.
23
Beale, 860–861, calls the reader’s attention to the LXX text of Daniel 4:17, 19, where the same
Greek root is utilized. The Aramaic text of the Hebrew Bible expresses the idea of being “ap-
palled” in Daniel 4:16. “Astonished perplexity” may be a good rendering of the Greek terms in
line with the use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt 27:14; Mark 12:17; 15:5; etc.).
The pain is so intense that they wish for death (Rev 9:5–6).24 Another
graphic description of the physical pain experienced by the wicked is
depicted in Revelation 16, after the bowls of God’s wrath have been
poured out. Those who have the mark of the beast experience loath-
some sores, scorching heat, and a painful darkness. The intensity of this
negative emotion is demonstrated by the fact that the wicked gnaw their
tongues in agony and react by cursing (Rev 16:10, 21).25
The book of Revelation is full of surprises and some of these are
emotionally charged. In Revelation 11 we hear that the inhabitants of
the earth celebrate and send gifts (Rev 11:10). In the Hebrew Bible, gift
giving is often associated with affirming existing social relationships
or initiating new ones.26 Similarly, the bonds of God’s opponents from
“peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations” (cf. the corresponding group
of those needing to hear the good news found in Revelation 14:6) are
strengthened by their shared celebration of the death of God’s two
witnesses, who have even been refused a burial. The gloating is short-
lived though, as the resurrection of the two witnesses and their ascension
culminates in a great earthquake that leaves the survivors terrified and
giving glory to the God of heaven (Rev 11:13). The use of “give glory”
suggests a positive reaction, yet it is used here as a shortcut for confes-
sion, but not necessarily repentance.27 Echoing Joshua’s plea to Achan
in Joshua 7:19, who was admonished to “give glory to the Lord God of
24
The Greek text reflects a typical Semitic parallelism. Those suffering under the torment of
the locust attack “will seek death” (zētēsousin . . . ton thanaton, Rev 9:6) and “shall desire to
die” (epithymēsousin pothanein, Rev 9:6), referring most likely to suicide. God’s enemies pre-
fer suicide over pain—indeed an extremely strong emotional response to a seemingly hopeless
situation (Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
[Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002], 368). Concerning suicide as an emotive response
involving shame and honor, see, most recently, Jan Dietrich, Der Tod von eigener Hand: Studien
zum Suizid im Alten Testament, Alten Ägypten und Alten Orient, Orientalische Religionen in der
Antike 19 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).
25
Darkness is not usually painful, but darkness is used here as an indication of judgment. In
the Hebrew Bible the “day of the Lord” is often associated with darkness (Amos 5:20; 8:9; 1 Sam
2:9; Isa 8:22; Joel 2:2, 10, 31). Jesus uses this same imagery (Matt 8:12; 22:14; 25:30; etc.). Darkness
seems to produce torment and fear, leading to pain inflicted by biting one’s tongue. Prior to
creation, there was absolute darkness, so darkness hints at de-creation and judgment. Osborne,
588, argues that the close association between darkness and pain suggests judgment with eternal
consequences, even though he may have in mind eternal punishment—a doctrine that lacks solid
biblical support and is theologically dubious.
26
Gary Stansell, “The Gift in Ancient Israel,” Semeia 87 (1999): 65–90.
27
Osborne, 433–435, conveniently summarizes the literature about the interpretation of this
difficult text. Beale, 602–605, makes a good case for the interpretation that this confession did
not lead to repentance and offers a number of relevant texts from the Hebrew Bible.
Israel, and make confession to Him,” the inhabitants of the earth are
to confess God’s righteous judgments. The declaration of God’s righteous-
ness is an important element in theodicy and the cosmic controversy
between God and Satan.28 In Revelation we see even natural emotional
responses that are turned upside down, and sometimes a positive emo-
tion helps underline the decadence and unnatural emotions of the wicked.
The most frequently used negative emotional reactions of those
who have spurned God’s mercy to the unfolding drama of the end time—
which Daniel describes as “the time of trouble such as never was since
there was a nation” (Dan 12:1)—is weeping and mourning (Rev 18:9, 15, 19)
and sheer terror (Rev 18:10–12).29 This emotive response suggests des-
peration and the realization that salvation is not available anymore.
An unusual emotion is attributed to those who worship the beast
in Revelation 14:11. Intriguingly, they are described as having “no rest
day or night.” This rest is more than a stop of physical activity and de-
scribes well their underlying angst and the baseline emotional state they
operate in as their world falls apart by the events transpiring in the end
times. Since the message of the three angels of Revelation 14 is also
closely associated with the Sabbath (cf. Rev 14:6–7, 9–11), this experi-
ence of “un-rest” is directly related to the rejection of the true worship of
the Creator, including the Sabbath.30
28
See the intriguing discussion of theodicy in the book of Revelation in A. Simojoki, “The Book
of Revelation,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 652–684. While Simojoki does not specifically mention Revelation 11:13,
his hermeneutical and theological observations are pertinent and helpful. Cf. the more system-
atic treatment of God’s righteousness in Ed Zinke, “The Revelation of His Righteousness,” in
The Great Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Ángel
Manuel Rodríguez in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerhard Pfandl (Silver Spring,
29
Mourning and weeping were often associated with death and judgment in the Hebrew Bible.
See Gary A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in
Israelite Religion (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991); Xuan Huong
Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 302 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Katherine
M. Hayes, ‘The Earth Mourns’: Prophetic Metaphor and Oral Aesthetic, SBL Academia Biblica 8
(Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002).
30
See here Jon Paulien, “Revisiting the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adven-
tist Theological Society 9, nos. 1–2 (1999): 183: “There is no direct allusion to the OT in the book
of Revelation that is more certain than the allusion to the fourth commandment in Rev 14:7.”
See also Mathilde Frey, “The Theological Concept of the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation,”
in “For You Have Strengthened Me”: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl
in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Martin Pröbstle et al. (St. Peter am Hart: Seminar
Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 223–239.
While the focus of emotional activity is the earth, God does not
stand emotionless or aloof. But rather than directly attributing emotions
and emotional responses to God, His emotions are couched in indirect
form. In Revelation 16 we hear of the bowls of God’s wrath, which
are poured out by different angels upon the earth. God’s wrath here is
depicted as a liquid. In Revelation 14:10 we see those with the mark of
the beast drinking the “wine of the wrath of God,” which is poured
out undiluted into the cup of His indignation. In keeping with the im-
agery of wine, we also have the grapes trampled in the winepress of the
wrath of God in Revelation 14:19. This metaphorical description of
God’s emotions serves to counteract the medieval image of a continually
angry God actively seeking to punish sinners.
The fact is that God’s anger is not directed at sinners but at sin.
Righteousness and vindication of His character and His people are at
the center of the book of Revelation. “Is God just to allow his people to
be treated unjustly by wicked men, and is he just to exact divine warfare
against the earth’s inhabitants?” asks Alan Brady. “In a sense,” he continues,
that is one of the primary questions addressed in the book of

Revelation when it is voiced by the souls of martyred saints in
Revelation 6:10. The answer to this question is found throughout
John’s vision amid scenes of judgment, wrath, and vindication.
The vision unambiguously depicts how the sovereign Judge of
the universe will render just verdicts that accord with His
standards of truth and righteousness. He will hold all of humanity
accountable for their sin, but especially for the way they treated
His own covenantal people.31
God loves sinners and continues to reach out to mankind, but

when they reject Him there is a point of no return (Rev 22:11) at which
sinners who cling to their sin will experience God’s righteous anger at
sin. They have chosen to drink the cup. The presence of God will then
bring only torment for them (Rev 14:10–11). These are those who re-
spond to the greatest event in history, the second coming, with mourning
(Rev 1:7) that becomes absolute terror as they “seek death, hide in caves
and plead with the rocks to fall on them” (Rev 5:15).
God and humans are not the only ones experiencing negative emo-
tions in the cosmic controversy. John notes some other emotive responses
31
Alan S. Bandy, “Vengeance, Wrath and Warfare Images of Divine Justice in John’s Apocalypse,”
in Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem, ed. Heath A. Thomas
et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2013), 128.
to end-time events by other participants. The eagle in revelation calls

out in a loud voice, “Woe, Woe, Woe” (Rev 8:13), intensifying the an-
guish that will result from the three angels’ trumpet blasts. The woman
in Revelation 12:2 cries out in pain of childbirth. The pain is intensified
as the reader realizes that this birth pain is psychological too as the
dragon stands in front of the woman ready to devour her child as soon
as he is born. Gratefully this pain becomes a blessing as the woman
gives birth to a child who will rule with an iron scepter—and then the
child is caught up to God.
At this point we are given the emotional motive for the master-
mind behind all this cosmic upheaval and the source of all the negative
emotions. The great fiery red seven-headed dragon who has failed
to destroy the newborn male child is enraged at the woman and in re-
sponse goes to make war against the rest of the woman’s offspring
(Rev 12:17).32 Unlike God, whose anger and wrath are specific and not a
product of personal vengeance, the enraged dragon will try to destroy
and take with him as many people as he can.
Positive Emotions in Daniel and Revelation

As has already been pointed out, the apocalyptic events depict-
ed in the books of Daniel and Revelation call out strong emotional
responses in all participants. Everyone in heaven and on earth is affect-
ed. All of the heavenly host seem to be involved, and they demonstrate
empathy even for those suffering the results of their own choices. There
are no whispered backroom conversations, but angels repeatedly call-
ing in loud voices. In some cases, a loud voice denotes urgency, as
shown by the angel with the seal of the living God calling out to four
angels holding back the four winds (Rev 7:1–3); or the mighty angel of
Revelation 18 who illuminates the earth and calls in a loud voice, sug-
gesting the worldwide impact of his message announcing the fall of
Babylon the Great. In one unusual case there is a mighty angel who shouts
with a loud voice that sounds like a lion’s roar and the seven thunders re-
spond, but John is not permitted to record what they say (Rev 10:1–7).33
32
The “enraged” dragon in Revelation 12:17 is the same devil, “having great wrath” in Revelation
12:12. Rage and anger are characteristics of those who persecute God’s people (cf. Dan 3:13, 19;
Acts 5:33; 7:54).
33
The command to seal up the utterances of the seven thunders and the prohibition to record
them in Revelation 10:4 has been interpreted as a hint that even while God is making the hid-
den known (after all, that is the purpose of the Apocalypse), His plans still remain hidden from
humanity until the end of history. In other words, we know only partially—a good reminder to
remain humble in our interpretation of Revelation. Cf. Beale, 534.
They seem to invoke the emotion of mystery and help the reader focus
on the solemn oath that follows and the unveiling of the “mystery of God.”34
Even in the book of Daniel, with its much-condensed apocalyptic
overview, we find heavenly agents and entities fully involved in the visons.
In Daniel 7:16 a heavenly messenger explains the vision to Daniel, while
in chapter 10 another heavenly being of impressive appearance offers
explanations. This man-like being dressed in priestly linen clothing
has a face like the appearance of lightning and a voice like a multitude
(Dan 10:6).35 Those with Daniel flee in terror at the sound of this voice
even though they are not in vision. Daniel is left with no strength, face
down on the ground (Dan 10:8–9), and needs the next ten verses of
reassurance, comfort, and strengthening before he is in any condition
to get up and take in the rest of the vision’s explanation (Dan 10:10–19).
Most often the loud voices are an expression of intensely joyful
emotion, which is channeled into singing and falling down in worship.
The twenty-four elders, the four living creatures, the saints, the ten thou-
sand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands of angels (Rev 5:11)
repeatedly demonstrate this intense joy as they see God’s rescue plan
unveiled (Rev 7:9–12, etc.).36
Emotions are not only conveyed by actual emotive words but also
by literary forms and genres in the biblical text. Public and private mo-
ments of victory and joy are often expressed in poetic verse and song.37 In
34
Beale, 543, makes a good case for interpreting the genitive tou theou in to mystērion tou theou
in Revelation 10:7 as a subjective genitive, thus rendering the phrase “the mystery that God
has revealed.” This mystery is not just the plan of salvation, as in other New Testament references
(Rom 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19; etc.), but is specially linked to God’s end-time
plan.
35
Interpreters have wondered about the identity of the individual. See John E. Goldingay, Daniel,
Word Biblical Commentary 30 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), 290–291, for a brief discussion of the
identity of the figure. The question of whether the heavenly being is an angel or the Son of God
(cf. Dan 7), however, is not highly relevant for the concern of this study.
36
The hymnic nature of Revelation 5:11–14 has been widely recognized in the commentaries.
See Beale, 364–366; Osborne, 261–266; Alan Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 469–470;
and Joseph L. Mangina, Revelation, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2010), 92–94. Most comments, however, focus on the sevenfold acclama-
tion and the specific content of the praise and worship and tend to overlook the sheer joy and
exuberance communicated through the loud voices.
37
See, e.g., the song of Moses (Exod 15:1–19), Hannah’s prayer-song (1 Sam 2:1–10), and Mary’s
song (Luke 2:46–55), also known as the Magnificat. As has been suggested repeatedly, all these
songs are anchored in the language and thought world of the psalms. Worship breathes joy
and the recognition that there is one above all. Cf. Marko Marttila, “The Song of Hannah and
its Relationship to the Psalter,” Ugarit-Forschungen 38 (2006): 499–524.
the book of Revelation there are numerous references to this highly

emotive genre of songs (Rev 4:8, 11; 19:1–5; etc.). In Revelation 5:8–9 the
four living creatures and the twenty-four elders don’t just fall to the ground
and sing; they sing a “new song” after the Lamb proves worthy to break
the seal that no one could open. The concept of a “new song” appears
repeatedly in the Psalms (Ps 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 144:9; 149:1) and is usually
considered a conscious response to a specific divine blessing or mercy.
Grant Osborne suggests that the reference to a “new song” in Isaiah 42:10
“is eschatological and connected to the appearance of the ‘servant of
Yahweh’ and the ‘new things’ (Rev. 5:9) God was about to introduce.”38
This “new song” imagery is repeated in Revelation 14:3 and linked to
God’s coming kingdom, which will be completely different from the sin-
stained reality John (and we) know today.
Revelation 7:14–17 serves as an example of poetic verse that conveys
intense joy, hope, and comfort as one of the elders explains the reward
of those who come out of the great tribulation. It has been well recog-
nized that tēs thlipseōs tēs megalēs, “the great tribulation,” is an echo of
Daniel 12:1 and closely associated with the end times.39 Their experience
of salvation (“washed their robes and made the white in the blood of
the Lamb,” Rev 7:14), their location close to God, and their constant ser-
vice to their Master and the promise to never hunger or thirst or mourn
and cry again must result in a sense of joy and jubilation. Who can re-
main quiet when we experience God’s wonders and grace?
In contrast to the wicked who find no rest, there is a sense of peace-
fulness that seems to pervade God’s people facing the end times. There
will be pain and even death for the righteous as the drama of history
unfolds (Rev 6:10), but they know that all will end well and this gives
them an understated peacefulness and patience (Rev 14:12). Those who
die are blessed as they find rest (Rev 14:13).
In contrast to the wrath of God being poured out on the wicked, we
have a very hands-on description of the act of God bringing healing and
joy after the pain experienced by the saved. Revelation 21:4 depicts God
in the very intimate act of wiping every tear from their eyes (cf. Rev 7:17;
most likely echoing Isa 25:8). Death’s death and God’s restorative prom-
ises are introduced by this extremely intimate description of God wiping
away tears. The same Creator God who shapes mankind from the dust of
the earth is now wiping away every tear. The positive emotional envi-
ronment of the new heaven and the new earth is often expressed by the
38
Osborne, 259.
39
The LXX of Daniel 12:1 uses the same Greek term. Ibid., 324. Beale, 433–435.
absence of things and events that cause negative emotions. There will be
no more mourning of the dead, crying or pain (Rev 17:7), no night, noth-
ing impure, shameful or deceitful (Rev 21:25–27), and no more curse
(Rev 22:3). Even things that represent a good and needed part of life (like
a temple, the sun, or moon) are not needed there anymore (Rev 21:22–23),
because the saved see God face-to-face (Rev 22:4) and live with Him as
His children (Rev 21:7).
Anticipated Reader Response

As we have seen emotional involvement in the apocalyptic texts of
Daniel and Revelation is universal, with God and all living beings being
described as emotionally invested. Unlike other prophetic biblical lit-
erature that focuses primarily on the immediate audience, the apocalyp-
tic books of Daniel and Revelation directly include a distant end-time
audience and seek to intentionally involve this audience emotionally.
Although Daniel knows that the end will not be in his lifetime
(Dan 12:9), the audience is warned of “a time of trouble such as never
was” (Dan 12:1). Those who have not chosen to be a part of God’s people
and have died will awake to the emotions of shame and everlasting con-
tempt (Dan 12:2), while the wise will have not just everlasting life but
will shine like the stars (Dan 12:3). The power of shame in Eastern cul-
tures (including the Bible’s) has been well documented.40 Shame is an
emotional response, and a distinct possible translation for “contempt”
is abhorrence.41 Both express strong emotional responses. Their appear-
ance in the context of a resurrection underlines the notion of theodicy,
the justification and vindication of a righteous and just God, before the
universe.
In the final chapter of Revelation, attempts to emotionally involve
the reader are even more directed as this prophecy is not sealed because
the time is near (Rev 22:10). The reader is invited directly to “come”
(Rev 22:17). Those who keep the words of the prophecy are blessed or
40
See, e.g., Paul A. Kruger, “On Emotions and the Expression of Emotions in the Old Testament:
A Few Introductory Remarks,” Biblische Zeitschrift 48, no. 2 (2004): 213–228 and Lyn M. Bechtel,
“The Perception of Shame within the Divine-Human Relationship in Biblical Israel,” in Uncover-
ing Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson, ed. Lewis M. Hopfe (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 79–92.
41
The Hebrew term dērā’ôn dērā ôn (“contempt”) appears only once more in the Hebrew Bible—
in Isaiah 66:24. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary 18 (Nashville, TN:
Broadman and Holman, 1994), 317, writes, “Isaiah’s use of the term appears to explain the sig-
nificance of the expression in Daniel 12:2. So shocking will be the fate of the lost that onlookers
must turn their faces away in horror (or disgust). This ‘contempt’ will be ‘everlasting,’ that is, it
will endure for eternity.”
happy (Rev 22:7); they have washed their robes and have a right to the
tree of life (Rev 22:14) and the free gift of the water of life (Rev 22:17).
On the other hand, those who attempt to tamper with the prophecy
are warned of extra plagues and God taking away the reader’s rights to
the city; his name would be removed from the book of life (Rev 22:18–19).
Conclusion
This brief introduction to the emotions and emotive language of

biblical apocalyptic literature in Daniel and Revelation suggests that emo-
tions and emotive language were an integral part of the vision experience
and are also part of the reading process of apocalyptic literature.
Emotions have many functions in apocalyptic literature. They serve
as mnemonic devices to help keep the message vivid in the mind of the
prophet as well as the audience.
Emotions serve as relevance detectors. Thus emotional expressions
in the prophetic books can serve to highlight certain themes or sections
of a vision. Daniel’s reaction to the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and
mornings heightens the importance of the vision, builds tension, and
underlines the later explanation of this prophecy (cf. Dan 8:27).42
The fact that emotions are one of the biggest influences on human
behavior and can interrupt a behavioral sequence and serve as a trigger
for setting new goals and plans seems to be reinforced throughout the
apocalyptic literature. The goal of apocalyptic literature is not simply to
predict the future or provide a timetable for end-time events, but rather
to bring a sense of the sinfulness and consequences of sinful behavior.
Furthermore, the reward of surrendering to God is part of the divine
strategy to inspire the audience to set new goals and new plans. This
represents in essence the biblical concept of repentance or “turning
around.”43 This goal is reflected most clearly in the choice of language in
Daniel and Revelation, which is often calculated to shock, startle, and
get attention. By clearly showing the emotional involvement and mo-
tivation of God (who is love) and the devil (who is angry and vicious),
as well as plainly portraying the emotional consequences of being one of
the wicked or one of the saved, these apocalyptic books attempt to trigger
42
Note also John’s weeping in Revelation 5, which magnifies the importance of the eventual
breaking of the seals and underlines the centrality and importance of the Lamb, who is the only
one worthy to break the seals.
43
Note the insightful essay by Katherine Moloney, “Weeping, Warning, and Woe in Revelation
18: The Role of Lament in Establishing Collective Responsibility and Enabling Collective Repen-
tance,” The Expository Times 127, no. 7 (2016): 313–328.
an emotional response from the immediate and distant audience that will
lead many to join in the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev 15:3) before
God’s throne.
CHAPTER 8
The Progression In The Signs of

The Parousia in the Eschatological
Speeches Of Jesus
Jan Barna
Matthew 24 is a rich and challenging text with interesting com-

position, largely mirroring the text of Mark 13, but with its own twists
and turns.1 There are, as one would expect, many detailed Greek text-
critical commentaries on this important chapter. Engaging with several
of them, one quickly discovers that while they bring out the richness of
individual verses, they also largely seem uninterested in the overall
narrative composition and flow of its themes.2
1
With respect to the text of Matthew 24, David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of
Matthew 24:1–41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” Grace Theological Journal 10, no. 1
(1989): 27, has admitted that “the eschatological discourse of Christ in Matthew 24–25 stretch-
es the interpreter to the limits of human understanding and Christian obedience. One must
come to terms with two genres of biblical literature, narrative and prophecy.”
2
Due to space limitations, this study is limited in its engagement with several substantial
representative sources that illustrate the trends at large. Among these are: Donald A. Hanger,
Matthew 14–28, Word Biblical Commentary 33B (Dallas, TX: Word, 1995), 682–717; Ulrich Luz,
Matthew 21–28: A Commentary, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 158–211; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, New Inter-
national Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 954–1037; David
Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, Gospel Perspectives 4 (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984); R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, New International Greek Testament Com-
mentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 494–546; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, Word
Biblical Commentary 34B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 285–337; Adela Yarbo Collins,
Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minne-
apolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), 591–619; John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, Word Biblical Commentary
35C (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 981–1015; François Bovon, Luke 3: A Commentary on the Gospel of
In this study, in contrast to the traditional verse-by-verse approach

of the commentaries, we will step into text composition territory and
propose a reading suggesting that the text of Matthew 24 (and similarly
the texts in parallel synoptic chapters in Mark 13 and Luke 21) is cohe-
sive and could be argued to be thematically unified. It will be argued that
there is an underlying literary and thematic framework of progression
from “beginning,” through “urgency,” to “immediacy” of the parousia
that has been largely overlooked.
Matthew introduces the plot to Jesus’ eschatological speech right at
the beginning; by doing so, he drops a major clue as to how to under-
stand the composition of the dramatic speech that follows in Matthew 24:
“Take heed that no one deceives you,” says Jesus to His bewildered dis-
ciples. “Many will come saying ‘I am Christ’ and will deceive many.”
Jesus’ response is a warning about deception, clustered around three
main concerns: 1) the progression to (the immediacy [eggys] of) the
parousia in three stages; 2) the indications (tauta) of the parousia that dis-
tinguish the stages; and 3) the actual sign (to sēmeion) of His parousia,
which is different from the indications of the parousia. In our analysis of
the text and our exploration of its theology, we will carefully notice what
exactly the text, especially in the account of Matthew, has to say about
these three key composition elements, and then draw our conclusions.
The Method
Before we move to the specific proposal just outlined, it is pertinent

to mention a couple points regarding the methodology of this study.
The history of the interpretation of Matthew 24 has been conflicting and
turbulent, resulting in many varied approaches with contrasting con-
clusions. Perhaps the most dominant approach among exegetes and
their commentaries is one that can be defined as the historical text-crit-
ical approach that follows a close comparative reading of the (alleged)
sources of Matthew 24 (mainly Mark 13).
The method of our investigation follows a close reading of the text
approach, which assumes the text can be read as a unified and coherent
piece and that there is interpretative value in approaching it on its macro-
textual level. This study refers to this approach as theological-thematic or
macro-thematic. This is not a competing model against a purely exegetical
Luke 19:28–24:53, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 99–131; and Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1978), 532–552, 752–784. Specific Adventist contributions to the topic are discussed
later in this study.
The Progression in the Signs of the Parousia in the Eschatological Speeches of Jesus 141
approach, but rather a complementary and even necessary one to com-

plete the basic exegetical work.
The reality is that a purely exegetical approach to the text of
Matthew 24 can create tensions, which oftentimes are left unresolved.3
This study aims to demonstrate that a macro-thematic reading based
on close reading, driven by the final form of the text and treating the
text as one unit, can provide perspectives that enable it to be interpreted
and applied by readers beyond the first century.4
Overview of Main Interpretative Approaches

to Matthew 24
There are essentially five ways the text has historically been ap-
proached in the scholarly literature:5
3
For example, Ulrich Luz’s commentary in the Hermeneia series demonstrates a historically
oriented and technical approach. However, such close micro-contextual reading of Matthew 24
raises the question of hermeneutics. Is it possible to comprehend the text as exegetically self-ex-
planatory? The very close reading of Luz leads often to various interpretative options and only
with the help of historical maneuvering is he able to land on “reasonable” interpretations that have
some sort of (theological, historical, and language) credibility for him. The hermeneutical ques-
tion is how far one should extend the boundaries of theological and/or historical contexts. This
seems to be a core factor in approaching a complex, dense, and serious text like this, which itself
has the potential to become a foundational theological text for other texts and interpretations in
the New Testament.
4
The application point is a serious one in interpreting Matthew 24. It is precisely here where
“the rubber meets the road.” One of the best examples of how a purely exegetical model fails
readers in this respect could be seen in the scholarly acclaimed Hermeneia series. Here the con-
clusion by Luz, 210, regarding the meaning of the parousia of the Son of Man leaves the readers
without any foundation of what it means: “Believing in the return of Jesus appears to require a
new understanding of time. The Matthew text offers no direct help here even if the ignorance
even of the Son, programmatically stated in v. 36, encourages us to search in this direction.”
According to Luz, Jesus was ignorant about the nearness of time, and in this way, He is an en-
couragement for us. The readers are to search as the disciples did, and see if they can find a new
“physics” of time. At the end, there is no revelation or explanation of the coming for readers
beyond the time of Matthew. Luz’s historical model has no application power and essentially
defeats the purpose of hermeneutics, which, according to Anthony Thiselton, The Two Hori-
zons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1980), 530, is to hear the prophetic word from beyond the other horizon of understanding. David
R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice
of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 373, also display a similar atti-
tude. No such thing, however, is heard in Luz’s interpretation. He leaves contemporary readers
out to dry.
5
A helpful summary of these can be found in Luz, 185–189. Turner, 4, proposes four main ap-
proaches to the text: 1) preterist (historical) interpretation—that “the current age is in view, with
the emphasis on the destruction of Jerusalem”; 2) futurist (eschatological) interpretation, which
“stresses the age-ending return of Christ and finds little if anything in these verses which addresses
1) Eschatological interpretation applies all of Matthew 24 to the end

time immediately preceding the parousia. This is the oldest approach,
evidenced in Didache 16:3–7 and later by Irenaeus, Heresies 5.25.2 (late
second century) or Hippolytus, Hilary, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Of the
five approaches, this one had the most influence on classical dogmatics.
Lutheran and Reformed interpreters distinguish between general signs
that occur repeatedly throughout history—wars, plagues, heavenly
phenomena, etc.—and special signs that warn that the end of the world
is near—false security of the end time, the coming of the Antichrist,
and the end of the whore Babylon.6 Matthew 24 has a marginal role in
Catholic dogmatics, which deals more with resurrection and the last
judgement, but not with the return of Christ.
2) Historical interpretation tells of the transition from when the text
originated to God’s final intervention at the turning point of history. It
is represented primarily by Antiochene John Chrysostom and the exe-
getes he influenced. For him, the wars are those that led to the destruction
of Jerusalem; the nations are the Romans; and false Christs and proph-
ets are those who appeared in the first century and onwards, such as
Simon Magus and Jewish messianic prophets. The end is the final de-
struction of the city of Jerusalem. The great tribulation is also inter-
preted historically. There is no interest in current events in this type of
interpretation.7
3) A mixed type of interpretation is a combination of eschatologi-
cal and historical interpretation and was understood in the early church
as a separate type. It was popularized by Augustine’s letter to Hesychius,
his fellow bishop. The signs are distributed differently in this interpre-
tation. The general rule in this type of interpretation is that historical
signs relating to the destruction of Jerusalem are also eschatological signs.
Just as there have been false prophets such as Simon Magus, so there will
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 or the current age”; 3) traditional preterist-futurist interpre-
tation, which “sees a portion of the passage (usually 24:4–14) as a general description of the course
of the present age, and another portion as a ‘double reference’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction
and the end of the age”; and 4) revised preterist-futurist interpretation, which “sees alternating
reference in these verses to the course of the age, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the coming of
Christ.” Ibid., 26, concludes that “the traditional preterist-futurist view is the most promising solu-
tion to the exegetical difficulties of this passage.”
6
See Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. G. T. Thompson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1978), 697 and John W. Beardslee, ed., Reformed Dogmatics (New York: Oxford University Press,
1965), 179.
7
The interpretation is weak in that it overlooks the transition in Matthew 24:22–23 from destruc-
tion to future. On the other hand, it is able to assume a closed chronological progression for
Matthew 24:4–31.
also be other eschatological false prophets before the parousia. What

applied to the time and situation before the fall of Jerusalem will also in
some way apply to the last judgement. The prophecies that were, in one
sense, fulfilled still remain unfulfilled in another.
4) There are two categories in the church history type of inter-
pretation: 1) either the historical interpretation was extended by later
interpreters into their own present or 2) there was, in their own
day, the eschatological history predicted by the text. There are many
examples of people who applied elements of texts to events (e.g.,
abomination of desolation applied to papacy) or people (e.g., Zwingli
identified Anabaptists with the false prophets) of their own time, includ-
ing Luther. This interpretation type is popular today in many evangelical
and especially dispensationalist circles.8
5) Spiritual or psychological/personal interpretation attempts to ap-
ply the text directly to the life of the individual. For example, Origen, the
great Christian allegorist, combines literal interpretation with spiritual,
completely abandoning the framework of universal history. Parousia is
the appearance of the word in the soul. He interprets the text in rela-
tion to the experiences of an individual who is spiritually perfect. “Those
who want to see the glorious appearance of Christ in their souls experi-
ence spiritual famines and sicknesses.”9 In essence, the second coming
of Christ has a “higher” and “simpler” form. In the simpler form, Christ
comes literally. In the higher form, Christ comes in His glory as Wisdom
(Logos) to the spiritually perfect. The texts about the literal second com-
ing of Christ are for those needing milk, which Origen defines as “every
interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot re-
ceive greater truths.”10 It is then the perfect ones who will see His glory
when He comes to the soul. To them, Christ comes as they die and sin
reigns no more in their mortal body. For Origen, this is the true and
full meaning of the Scriptures about the revelation of His glory, His
second coming, and the coming of the kingdom.11
8
E.g., John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1974) and Hal Lind-
sey and Carole C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970).
9
Luz, 189.
10
The full definition by Origen, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, trans. John Pat-
rick, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Allan Menzies, vol. 9 (New York: Christian Literature Com-
pany, 1897), 466–467, is “every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot
receive greater truths might reasonably called milk, flowing from the holy ground of the Scrip-
tures which flows with milk and honey.”
11
See Origen, 12:29–43.
In all five models of interpretation, we notice that exegesis does not

appear to operate neutrally. Rather, there is an intriguing relationship
between one’s theological or textual pre-understanding and exegesis. As
David L. Turner helpfully points out,
a point which calls for reflection concerns the relationship be-

tween exegesis and systematic theology. It is interesting to
note how a particular exegesis of an individual passage comes to
be linked with a certain theological system as if the exegesis is
required by the system.12
In this sense, whatever interpretative model we choose to follow, it

seems that our pre-understanding of the nature of the biblical text, its
composition and unity or disunity, history and eschatology, will, so to
speak, preprogram our interpretative strategy.
In the Seventh-day Adventist context, a triple overlapping themat-
ic reading has been proposed, where the text has historical, prophetic,
and even apocalyptic concerns.13 This view is strong in that it is able to
create basic thematic unity of Matthew 24, while not neglecting the
obvious historical concerns of the text.14
Concise Overview of the Text and Its Structure
The text of Matthew 24 can be structurally summed up as follows:
1. A general introduction to the setting of the speech is found in

verses 1–2.15 The disciples point Jesus’ attention to the temple
12
Turner, 26.
13
See, e.g., Jon Paulien, “Indicators of the End Time: Are the ‘Signs’ Really Signs? The Role
of Signs as Christians Await the Second Coming,” Ministry, June/July 2000, 18–21; Hans K.
LaRondelle, “Viewpoint: The Application of Cosmic Signs in the Adventist Tradition,” Minis-
try, September 1998, 25–27; and Hans K. LaRondelle, “Did Jesus Intend to Return in the First
Century?” Ministry, May 1983, 10–13. See also Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-
Time Prophecies of the Bible: A Biblical Contextual Approach, enlarged ed. (Bradenton, FL: First
Impressions, 2007).
14
This study will later discuss in more detail two basic Adventist approaches to the text of
the final signs of parousia.
15
While most of the commentators attach verses 1–2 thematically to chapter 24, there are some
who attach it to chapter 23. For example, Luz, 168, links the text of Matthew 24:1–2 to the mes-
sage of woes starting in chapter 23. For him the “woes discourse is a concise, tightly composed
unit. It consists of an introduction (vv. 1–12), the seven woes (vv. 13–33), and the pronouncement
of judgement (vv. 34–39), with a concluding symbolic act of Jesus (24:1–2).” The issue for Luz is
buildings, to which He answers that they will be destroyed.

2. The plot of the speech begins in verses 3–4. The surprised dis-
ciples ask questions about when “these things” will take place, and
what the signs will be of Jesus’ coming and the end of the world
(v. 3). This section includes Jesus’ warning about the deception
of false Christs (v. 4).
• Verses 5–8 detail the first set of “these things”—external
indications of the beginning of troubles.
• Verses 9–14 and 21–27 give the second set—internal indi-
cations about endurance in the midst of tribulation and
deception, after which “then end will come.”
• Verses 15–20 contain a historical clarification regarding
the great tribulation coming to Judea (and the world).
3. The immediacy of the parousia is seen in verses 28–31. Here the
plot is answered, in the third set of heavenly indications and the
sign of the coming.
4. The parable of the fig tree—with the message to “be ready”—offers
a general conclusion in verses 32–35.
The text could be structured in other ways too.16 Effectively the struc-
ture is driven by core assumptions interpreters bring to the text such as
preference for historical or eschatological reading, or the influence of
Mark and/or a presumed Q on the text.17
that in the context of Jesus leaving the temple (indeed God Himself, Matt 23:38), the disciples’
interest in the temple building may suggest lack of understanding. Hence the suggestion is that
Jesus will have to educate them more. See Luz, 165.
16
Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies, 44, proposes that the struc-
ture of Matthew 24 is patterned according to the book of Daniel in a manner of progressive
parallelism: “In Matthew 24 two parallel forecasts can be distinguished, each of which concludes
with the end or the second advent of Christ: the first in verses 1–14; the second in verses 15–31.”
Similarly, David Wenham, “A Note on Matthew 24:10–12,” Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980): 161, pro-
poses that the passage in Matthew 24:10–12 describes “an eschatological upsurge of apostasy in
Danielic terms.” While the author of the present study agrees with the basic premise that the
book of Daniel served as a major inspiration behind the eschatological speech of Jesus, the pro-
posal that therefore the whole structure of Matthew 24 follows a repetitive style of progressive
parallelism as in Daniel (e.g., chaps. 2, 7 and 8) may be plausible, but is not fully convincing—
particularly from the overall narrative and plotline composition perspective.
17
An example of an imposition of a historical horizon on the text and its resulting structuring is
visible in Luz, 182, as the structure of Matthew 24:6–28 is the following: Verses 6–14 and 15–28
are two parallel descriptions that announce the same events from different perspective. In the
first main section the perspective is general while in the second section the focus is on Judea. The
overall structure is then: 1) Verses 3–5—situation and introductory question from the disciples.
2) Main point anticipated—first warning against false prophets. 3) Verses 6–14—end-time events
with regard to the world: a) verses 6–8 general, b) verses 9–14 in the church among the nations,
A Theological-Thematic Reading of Matthew 24
The eschatological narrative in Matthew 24 begins unassumingly.

The disciples’ joy in sharing the temple’s beauty turns into a nightmare
scenario. The temple will not last, says Jesus. Matthew 23 has already pre-
pared the way for what is coming, yet still the text very realistically cap-
tures the eschatological shock of the disciples at Jesus’ response. The reason
is that from the time of ancient prophets such as Isaiah, there had been
an expectation in Israel that the temple would be at the forefront of the
final messianic activity: 18 “In the last days the mountain of the LORD’s
temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be
exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it” (Isa 2:2, NIV; see
also 45:20–22; 49:6; 55:5; 56:6–8; Mic 4:1).19
The temple and the end times are intrinsically linked in Israel’s the-
ology. One could almost infer that when the disciples turned Jesus’
attention to the temple and its beauty, they were hoping for a response
from Jesus that would shed more light on His end-time messianic acts
for Israel and indeed other nations. The temple was expected to be the
Messiah’s headquarters from where He would bring the whole world to
the feet of the one true God. The disciples could be forgiven, therefore,
for their excitement about the temple and for unassumingly suggesting
its prospect to Jesus.
But Jesus’ response pours cold water on their eschatology, and as ques-
tions follow Jesus continues to explain. The primary concern for Jesus is
the deception that will come to the world through false messiahs. The
key part of the answer, then, is how to recognize the true parousia of the
Messiah from the false ones.
“These Things” and “the Sign” of Parousia

Textually it is important to notice some key terms introduced as
part of setting the scene. One of those is the word tauta (“these things”)
and the other sēmeion (“sign”). “And Jesus said to them, ‘Do you not
see all these things?’ . . . the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
c) verse 11—second warning against false prophets. 4) Verses 15–28—end-time events with regard
to Judea: a) verses 15–22—Judea general, b) verses 23–28 in the church, c) verses 36–26—third
warning against false prophets. 5) Verses 29–31—conclusion: the end, the coming of the Son of
Man. On the other hand, for an example of a historicist-eschatological model, see LaRondelle,
How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies, esp. chap. 6.
18
This was also the expectation in the apocryphal literature in the Second Temple period: 2 Ezra
6:25–26, 1 Enoch 48:4–5, Sibylline Oracles 3:710–723, and Testaments of Levi 18:3–9.
19
‘Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the age?’” (Matt 24:2–3, emphasis supplied).
There are apparently two different subjects here: “these things” and “the
sign.” The first subject, “these things,” is plural and the second subject, “the
sign,” is singular.
The Sign
It is very important to notice the issue of the singularity of semeion
right from the beginning. In the New Testament literature and beyond,
semeion is “the authenticating or identifying sign,” the “sign whereby the
recipient may recognize the identity of the sender,” and a “prodigy that
is recognizable and provides proof for everyone.”20
Thus the issue relating to semeion is twofold. One has to do with
the giver of the sign, which is a proof or indication of identity, and the
other with the recipient, who has to verify or understand the sign in order
for the giver to be recognized. The sign thus “has demonstrative power
only for souls that are well-disposed or believing.”21
If we apply this semantic meaning of “sign” to the narrative in
Matthew 24, does it perhaps mean that the disciples are asking for a par-
ticular sign by which they can verify the true parousia? If so, the situation
can be summed up as follows: The horrified disciples ask for an explana-
tion. Jesus tells them that there will be a particular authenticating sign.
When the sign appears perhaps amidst other “signs,” the believers in
the Messiah’s speech will recognize it because Jesus told them that it is
this particular sign that authenticates His parousia.
There is a twofold process here at play: 1) of revealing the authenticat-
ing sign, and 2) of verifying it by the audience. The sign itself could be
a mundane thing or occasion, but it could well be the sign if the readers
know what to look for. The sign has demonstrative power only to those
who heard and believed the speech of Jesus.
Given the plot and the normal semantic meaning of sēmeion, this
study suggests that the singularity of the sign points to one authenticating
sign of the parousia of Jesus, and not to many. This could also be con-
firmed by Jesus’ final answer as to what the sign is: “Then the sign of the
Son of Man will appear in heaven” (Matt 24:30). Matthew uses the word
“sign” only twice in the singular form—in verse 3 and verse 30.22 In
20
C. Spicq, “Semeion,” in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. James D.
Ernest, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 251–252.
21
Ibid., 3:254; cf. John 12:37.
22
The third time Matthew uses the word “sign” in chapter 24 (v. 24), it is used in plural
Jesus’ speech it appears to point to one particular authenticating sign

only. It is therefore somewhat imprecise to talk about the many signs of
Jesus’ parousia.23
If we take the plot (the issue of deception) seriously, then the idea of
one particular sign to identify the true Messiah makes sense. This way
the followers of Jesus would not be deceived. They know there is one
particular sign that identifies the true Messiah.
These Things
This brings us to the second issue from the introductory verses of
Matthew 24: the issue of “these things” (tauta). The word tauta is used
five times (vs. 2, 3, 8, 33, 34). Jesus’ answer about the timing of the end
appears to revolve precisely around tauta, or, as we call them here,
“indications.” These indications structure the overall context into a pro-
gressively developing image leading up to the sign and the parousia.
Here we can agree with Jon Paulien’s conclusion that “the famines,
pestilences, earthquakes, wars, and rumors of wars are not listed as signs
of the end in Matthew 24. Instead they are ‘signs of the age,’ events that
would occur throughout the interim between Jesus’s earthly ministry and
the end. Jesus did not want those who observe such events to calculate
their significance for the timing of the end. Instead, He wanted those
who observe wars, earthquakes, and famines to keep watch.”24
While Paulien does not follow closely Matthew’s language, calling
tauta “signs,” yet importantly he distinguishes thematically between the
indications and the actual end, which is our concern. However, the main
point with regard to general indications of the age (tauta) is that with-
in the overall context of Matthew 24 they create a picture of threefold
progression to the parousia.
semeia. Here, however, the word is part of an idiomatic Old Testament phrase “signs and won-
ders,” pointing back to the narrative of Exodus. More on this usage later in this study.
23
It is noteworthy that commentaries do not tend to reflect the singularity of sēmeion in their
exposition. This goes directly against the close reading of the text and also against understand-
ing the plot of the text. See, e.g., George R. Knight, Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom (Boise,
ID: Pacific Press, 1994), 235–240. In particular Knight says, “Jesus gives them a long list of signs,
beginning in verse 5” (ibid., 235). While he claims that his exposition is based on a “careful read-
ing of the text,” such language, and consequently the conclusions, do not follow directly from the
language, plot, and structure of progression of Matthew (ibid., 236).
24
Jon Paulien, What the Bible Says About the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
1994), 157.
The Three-Step Progression to the Parousia
There are several key marker words/statements that structure the

text into a progressive image. These are: 1) “the beginning” (verse 8 and
also the corresponding “the end is not yet” in verse 6), 2) “he who en-
dures to the end” (verse 13 and also the corresponding “then the end will
come” in verse 14), and 3) “immediately” (v. 29).
It is noteworthy that the indications mentioned by Jesus fall into three
different thematic categories that could be contextually separated under
markers of “the beginning,” “then the end will come,” and “immediately.”
The Indications of “the Beginning” (tauta archē)

The indications (tauta) of “the beginning” are described in verses 6–8:
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are
not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is
not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes
in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
There is a twofold repetitive description of the initial indications of

the parousia. First, verse 6 provides a generic description or summary of
wars and rumors of wars. This is followed by a specific reiteration in verse
7: nation over nation, kingdom over kingdom. In the second part, some
manuscripts also add hungers, plagues, and storms (earthquakes).25
25
Regarding the issue of earthquakes, as the word seismos is traditionally rendered, it is appropri-
ate to point out that this translation is not altogether conclusive in the New Testament. Seismos
occurs fourteen times in thirteen New Testament texts, including six times in the Gospels. In its
basic sense it appears to point to “earthquake” and/or “storm.” It is thus the context that should
determine if it applies to an earthquake or a storm. In Matthew 8:24 it clearly means a storm,
as “a great tempest arose on the sea.” In Matthew 24:4, the text considered here, the meaning is
not obvious from the context, since it could refer either to a storm or an earthquake. In Matthew
27:54—“Those with him . . . saw the earthquake”—the context is not indicative of the meaning;
it could be both. In Matthew 28:1–2—“Behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of
the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on
it”—again, the context here is not obvious. It could be either storm or earthquake. In Mark 13:8,
just as in Matthew 24:4, the meaning is not obvious. And in Luke 21:11, it is the same case. In
Acts 16:26—“Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were
shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed”—it
may appear that the earthquake is preferred here as the meaning, but it does not necessarily
exclude the sense of a storm either. The word for “shaking” (saleyō) could also mean “unset-
tling” and its general meaning is “a. properly, of the motion produced by winds, storms, waves,
etc.” (see Thayer’s Lexicon). While on the surface the meaning of seismos appears to be clear,
indicating an earthquake, deeper analysis of the term reveals that the shaking could be the
Importantly, concerning the first thematic section on the indications

of the parousia, the text mentions 1) wars, rumors of wars, and nation over
nation and kingdom over kingdom;26 2) famines; 3) storms/earthquakes
(in places); and 4) “fearful sights and great signs from heaven” (Luke 21:11).
These are related to the general context of wars and general upheaval
among nations, and thus are indications of the upheavals of war.27
Crucially, twice in this first section, there is a progression marker stat-
ing that this is “not the end yet” and that all “these things” (panta de tauta)
are only indicative of “the beginning of pain”: 1) alla oupō estin to telos
(Matt 24:6) and 2) panta de tauta archē ōdinōn (Matt 24:8).
Thus, the text of Matthew 24, from its outset, appears to have an in-
built thematic structuring that creates a narrative of progression as to how
the parousia will be unveiled. The reader will be prudent to notice the
shaking caused by a storm. This is lexically and semantically possible. In Revelation 6:12—“There
was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became
like blood”—the meaning is not obvious. It could be both, even though verse 14 says, “And
every mountain and island was moved out of its place.” The moving of mountains and islands
could be the result of an earthquake, but it could also be a separate action of God on nature.
The meaning is therefore not conclusive here. In Revelation 8:5—“Then the angel took the cen-
ser, filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunder-
ings, lightnings, and an earthquake”—similarly, the meaning is not obvious; it could mean both.
The two instances in Revelation 11:13—“In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a
tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand people were killed”—may indicate on
the surface an earthquake, but a storm also makes sense. In Revelation 11:19—“Then the temple
of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there
were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail”—the meaning is incon-
clusive, as it could mean both. And finally, in Revelation 16:18—“And there were noises and
thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earth-
quake as had not occurred since men were on the earth”—the meaning is not obvious here
either. However, given the description of lightnings, sounds, and thunders, the “storm” meaning
probably fits here more than the “earthquake.” Apart from Acts 16:26, there is no direct refer-
ence to the shaking of the ground or earth in the texts. The word seismos could in all biblical
references mean “storm,” which has potential to shake the elements of earth or water. On the
other hand, the meaning of seismos as “storm” is obvious from Matthew 8:24.
26
The word akoas (“rumors”) is a report, something that is heard. In the text there is a difference
between actual wars and what is no more than a report. A report about a war could be of a war
that is yet to break out or a false rumor. In either case, a report is about a war that has not hap-
pened yet or does not exist.
27
For a description of “fearful sights and great signs,” see, e.g., Josephus, Jewish Wars 6.5.3,
§288–300, 4.4.5 and Tacitus, Historiae 5.13. Among other things these historians mention, the
appearance of a star resembling a sword over Jerusalem; a bright light surrounding the altar, or a
temple gate open at its own will; visions of heavenly armies; a sudden radiance from the clouds
illuminating the temple; or a non-human voice heard to cry that God was departing, accompa-
nied by a mighty stir as of a departure.
progressive nature of Jesus’ eschatological talk.28

The first indications mentioned by Jesus could also be characterized
as thematically unified. They could be termed external indications in the
world at large, either relating to wars among nations, famines (which
could also be related to wars), or natural phenomena such as storms or
earthquakes. All these could be seen as relating to earthly powers.29
The Nearness Indications (tote exei to telos)

The second thematic category that falls under the marker of the ex-
pression “then the end will come” is in Matthew 24:9–14, with its parallel
section in verses 21–27.
Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and
you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then
many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate
one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive
many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will
grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this
gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a wit-
ness to all the nations, and then the end will come (Matt 24:9–14)
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been
since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever
shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would
be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened
(Matt 24:21)
Then if anyone says to you, “Look, here is the Christ!” or “There!”

do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and
show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the
elect. See, I have told you beforehand (Matt 24:23–24).
28
In this sense Paulien, What the Bible Says, 157, placing the indications of “the famines, pes-
tilences, earthquakes, wars, and rumors of wars” into general “signs of the age”—“events that
would occur throughout the interim between Jesus’ earthly ministry and the end”—would
thematically belong to the tauta arche section—the indications of the beginning. Similarly,
Knight, Matthew, 236–237, says that the role of the signs in Matthew 24 is to reassure us “that
the faithful, covenant-keeping God has not yet finished the plan of salvation. . . . They are signs
that the end is coming, but they are not the real signs of the end. . . . The pattern of Matthew 24
appears to be that the real signs are not signs of nearness but signs of coming.”
29
The text’s horizon is global; the entire world with its nations is conceived. All of “these things”
are not yet the end. E.g., there have always been earthquakes—they were well known to the
readers in the first century (in Antioch, 37 BC; Phrygia, 53 AD; Asia, 61 AD; Lycus Valley, 61 AD).
Therefore if they say to you, “Look, He is in the desert!” do not go

out; or “Look, He is in the inner rooms!” do not believe it. For as
the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also
will the coming of the Son of Man be (Matt 24:21–27).
The second set of indications is introduced in Greek by tote, generally

translated as “then.” In the context of the disciples’ question from verse 3, it
could also mean “as well as this,” indicating that Jesus is continuing to add
to His answer.30 Luz here interprets tote as meaning “that which follows
in time.”31
In terms of the thematic context of the section, John Nolland notes
that “Jesus’s answer to the disciples’ question in verse 3 continues, em-
phasizing now the distinctive experience of Christians.”32 Followers of
Christ will firstly experience the hate of non-Christians, but this pas-
sage indicates, starting in verse 10, that there will also be fallout with-
in the Christian church. In verse 10 kai tote (“and then”) marks the
chronological or logical sequence “and as a result,” indicating that the
discussion continues.33
Thematically, there are nine specific indications mentioned in this
section: “tribulation,” “hated by all the nations for my name’s sake,” “many
will be offended,” “will betray one another,” “will hate one another,” “many
false prophets will rise up and deceive many,” “lawlessness will abound,”
“the love of many will grow cold,” and “this gospel of the kingdom will
be preached in all the world.”
In the parallel passage—which, while primarily addressing the his-
torical situation in Judea from verse 15, later turns into a more generic
description from verse 2134—there are two additional, but rather dra-
matic, indications mentioned: “great tribulation, such as has not been
since the beginning of the world” and “false christs and false prophets
will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive.”35
30
For example, Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 965.
31
Luz, 192.
32
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 964. Furthermore, “what comes here is distinctive to follow-
ers of Jesus. Except that now the setting is the wider world and not primarily a context within
Judaism” (ibid., 965).
33
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 965.
34
According to Luz, Matthew 24:21 introduces the apocalyptic typos of the tribulation and it then
becomes an echo of verse 9. The closest to the language of verse 21 is Daniel 12:1 in Greek. Heōs
tou nyn (“until now”) is LXX language (twelve times). See Luz, 198.
35
“Signs and wonders” is an idiomatic Old Testament phrase used predominantly in relation
to the exodus event. The point here is that these will be attractive to the believers because for
In both sections, apart from the indications, the emphasis falls on

“who endures” (v. 13) and “do not be deceived” (do not believe/do not go
out/see I have told you) (vs. 23, 26). The deception mentioned by Jesus
in verse 3 is here explained in more detail and hence also the warning
against it is depicted in dramatic terms.
Similarly, the “extinguishing of love” is depicted in vivid terms as be-
ing one of the indications in the text. Since love was the key principle of
Jesus and His followers, it is even more shocking that the Greek term
psygēsetai (psychō), “to grow cold” or better translated here as “go out”
or “be extinguished” (in the context of fire or flame imagery), indicates a
total loss of love imagined in the text.
Apart from noting the second set of indications mentioned in Jesus’
continuing answer, it is crucial to notice the two structural markers in
verses 13 and 14: “he who endures to the end” and “and then the end will
come.”36 What stands out in both these concluding remarks is that there
is no sense of immediacy here. Rather, the emphasis is on endurance,
suggesting that it could be some time before the actual end arrives. Sim-
ilarly, the call to preach the gospel creates a sense of a task to be done
before the end comes. Hence the end is not now or immediate.
Summing up, it could be said that the second set of indications of
the parousia focuses on the situation of the followers of Jesus. It is the
tribulation coming to them either externally or internally (which takes
the most space in the section). This second set is noticeably very differ-
ent from the first set of indications. While the tauta archē, indications
of beginning, describe the external situation in the world at large—wars
and natural disasters—the second set describes internal indications
related specifically to the Christian world.
Importantly, there is progression from “the beginning of the pains”
and “this is not the end yet” to the urgency – to endure - “see I told you”
(external and internal deception and hate). In this second section, the
reader senses the end to be closer than in the first section, but while
there is urgency, there no sense of immediacy. However, this changes in
the next section.
them they speak about what God did in the past. Now, confusing the elect, will be false “signs
and wonders” precisely mirroring God’s actions. They pretend to be God’s signs and wonders.
Additionally, the “if possible” indicates that the delusion of the false “signs and wonders” will be
strong and will even appeal to the elect.
36
Grammatically, there is an interesting shift in Matthew 24:13 that begins with de, as opposed to
the string of clauses that begin with kai in verses 9–12. It suggests that what is coming in verses 13
and 14 stands as a counterpart or summary to the discussion in verses 9–12.
The Immediacy of Parousia

In the third section, the text begins with “immediately”:37
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be

darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then
the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all
the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of
Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one
end of heaven to the other (Matt 24:29–31, emphasis supplied).38
In this section the disciples finally receive the answer to their ques-
tion about the sign of Jesus’ parousia. Jesus untangles the plot here. Several
important points should be mentioned pertaining to the passage above.
The Issue of “Immediately” as a Structural Marker

The first point for discussion concerns the immediacy of the parousia.
While Nolland reads “immediately” as referring back to the tribulation
in the textual context, within the larger macro-structure of the text, “im-
mediately” also refers to a transition to the final progression of the par-
ousia.39 Within the larger context of “the beginning of pains” and “the
urgency of enduring,” “immediately” fits thematically well into the whole
progressively developing narrative and creates another structural marker.
37
Luz helpfully suggests that “immediately” for the most part in Greek and always in the New
Testament means “straight” or “directly.” “It has a temporal sense and means the immediate fol-
lowing future. In Matthew the adverb almost always has a pregnant meaning (‘at once,’ ‘immedi-
ately following’) and is not simply a rhetorical embellishment” (Luz, 200 n. 154).
38
The key part reads in Greek: eutheōs de meta tēn thlipsin tōn hēmerōn ekeinōn (Matt 24:29;
emphasis supplied). Eutheōs is used twelve times in Matthew and altogether thirty-four times in
the New Testament. The question may be raised as to how immediately “immediately” is. Could
there be a major time span included in the concept of “immediately”? In the context of the whole
structure of progression from “beginning” through “urgency” to “immediately,” this study sug-
gests that the eutheōs of verse 29 does not lend itself to be read in a loose sense, implying long
time to pass. Moreover, contextually, within the whole of Matthew’s Gospel, the word “immedi-
ately” has a definitive sense of something being done at once (perhaps apart from Matthew 13:5,
where the word is used as part of a parable). See Matthew 4:20, 22; 8:3; 13:5; 14:22, 31; 20:34; 24:29;
25:15; 26:49, 74; and 27:48.
39
Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 983.
The transition to the final eschatological context is also supported by

the overall language of the passage. It is worth noting that the language
in this section changes into a markedly eschatological one. The language
here strongly echoes Isaiah 13:10, “For the stars of heaven and their con-
stellations; Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going
forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine,” and also Isaiah 34:4,
“All the host [stars in LXX] of heaven shall be dissolved; And the heavens
shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down; As the leaf
falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree.”
For most interpreters, since the language is highly symbolic, it is im-
possible to tell what literal impact on nature is expected. However, behind
the description most of them see some natural phenomena—for example,
shooting stars or solar and lunar eclipses.40
The Issue of Indications

This naturally brings us to the second point of discussion regarding
this passage: the specific indications mentioned in the section. These are
mentioned in verse 29: “the sun will be darkened,” “the moon will not give
its light,” “the stars will fall from heaven,” and “the powers of the heavens
will be shaken.”
Just as in the preceding two sections, these indications also fall into
their own specific category. They are not part of worldly events or natu-
ral phenomena, and neither do they fit into the Christian church context;
rather, they are related to the heavenly realm. They are thematically dis-
tinct from the previous two sets of indications. In the text it is these that
finally announce the immediate appearance of the sign of the parousia.
There is obviously a long history of interpretation regarding what
these and the other indications mentioned in Matthew 24 mean. How-
ever, it is not the purpose of this study to discuss them individually. As
addressed briefly above, for most interpreters they point to some natural
heavenly phenomena.
Within the Adventist interpretative context, heavenly indications
have, for theological and historical reasons, received great attention. The
first position interprets them as exclusively having already been fulfilled
in the past. A classic example is Carlyle B. Haynes, who asserts that the
indications were to occur at a definite time—after the tribulation of
God’s people, which was considered to be the period of the Dark Ages
ending in 1750.41 Haynes applies the specific indications of immediacy of
40
For example, Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 983.
41
Carlyle B. Haynes, The Return of Jesus (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1926), 130–131.
Matthew 24:29 in the following way: The first indication “the sun will
be darkened” refers to the Dark Day of May 19, 1780. “One of the chief
signs of the nearness of the return of Jesus to this earth is a darkening of
the sun, or a dark day.” Haynes suggests that this “is a notable sign” that
“was to be received as a sure evidence of the nearness of the second
coming of Christ.”42 Secondly, the falling of the stars is understood to
have occurred on November 13, 1833.
Fifty-three years after the dark day, on the morning of Nov. 13, 1833,
we locate the most striking meteoric shower of all those recorded
in history, and in this we see the sign given by Jesus Himself to
indicate the nearness of the time of His return.43
Haynes does not discuss the indication that “the moon will not give
its light.” For him it belongs to the first one—“the sun will be dark-
ened.” However, he adds an additional indication of nearness, which he
takes from Revelation 6:12: the great earthquake. This he applies to the
November 1, 1755, Lisbon event.44 Interestingly, this is chronologically the
first of the indications of the parousia, which comes immediately—about
five years—after the tribulations ended in 1750. Twenty-five years after
this comes another sign—the Dark Day of 1780—which is then thirty
years after the tribulation. The last of the immediacy signs for Haynes,
the falling of the stars, is thus eighty-three years distant from the time the
tribulation ended.45
Particularly relevant is the chapter “Signs of the Second Coming,” starting from page 123. The
same position is also held in Francis D. Nichol, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, rev. ed.
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1980), 5:502, 7:779.
42
Haynes, 129–130. He is quoting Old Testament and New Testament biblical texts to argue that
the “sign” of the sun is a notable and well known sign (Isa 13:10; Joel 2:10; 3:15; Acts 2:20; Rev 6:12).
Haynes, 132, says, “The first of these signs, mentioned in three of the Gospels — Matthew, Luke,
and Mark — is the darkening of the sun, which occurred May 19, 1780.” There is a long descrip-
tion of the Dark Day event from page 132 to 138, suggesting that this was seen by contemporaries
as the darkest recorded day since the Egyptian plagues, altogether unprecedented. A darkness
not from natural causes such as eclipses, it was accepted as a sign from God that filled people
with awe and alarm.
43
Ibid., 138.
44
Ibid., 132.
45
In Matthew the tribulation suggests intensity and severity, needing divine intervention. The
classical historical application of the tribulation to the Dark Ages ending in 1750 and the indica-
tions from verse 29 by Haynes does not quite reflect 1) the need to shorten the intense tribulation
and 2) the sematic sense of “immediately.” There are major time gaps between the indications and
the tribulation and indications themselves. The Dark Day occurred some thirty years after and
the Falling of the Stars eighty-three years after the tribulation; the two signs are fifty-three years
The second major trend in interpreting the indications of immediacy

of Matthew 24:29 in Adventism is one that interprets the indications of
verse 29 to occur (again) eschatologically in the future. This view does not
deny that the indications could not have had a particular prophetic and
historical fulfillment in the events which Haynes explained, but rather the
shift is to apocalyptic fulfillment of the indications at the very end before
the parousia.46
The roots of this interpretation can be traced back to May 1847 and
the publication of A Word to the “Little Flock.” In one of the articles, James
White asks what this “heaven” is that is to be shaken. He adds a humble
note indicating that more clarity is needed on this point.47 Interestingly,
in 1851 Ellen G. White clarifies the question by sharpening the under-
standing of Matthew 24:29. She starts to apply the shaking of heavenly
bodies to the literal shaking of the sun, moon, and stars, saying they will
be moved out of their place by the voice of God.
apart. This effectively negates the “immediately” meaning of the text. Even the great earthquake
of Lisbon is five years after the end of the tribulation of the Dark Ages. It is hardly “immediately.”
However, Haynes, 132, argues that the tribulation or persecution of God’s people “ended about
1750, only five years before the earthquake which marked the beginning of the signs.” He adds,
“This was followed only twenty-five years later by the darkening of the sun, May 19, 1780,” con-
cluding that ”thus ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days’ the signs foretold began to
appear” (emphasis supplied). Interestingly, he does not follow on in the argumentation to include
the Falling of the Stars in 1833. Probably this would have been a long stretch even for him to say
that it was “only” eighty-three years after the tribulation ended. Overall, while Haynes’ interpre-
tation had prophetic and historical validity for early Millerites and Adventists, there are major
exegetical and historical problems it does not solve. It is, however, relevant to note that James
White, A Word to the “Little Flock” (Brunswick, ME: 4–8, 1847) identifies the indications of
Matthew 24:29 with future events and not past ones. Ellen G. White would later clarify this
interpretative trend by specifying the significance of the shaking of the heavenly bodies.
46
This view is represented, e.g., by LaRondelle, “Cosmic Signs in the Adventist Tradition”;
LaRondelle, “Viewpoint: ‘This Generation Will Certainly Not Pass Away’: What Did Jesus Mean?
Understanding a Challenging Prophecy,” Ministry, September 1999, 24–28; LaRondelle, “The
Significance of the Second Coming,” Ministry, June/July 2000, 12–16; LaRondelle, End-time
Prophecies of the Bible; Paulien, “Indicators of the End Time”; Paulien, What the Bible Says;
Marvin Moore, The Crisis of the End Time (Boise, ID: Pacific Press 1992); Knight, Matthew; and
Knight, “Adventist Approaches to the Second Coming: What Seventh-day Adventists May Learn
From Their Past,” Ministry, June/July, 2000, 28–32.
47
“We may not see this event so clearly now, as we shall about the time of its fulfilment; but still, it
is our duty to receive, and cherish all the light that we can see on this, or any other future event.
As we travel onward toward the Holy City, our burning lamps discover new objects: but we
cannot see all at once. If we reject a little light, because we cannot see the whole clearly at once, it
will displease our heavenly leader; and we shall be left in the dark. But if we cherish the light, as
fast as it is our Lord’s will to open it to us, he will increase the light; and our souls will feast upon
the opening truths of the blessed bible” (James White, A Word to the “Little Flock” [Brunswick, ME:
James White, 1847], 6).
December 16, 1848, the Lord gave me a view of the shaking of the
powers of the heavens. I saw that when the Lord said ‘heaven,’ in
giving the signs recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, He meant
heaven, and when He said ‘earth’ He meant earth. The powers of
heaven are the sun, moon, and stars. They rule in the heavens. The
powers of earth are those that rule on the earth. The powers of
heaven will be shaken at the voice of God. Then the sun, moon,
and stars will be moved out of their places. They will not pass
away, but be shaken by the voice of God. . . .
I saw that the powers of earth are now being shaken and that
events come in order. War, and rumors of war, sword, famine, and
pestilence are first to shake the powers of earth, then the voice of
God will shake the sun, moon, and stars, and this earth also. I saw
that the shaking of the powers in Europe is not, as some teach, the
shaking of the powers of heaven, but it is the shaking of the angry
nations.48
Ellen G. White’s interpretation from 1851 expects a future eschatologi-

cal fulfillment of the heavenly indications of verse 29.49 What is relevant
about her remarks is that she does not seem to apply the heavenly indi-
cations to natural cosmic phenomena. Rather, she reads the “shaking”
in the text literally, applying it then across to the other three indications:
the sun, moon, and stars. The moving of these out of their place is a
result of a direct divine intervention, not natural order.
Still more importantly, from the point of view of the main argument
48
Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1882), 41. The change
from 1847 is that while early Sabbatarians applied literal understanding to the heavenly bodies,
they did not apply it strictly to the “shaking,” hence interpreting “heaven” as “air” or “the atmo-
sphere around the earth.” Ellen G. White pushes the early Adventist interpretation of this text to
a very precise position. It happened as James White expected it would, that light would increase
and their interpretations would sharpen.
49
In Ellen G. White’s published works there are five places where she specifically discusses
verse 29. Here they are in chronological order: 1) Early Writings, 41; 2) The Great Controversy
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 37, 393; 3) Desire of Ages, (Mountain View, CA: Pa-
cific Press, 1898), 630–635; and 4) Maranatha (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976),
151. Apart from Early Writings, the rest of her comments deal with the general fulfillment of
the signs of the times that were given in the events between 1755 and 1830. In these contexts,
Ellen G. White does not discuss specifically the nature of the shaking of the heavenly bodies of
the sun, moon, and stars. Her purpose is rather general—to confirm the arrival of the end of
times. Perhaps because of these comments Adventist authors tend to read verse 29 in the sense
of past fulfillment only. There is, however, a need to read Ellen G. White contextually and ask
what exactly the purpose of the specific passage is in places where she comments on verse 29.
in this study, is Ellen G. White’s thematic differentiation between the earthly

and heavenly indications and the suggestion that “events come in or-
der.” The earthly indications in her understanding precede the heavenly
indications. In broad terms this is what we have been trying to estab-
lish exegetically and structurally from the text—namely, that there is an
inbuilt structure of progression to the parousia of various indications,
starting from earthly, the indications of beginning and the urgency to
endure, and ending with heavenly.
The Issue of the Parousia and Its Signs

The final point to be raised under this section of immediate indica-
tions of the parousia is regarding the sign of the parousia itself. A modern
interpretation assumes that there is no particular sign in addition to the
Son of Man, suggesting that the sign is the Son of Man Himself. “Parousia
is the ‘appearance’ of the Son of Man himself, not a sign that is separate
from him,” maintains Luz.50 The micro-context of the text indicates that
the “sign of the Son of Man” means nothing other than the Son of Man
Himself.51
Equally, within the overall plot of the chapter and the warning against
the deception of false messiahs, the sign becomes an authenticating sym-
bol of the person. While the indications of immediacy could well be the
distinguishing marks of the immediate parousia, yet the sign, strictly
speaking, in the overall context, is different from them. If that is true, then
the sign is the actual appearance of the Son of Man.
50
Luz, 202. Calvin, e.g., maintains the same position (ibid.).
51
For Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 983–984, the only information is that the sign will appear
in heaven. Taking the question seriously, it leaves us with two options: 1) either the cosmic events
of Matthew 24:29 constitute the sign or, which is less likely, 2) the sign is the visible appearing
of the Son of Man on the clouds. In both cases the main indication would be comprehensive
visibility, as suggested in verse 27. Similarly, David Wenham, Rediscovery, 321, suggests that
“the sign of the Son of Man in heaven” “should most probably be understood in the light of the
preceding saying of Matt 21:27, but the phraseology used is more an echo of the immediately
preceding ‘There will be signs in heaven’ than of the ‘signs’ of the false prophets of 24:24.”
This means that Wenham sees the ultimate sign linked with the shaking of the heavenly bodies
and not with the other “indications” of Parousia. Interestingly, for R. T. France the section of
vs. 29–31 should be understood “as a highly symbolic description of the theological significance
of the coming destruction of the temple and its consequences” [R. T. France, Matthew: An In-
troduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 345–346]. France differs from more widely accepted views that
the section describes the second coming to the earth. For France the language here is apocalyptic
and hence should not be taken in a wooden and literal fashion. He points out that “immediately
after” in Matthew 24:29 does not really mean that the coming occurs after the destruction of
Jerusalem. The text also uses erchomenon instead of parousia in verse 30, and finally there is
no mention of “earth” as the destination of Jesus (see also Turner, 18).
Conclusion
The key point of this study is that one can easily get lost in the very
detailed and technical discussion concerning the historical questions
and realities and the text-critical questions, then make theological implica-
tions from such assumptions. Even very solid commentaries have fallen
into these traps.
We have received the text in the form we have it, including the contri-
bution of other gospels. Does the canonical shape of the text communicate
something when we take it in its final and overall form? If it does, then
as readers we are welcome to consider the macro-textual context. If we
listen to the text as a unified whole, then we may hear there a message
about a three-step progression to the parousia of the Son of Man. Then
we may hear a message that helps readers in different times make sense
of Jesus’ eschatological speech for their own time and context.
In the final analysis, we suggest that in Matthew 24 (and also parallel
sections in Mark and Luke not discussed in this study) there is a three-
step progression of indications to the parousia of Jesus: from “beginning,”
through “urgency,” and to “immediacy.” Individual indications of time
relative to the parousia then fall under these three. Indications in the
world at large—such as wars and rumors of wars between nations, and
indications of natural order such as famines, storms, or earthquakes—
fall under the “beginning” of the indications of the parousia. Internal
indications in the church and among people of God—such as the
“extinguishing of love,” rise or fall of prophets and messiahs and their de-
ception, and the internal persecution of fellow brothers and sisters—fall
under the “urgency” to endure the time before the parousia. Both the
first and second indications can be described as earthly, relating to
events on this planet. And finally, heavenly indications—such as the
shaking of the sun, the moon, and the stars—fall under the “immediacy”
of the parousia. It is only these indications that signal the immediate ar-
rival of the Son of Man. The earthly indications tell that the parousia is
coming—providing the assurance and warning against deceptions—but,
crucially, they do not indicate anything relative to the immediacy of
the time of the coming of Jesus. In the macro-structure of Matthew 24,
it is only the heavenly indications that reveal the timing of the parousia.
CHAPTER 9
Eschatology and Everyday Life:

How Paul Brings Home The
Last-Day Message To Our Daily Life
Thomas R. Shepherd
Adventists have preached the soon coming of Jesus Christ for more
than 150 years. For some this may be embarrassing; they question how
long we can say “soon” with a straight face. Others may find the escha-
tological focus of our mission too fixated on the hereafter; for them, a
renewal of Adventist mission should address the concerns of the here
and now—the caring of the poor, social justice for the weak, and equal-
ity for women and others marginalized by common power structures.
This study argues that both of these concerns—embarrassment
over delay and disappointment with a heavenly focus—are rooted in a
misunderstanding of the New Testament’s emphasis on the eschatologi-
cal. In particular, this study notes that Paul highlights the importance of
eschatology for our everyday Christian life in his repeated use of Jesus’
resurrection as the theological engine driving his teaching on such var-
ied topics as justification, baptism, ethical behavior, mission, and death.
The goal of this study is to briefly map Paul’s use of the resurrection of
Jesus in his theological argumentation to illustrate the broad way in
which eschatology is integral to the teachings of Paul. Our thesis is that
eschatology, as expressed through the resurrection of Jesus, is integral
to every aspect of our mission and brings balance to our perspective on
the present and the future.
The Beginning of Christian Life: Baptism and Justification
Baptism
Paul’s classic theology of baptism describing entry into Christian
life is found in Romans 6:1–11. In the follow-up to his discussion of how
salvation comes to sinners (Rom 3:21–31) and the example of Abraham
having been saved by grace through faith (Rom 4:1–25), Paul turns to the
role of three great powers in life that challenge the doctrine of salvation:
death, sin, and law. He deals with death in Romans 5, sin in Romans 6,
and law in Romans 7–8.
At the end of Romans 5, Paul argues that where sin abounds, grace
super-abounds (Rom 5:20). This assertion, however, could easily fall prey
to the argument of the apostle’s opponents that Paul’s doctrine of jus-
tification by faith leads to the justification of a life of sin. Paul counters
this argument by outlining how baptism incorporates the new believer
into the very history and life experience of Jesus (Rom 6:1–11). Arguing that
the Christian cannot live a lifestyle of sin, Paul insists in Romans 6:3–4,
Or do you not know that as many of us were baptized into Christ

Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore
with Him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ
was raised form the dead through the glory of the Father, even
so we might walk in newness of life.1
In Romans 5 the apostle argues that our heritage from Adam is one
of transgression and death, but that the gracious gift of God in Jesus
Christ brings in life and righteousness. Romans 6 extends the argument
to counter the false impression that the grace brought in through
Christ can somehow allow for the continuation of sinful behavior. On
the contrary, the apostle argues, incorporation into Christ’s story through
baptism does not merely mean the forgiveness of the past, the wiping
away of the connection to Adam’s failure. It also means the transforma-
tion of the present and future.
It is striking to note the way Paul describes this incorporation into
Christ’s experience. He portrays in Romans 6:3–4 our linkage to Christ
in death and burial, particularly emphasizing the union with Christ’s
death. But when Paul shifts to describe the resurrection of Jesus in the
second half of verse 4, he seems reticent to describe our resurrection,
and instead uses the phrase “even so we might walk in newness of life.”
1
All biblical quotations are the author’s translation.
How Paul Brings Home the Last-Day Message to Our Daily life 163
He maintains this reticence as he uses future tenses to describe our res-

urrection (Rom 6:5, 8).2 He clarifies the reason for this reticence in
Romans 6:9–10, when he explains the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection:
Knowing that Christ having been raised from the dead no longer
dies, death no longer rules over Him. For what He died, He died
to sin once for all, and what He lives, He lives to God.
In His death and resurrection, Christ conquered both death and

sin. His resurrection life left behind the influence of both these powers.3
In the same way, argues Paul, the Christian must count the new life of
faith as “dead to sin but alive to God through Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:11).
The challenge Paul was facing from opponents helps explain his
hesitance to speak of our resurrection as already past. There were some
using resurrection theology as a license for sin, suggesting that “already
raised” meant that one need not fight sin any longer, that the victory
had already been won.4 Instead, Paul insists that we must fight sin as
an enemy (Rom 6:12–23). The shift to imperatives in the last half of
Romans 6 is no accident. Based on the indicatives of Romans 6:1–11,
Paul insists that Christians must continue the struggle against sin as an
enemy, looking forward to the consummation at our Lord’s return.
Our resurrection being future, at the eschaton, has two effects on
our daily Christian walk: it warns us not to relax as if no further prog-
ress in growth were needed, and it guides us toward the goal of moral
perfection found in our Lord. Consequently, the resurrection of Jesus
with its eschatological implications speaks to the beginning of Christian
life, guiding and guarding it against false assurances of accomplished
Christian morality. Eschatology, it turns out, is very important in under-
standing the beginning of Christian experience.
2
“For if we have been conformed to the likeness of His death, we shall also be to the likeness of
His resurrection” (Rom 6:8). “And if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with
Him” (Rom 6:5)
3
Paul is not arguing that sin somehow once had power over Jesus. The apostle is as clear as the
rest of the New Testament that Christ was sinless (John 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:14–16; 7:26; 1 Pet
2:22; 1 John 3:5). Rather, the apostle argues that His vicarious death absorbed the power of sin
and defeated its reign.
4
Cf. 2 Timothy 2:14–21, where Paul counters a “resurrection already taken place” theology. It
is telling that the apostle emphasizes right living and purity in this passage. It is not difficult to
surmise why. A theology of resurrection already past goes hand in hand with a doctrine of holy
flesh (raised = already pure from sin). Such a doctrine opens one completely to the devil’s wiles,
since it is hard to admit his influence when you feel you are beyond his reach.
Justification
In only one passage, Romans 4:25, does Paul link resurrection and
justification (though one can argue that passages connecting resurrec-
tion and baptism imply such a link). Here the apostle, speaking of Jesus,
says, “Who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for
our justification.” To fully understand this simple sentence, we must ana-
lyze the wording within its context.
In Romans 4 Paul presents the story of Abraham as an illustration of
righteousness by faith (not by works). Avoiding a discussion of the times
Abraham failed to live by faith, Paul concentrates on the patriarch’s trust
in God to provide him with progeny. Even though he was one hundred
years old, with a wife who could no longer bear children, Abraham
was fully confident that God was able to fulfill His promise (Rom 4:21).
Paul quotes the famous words of Genesis 15:6: “It was reckoned to him
for righteousness.” The apostle indicates that it was because of Abraham’s
firm faith in God that righteousness was credited to him.
At this point (Rom 4:23), Paul argues that what was written long ago
about Abraham is relevant and applicable to us. In our context, the apostle
speaks of those who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from
the dead. Two truths are united in this statement: first, that God raised
Jesus from the dead, the reality of His resurrection; and second, that
Jesus is our Lord, the confession of faith of the church. Throughout this
entire section of Romans, Paul returns again and again to this confes-
sion of Jesus as Lord (Rom 5:21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39) to illustrate that in all
experiences of the Christian life, at its center is always the relation-
ship to Jesus as our Master and our relationship to one another as the
community that confesses faith in Him.
Having described Jesus our risen Lord as the focus on faith in
Romans 4:24, in verse 25 Paul links together atonement and justifica-
tion, with one looking back toward the cross and the other looking
forward toward Christian reconciliation with God. In the first half of
the verse, Paul indicates that Christ was handed over for our trespasses.
“Handed over” (paradidōmi) is the term used in the Gospels to refer to
Judas betraying Jesus. The same term, however, is also used in 1 Peter 2:23
to refer to Jesus entrusting Himself to the one who judges justly—
the “handing over” to the Father in Gethsemane when Christ says, “Not
my will but Yours be done.” When Christ prayed for the cup to be re-
moved from Him (Mark 14:36), the Father’s answer was “No”—not because
of any lack of love for His Son, but because the handing over of Jesus
to death was the means of salvation for humanity. Consequently, “hand-
ed over” in Romans 4:25 was something God did (divine passive) to
bring about salvation. It looks back to the cross, back to the removal of
sin by substitutionary atonement.
However, the last phrase of Romans 4:25, “He was raised for our jus-
tification,” looks in the opposite direction, away from the removal of sin,
to now the acquittal of the one who believes in Him who raised Christ
from the dead. The term “justification” here is not Paul’s typical term
dikaiosynē, but rather dikaiōsis, used in the New Testament only here and
in Romans 5:18. The difference between the two terms is that dikaiosynē
expresses more the state of being of one who has been justified, and
dikaiōsis conveys more the concept of the process of justification.
Why does Paul connect this process of justification with Christ’s
resurrection? The resurrection of Jesus was God’s stamp of approv-
al on our Lord’s atoning death on the cross. If He had remained in the
grave, we would not be certain that God approved of His sacrifice. The
resurrection assures us that what happened on the cross was a real-
ity that created our salvation. Thus, He was raised for our justification.
Since resurrection is an eschatological idea and has ties to our future
resurrection,5 this study posits that in Romans 4:25 Paul looks back to the
cross and forward to the parousia, providing a grand sweep of history
in describing our salvation.
The Daily Christian Life: Ethics and Mission
Ethics
Paul is not satisfied to speak of the impact of Jesus’ resurrection sim-
ply at the beginning of Christian life. As the argumentation on Romans 6
suggests, the initiation of Christian life includes a forward look in
Christian growth in grace. Numerous risks await the Christian in a world
of sin. One of the greatest challenges—in Paul’s day, but especially in
ours—is maintaining sexual purity in a world bent on exploiting sex for
all manner of purposes: selling products, entertainment in music and
movies, pornography, aberrant sexual behavior, etc.
Paul masterfully addresses this issue in 1 Corinthians 6. He makes it
eminently clear that sexual purity is a requisite for entry into the king-
dom of God.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither the sexually im-
moral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
5
For further discussion, see the section titled “1 Thessalonians 4” in this study.
nor covetous people, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers

will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–10).6
That the problem of sexual purity was a major problem in Corinth

is illustrated by the amount of attention Paul devotes to the problem in
his answer in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7, and the amazing argumentation he
presents to counter the problem.
Our goal here is not to review all of Paul’s impressive argumentation
in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 concerning sexual purity, but rather to illus-
trate how he makes use of the doctrine of the resurrection to bolster his
argument.7 The resurrection, it seems, is a bulwark against sexually im-
moral behavior. In the teaching experience of the present author, it
appears that Paul’s instruction has not been widely understood. Thus, it
is valuable to lay out his argumentation. The key verses that involve the
doctrine of the resurrection are 1 Corinthians 6:12–14:
“All things are lawful to me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All
things are lawful to me,” but I will not be mastered by anything.
“Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, and God
will destroy both this and these.” But the body is not for sexu-
al immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body, and
God raised the Lord and will also raise us through His power.8
An analysis of these verses illustrates that certain poetic characteris-

tics are present. Two chiastic structures appear:
6
See Ronald M. Springett, Homosexuality in History and the Scriptures: Some Historical and
Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1988), 132–137. The word “homosexuals” in the transla-
tion here represents two terms in Greek. First, malakos, an adjective meaning “soft, fancy,” is
used here substantively to refer to the male partner in a homosexual relationship who serves
as the recipient of the coitus. In the ancient world this was most often done between the legs
rather than via anal intercourse. Second, arsenokoitēs, a noun meaning “male homosexual,” is
used here to refer to the active, rather than receptive, partner in a male homosexual relationship.
Space does not permit here a defense of the biblical teaching that homosexual practice is out
of bounds for Christians. The literature is immense. See, e.g., materials available at the Biblical
Research Institute website, https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org.
7
Paul uses no less than nine doctrines in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 to counter sexual impurity, in-
cluding an argument from law principles, teleology, eschatology, the doctrine of sin, the Trinity,
anthropology, sexual ethics, marriage, pneumonology, and soteriology.
8
The quotation marks in this translation are interpretive, and will be explained in the following
argumentation.
A B B´ A´
Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods
A B B´ A´
The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord and the Lord for the body
These chiastic structures stand in contrast with each other. The first
suggests a teleological argument for a body part (the stomach) corre-
sponding with foods to fill it, whereas the second chiastic structure breaks
the mold and indicates something that the body is not made for (sexual
immorality), then goes on to complete the chiastic structure by indicat-
ing what it is made for (the Lord).
Once this set of contrasting structures is seen, other parallels and
contrasts are recognized as well. The beginning of the passage starts
with a pithy statement about all being lawful, but is followed by a seem-
ing limitation that not all is beneficial. The limitation is expanded in the
repetition sentence where the apostle insists he will not be mastered by
anything. Finally, the concept of God destroying “this and these” (refer-
ring to the stomach [singular] and the foods [plural]) stands in contrast
with Paul’s assertion that God raised the Lord (Jesus) and will raise us
as well by His power.
Most scholars who ponder these details conclude that Paul is re-
sponding to Corinthian slogans in this passage.9 While there are differ-
ences of opinion regarding exactly which words are Corinthian slogans
and which are Paul’s words, this study argues that the two Corinthian
slogans in verses 13 and 14 are as follows:10
All things are lawful for me

Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods
And God will destroy both this and these.
Paul counters the first slogan by arguing, reasonably enough, that

even if we allow that all things are lawful, surely not all things are benefi-
cial. That is, if one takes a libertine position of all being acceptable to the
Christian, this would not warrant drinking poison since such “liberty”
9
See the excellent exposition with contrasting views presented by Anthony Thiselton, 1 Corin-
thians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000),
458–482.
10
In the following pages this study will argue that these words are best seen as Corinthian slogans
because if they are taken that way, there is a perfect correspondence of Paul’s words in response
to them. Otherwise, the passage becomes very difficult to understand and decipher.
would be disastrous in its results. The apostle takes this a step further
by countering the repetition of the singsong slogan with the statement
that he will not be mastered by anything. That is to say, if one takes the
Corinthian libertine slogan to its logical conclusion, one could easily
enter an experience of abject slavery to some master addiction (witness
the terrible scourges of alcoholism, drug addiction, and pornography ad-
diction). Such slavery hardly seems like liberty. Thus, Paul deconstructs
the Corinthian argument with just a few simple statements.
The same holds true with the other slogan. The first part of the
Corinthian slogan is a teleological idea, arguing that function follows
design. That the Corinthians are not talking about food or the stomach
with this slogan is clearly displayed by Paul’s argumentation that centers
on sexual behavior. The Corinthians are using a design argument to
contend that sexual organs are designed for pleasure, so therefore it
must be God’s will to use them for that purpose, and consequently it
would be acceptable for a Corinthian Christian to visit the temple pros-
titutes. They cap their argument with the second line of their slogan,
indicating that God will destroy both the “foods” and the “stomach,”
an eschatological argument suggesting a dualistic anthropology (the
body might be destroyed but the real person lives on as the soul) and an
eschatology of destruction of that which is material.
Paul will have none of this. He contends that the body is not made
for sexual immorality. But he does not stop there. He argues for a coun-
ter teleology where the body is designed for the Lord and the Lord for
the body. This harkens back to his argument in Romans 6 that baptism
involves incorporation into Christ and implies ethical responsibilities
arising from linkage with the Lord Jesus (consider his oft-used phrase
of being “in Christ”).
Countering the eschatology of destruction, Paul teaches an escha-
tology of resurrection. Rooted again in the experience of Jesus Christ,
Paul notes that God raised Him from death. In the same breath, the
apostle then argues that this resurrection of our Lord has eschatological
implications for us as well—God will also raise us by His power. There
is really no other way to explain why Paul brings up the resurrection of
Jesus and of believers in the last day, except as a counter argument to
what the Corinthians are saying. Within Paul’s argument are two impor-
tant theological principles—an eschatology that embodies the affirmation
of material creation and a wholistic anthropology that insists on the im-
portance and of human life both today and in the world made new. Paul
asserts that what we do with our bodies today has implications for our
future. We misuse our bodies at our peril, in light of its design for linkage
with Christ and in light of the coming resurrection.11 Thus, eschatology

teaches the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities in the here and now.
Mission
Mission life and ministry have always been stressful. Some in these
fields of endeavor experience more strain and anxiety than others. Such
was the case with Paul. He describes his missionary work in the Roman
province of Asia (present-day western Turkey) in 2 Corinthians 1:8–11:
For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about our

affliction which took place in Asia. For we were weighed down
beyond our ability, so that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we
felt like we had received a death sentence. The purpose of this
experience was so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in
the God who raises the dead. He is the One who has rescued us
from so great a death, and He will deliver us. On Him we have set
our hope that He will yet rescue us, while you help us by prayer,
so that based on the prayers of many people, thanks may be given
to God on our behalf for the blessing bestowed through the sup-
plication of many.
It is a touching passage, particularly for anyone who has gone through

a similar experience. Missionary work and ministry change one’s out-
look, leading either to bitterness at ill treatment or a deeper sense of
dependence on God. Paul’s experience led him to the latter perspective,
and he credits this to the resurrection. The pressures were so great that
he despaired of life. At this point, many would have given up and looked
for another, less stressful livelihood. But not Paul. He discovered that
the point of despair was the place where one comes into intimate contact
with the God who raises the dead.
The theology this implies is one of life at the breaking point, infused
with a power completely outside of human ability. It is a theology of
human weakness and dependence, where pride cannot exist and where
rescue is obviously God’s doing. It is beyond human capacity to create, and
is unforgettable and indelible in its effect.
There is a dark side to this theology before the light dawns. It is true
that sometimes when working for God, one reaches a breaking point
11
The apostle is not arguing that we will remain unchanged at the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:35–58),
but neither is he arguing that it does not matter what we do with the body now. 1 Corinthians
6:9–10 makes it perfectly clear that immoral behavior is incompatible with preparation for the
heavenly kingdom.
where despair sets in. Prayer becomes desperate and one looks with
longing for some indication that help is on the way. God allows this to
happen, says Paul, so that we may see that only He— the God who raises
the dead—can resolve the issue. “Dead” is the description of the experi-
ence of darkness and despair that He allows so that human answers fall
away, and the only possible solution is His intervention. Such despair is
never pleasant, but the rescue is unforgettable and transformative.
The End of Life: Death
Two Texts: 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1

It is a common belief in Western culture that upon death a person
goes to either heaven or hell. Most people feel the dead are headed
to a heavenly abode and find comfort in the idea of loved ones watch-
ing over them. That this common belief is counter to the New Testament
teaching on both death and eschatological resurrection is presented in
clear detail by N. T. Wright, who catalogues the rather confused per-
spectives in Western culture concerning what happens when we die. He
goes on to lay out clearly what the New Testament teaches on the subject.12
Adventists have always been clear about the connection between
eschatology and the state of the dead. The dead are not conscious
(Eccl 9:5–6). Upon death they do not ascend to the glories of heaven
nor descend to a fiery hell (Ps 115:17; 146:3–4). They await the return of
Jesus, to be raised to life for either the resurrection of salvation or the
resurrection of damnation (John 5:21–29).
Paul’s teaching on the subjects of death, resurrection, and the return
of Christ is complex. This study cannot review in detail his multiple dis-
cussions of the subject, but will focus on 1 Thessalonians 4. However, we
must first lay the groundwork by discussing two other passages that can
at times seem incompatible with the clear expression on the state of the
dead noted in 1 Thessalonians 4. These two passages, 2 Corinthians 5:1–10
and Philippians 1:21–26, are often interpreted as teaching both a con-
scious state in death and an immediate transfer to heavenly existence at
the end of earthly life. That such a view is incompatible with the clear
teaching of 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 is often overlooked.
Nevertheless, it is important to address the key issues found in these pas-
sages. Tellingly, neither 2 Corinthians 5 nor Philippians 1 mentions the
12
N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the
Church (New York: HarperCollins, 2008). Toward the end of his book, Wright deviates from
clear New Testament teaching and seems to make room for some confused elements about the
state of the dead.
resurrection explicitly.13 The key verses in these passages that seem to con-
tradict the rest of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection are 2 Corinthians
5:6–8 and Philippians 1:21–24, presented as follows in that order:
Therefore, we are always of good courage and know that being

at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk
by faith, not by sight. And we are of good courage and prefer
rather to be absent from the body and be at home with the Lord.
For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if my lot is to

live in the flesh, this is fruitful labor for me, and what I shall
choose I do not know. I am hard pressed between the two, having
the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is much better. But
to remain in the flesh is necessary for your sake.
What do these verses mean that seem to describe a departure at death

from the body to go and be with Christ, presumably in heaven?14 The
passage in 2 Corinthians 5 has an earlier section that helps explain the
language in verses 6–8 that is so often taken to describe immediate de-
parture to heaven at death. Paul begins the chapter by describing our
earthly life as a “tent” and sets it in contrast to what he calls “a build-
ing from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”
(2 Cor 5:1).15 As is typical of Paul’s style of argumentation, this first verse
presents the apostle’s thesis, which he explains and elaborates on in the
coming verses.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1 the apostle does two things. First, he contrasts
earthly and heavenly existence, depicting one as a moveable, tempo-
rary tent and the other as an eternal building. One is on earth, and the
13
For a discussion of both these passages, see Edwin Reynolds, “‘Away from the Body and at
Home with the Lord’: 2 Corinthians 5:1–10 in Context,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Soci-
ety 24, no. 2 (2013): 137–152.
14
The context in both 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 makes it clear that the topic under discus-
sion is death, not a visionary, “out of body” experience. See esp. 2 Cor 5:1, “Our earthly house of
a tent is destroyed,” and Phil 1:20, “Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether through life
or through death.”
15
Jerry L. Sumney, “Post-Mortem Existence and the Resurrection of the Body in Paul,” Horizons
in Biblical Theology 31 (2009): 12–26, argues that in 2 Corinthians 4:16–5:10 the apostle is describ-
ing the experience of an apostolic group, not Christians in general, and that the description is
of apostles and martyrs having the experience of existence in heaven postmortem before the
general resurrection. The problem with this perspective is the way it differentiates between one
group of Christian leaders and Christians in general, which does not seem to be the case at all in
1 Thessalonians 4, when Paul uses “we” to include all Christians living in the time of the parousia.
other in heaven. Second, he speaks of the destruction (katalyō, “to throw

down, destroy, demolish,” used of a demolition process) of the earthly
tent and insists that if this event occurs, we have an eternal building
in heaven. Paul’s thesis statement does not contain any indication of
time or space between the two modes of existence, nor does he describe
in this verse the means of transition from one to the other.
Paul continues in verse 2 to describe the sorrow of living in the pres-
ent world. He starts to shift his metaphor from one of buildings to that
of clothing, a bit incongruously speaking of desiring to be “fully clothed”
with the heavenly house.
2 Corinthians 5:3–4 is key in Paul’s discourse and is worth translating
in whole:
If indeed also being clothed upon we shall not be found naked.16

For also while we are in the tent we groan, being weighed down,
since we do not wish to be unclothed but to be fully clothed,
in order that the mortal may be drowned by life.
The words are striking. Paul describes three states in this pas-
sage. The first is the state of “living in a tent,” which he first describes in
verse 1. However, in verse 3 he introduces a new state he calls being
“naked.” This state he describes as undesirable, not something he wishes
for. But he does wish to be “fully clothed” (v. 4), describing this last state
with the arresting picture of the mortal being drowned by life.
These words all suggest that there are three possible states for a human
being: mortal life in this world, eternal life in heaven, and an inter-
mediate state of being “naked.” We take this to mean the state of death
before a person arises at the resurrection. In support of our contention,
we note that the apostle uses in verse 4 one of his key terms found in
1 Corinthians 15—“mortal” (thnētos, 1 Cor 15:53–54). In fact, the usage
in 1 Corinthians 15 is so parallel to 2 Corinthians 5 that the two are obvi-
ously describing the same situation. We read in 1 Corinthians 15:53–54,
16
An important textual variant in verse 3 has “being unclothed” in the first clause instead of “be-
ing clothed upon.” The UBS committee felt that “being unclothed” is favored because of its inter-
nal criteria supporting a paradoxical statement over against an almost tautologous statement if
“being clothed upon” is the reading (where “being clothed upon” presumably is the same thing
as “not being found naked”). However, the external evidence in the manuscripts strongly favors
“being clothed upon.” If that reading is accepted, the verse continues to have an intermediate
state of “naked” referring to a state between the earthly “tent” and the heavenly “building.” Paul
does not mean to call the experience of life in this world the state of being “naked,” since he insists
in verse 6 that we are clothed with the body. Thus, “naked” must refer to the intermediate state of
being dead, awaiting the resurrection.
For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mor-
tal must put on immortality. Now when this perishable puts
on the imperishable and this mortal puts on immortality, then
the word written will come to pass which says, “Death is drowned
by victory.”17
It is clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that this change takes place at the res-

urrection of the dead. Thus, it seems consistent that in 2 Corinthians 5
the same outcome is in view. Such a perspective on 2 Corinthians 5 is
seconded by the words of 2 Corinthians 5:10, which indicate that we must
all appear before the judgment seat of Christ—clearly an end-time, es-
chatological perspective (cf. Rom 2:1–16; 14:10). Consequently, when Paul
speaks of being absent from the body and being present with the Lord
(2 Cor 5:6–8), he is not describing what happens at death, but rather
what happens at the resurrection. Taken in isolation, 2 Corinthians 5:6–8
may appear to favor the idea of immediate transfer to heaven upon
death, but on closer inspection it fits within Paul’s consistent teach-
ing of the resurrection from the dead as found in 1 Corinthians 15 and
1 Thessalonians 4.
But what of Philippians 1:21–24? In verse 21 the apostle places two
ideas in opposition to each other: “to live is Christ” and “to die is gain.”
Obviously “to live” stands opposite to “to die.” But how do the other
terms in the opposition (“Christ” and “gain”) fit together—or, better,
stand in contrast to one another? The apostle explains in verses 22–24. He
describes living in the flesh in verse 22 and uses “to depart” in verse 23.
These seem to parallel well verse 21, with “to live is Christ” meaning
Paul’s life of ministry in the present world and “to depart” referring to
death.18 The concept of ministry being Paul’s life is further expressed in
verse 22, where Paul speaks of the “fruit of work,” likely a reference to
his missionary work.
We are thus faced with the challenge of explaining verse 23, where
Paul appears to describe the experience of death as a departure “to be
with Christ.” Many think this sounds like the apostle is suggesting that
17
Note also the parallel use of “drowned” (katapinō) in both 1 Corinthians 15:54 and 2 Corin-
thians 5:4.
18
“To depart” (analyō) was used as a euphemism for death in the ancient world. See Walter
Hansen, Philippians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009),
86. See also William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 2000), s.v. “ἀναλύω,” 67.
upon death he will go to heaven and be with the Lord.19 However, Paul
uses “with Christ” in a variety of contexts, such as the following:20
1. We were buried with Him through baptism into death (Rom 6:4)
2. If we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with
Him (Rom 6:8).
3. Fellow heirs with Christ, if we suffer with Him, in order that we
may also be glorified with Him (Rom 8:17).
4. Being conformed with His death (Phil 3:10).
5. Who will transform the body of our humility to be conformed
with the body of His glory (Phil 3:21).
6. Those who have fallen asleep through Jesus, God will bring with
Him (1 Thess 4:14).
7. We will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).
8. The One who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise us with Jesus
and will present us with you (2 Cor 4:14).
What we see from these texts is the repeated way in which Paul links
us with Christ in life, death, and resurrection. This study suggests, then,
that in Philippians 1:23 Paul is not describing a conscious state in death
for himself or anyone else, but rather he is describing a continued con-
nection with Jesus Christ, even in death. It is a position consistent with
what we will see in the following discussion of 1 Thessalonians 4, and
further consistent with Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body
in 1 Corinthians 15. If Paul were teaching that upon death a Christian
goes to be consciously with Christ, then we would be faced with a stark
inconsistency in his writings. And if that were the case, what would
be the need for the resurrection he teaches repeatedly in his letters,
including in Philippians 3?21 Rather, Paul’s teaching is consistent through-
out his writings, and both 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 fit within
this wider emphasis on resurrection.
19
So Sumney, 21–26, who argues for a select group, apostles and martyrs, so honored.
20
Cf. Hansen, 86–90.
21
Contra Sumney, Paul in Philippians 3:10–11 describes being conformed to Christ’s death if
somehow he may arrive at the resurrection from the dead. He does not describe himself going
directly to heaven. Instead, the next step after death is resurrection. “Arrive, attain” in verse 11 is
katantaō, which carries the sense of arriving at a geographical destination or reaching a condition
or goal. That goal is resurrection, not something prior.
1 Thessalonians 4
Paul’s teaching concerning the resurrection of the dead is described
in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. It reads as follows:
Now we do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning

those who are asleep, in order that you may not grieve as also
the rest who do not have hope. For if we believe that Jesus died
and arose, so also those who have fallen asleep through Jesus
God will bring with Him. For this we say by the word of the Lord,
that we who are alive, who remain to the coming of the Lord will
certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. Because the
Lord Himself with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and
with the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven and the
dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive who remain
together with them will be caught up in the clouds for the meet-
ing of the Lord in the air. And thus, we will always be with the
Lord. So, comfort one another with these words.
Paul begins by describing the dead as those who are asleep. The
term “asleep” (koimaō, “to sleep, to calm,” used here as a substantival par-
ticiple) was a euphemism for death in the ancient world, much like our
use of “pass away” or “to go to his/her final rest.”22 However, in the New
Testament we have clear evidence that this euphemism was modified
by Jesus Himself, in light of His power to raise the dead.
In Mark 5:39 Jesus refers to Jairus’ dead daughter, saying, “Why are
you making a commotion and crying? The child has not died but is
sleeping.” Our Lord’s statement would make no sense if He were using
“sleeping” euphemistically to refer to death (“she has not died but has
passed away”). Instead, He is commandeering the euphemism to illus-
trate His power to raise the dead. The same occurs in John 11:11, where He
says, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going so that I
make wake him.” The disciples misunderstand (v. 12), so Jesus plainly
describes Lazarus’ state in verse 14: “Lazarus has died.” It may well be
that in 1 Thessalonians 4 Paul is using “asleep” in the same manner
since he is about to describe the resurrection of the dead, and in light
of the fact that elsewhere he shows no qualms about describing death
and suffering.
22
Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International Greek Testament
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 167.
Verse 14 is key to understanding Paul’s teaching on resurrection—

and indeed regarding his view of the state of the dead. In keeping with
the apostle’s typical method of presenting a topic, he presents his
thesis first in a brief statement (1 Thess 4:14), and then unfolds and ex-
plains it in subsequent verses (1 Thess 4:15–18). As we have seen, in both
the beginning of Christian life regarding baptism23 and in the warp and
woof of daily Christian life,24 here also Paul ties the Christian to the
experience of Jesus. In the first half of verse 14 he affirms the death and
resurrection of Jesus as central to our belief as Christians.25 The con-
clusion he draws from these facts in the second half of the verse deals
with the death and resurrection of Christians. He ties the Christians
to the experience of their Lord via two phrases using two different prep-
ositions: “those who have fallen asleep through Jesus” and “He [God]
will bring with Him [Jesus].”
In the first phrase Paul uses dia (“through, by, via”) as an expression
of personal agency, linking the death of Christians to Jesus. They have
fallen asleep through or by means of Jesus. It is not the case that Christ
has caused their death, but rather that He is present with them not only
when they die but throughout the time they are dead.
This is a deep truth that the apostle emphasizes elsewhere in his
writings as well. In Colossians 1:15–20 Paul notes both that Jesus is the
Firstborn of all creation and the Firstborn from the dead. In each case
“Firstborn” (prōtotokos) does not mean “first one born,” since in the case
of creation Christ is the Creator of all (Col 1:16) and so He could not be
created.26 And in the case of the dead He was not the first person
ever raised to life.27 Instead, “Firstborn” here refers to preeminence and
23
See the section titled “Romans 6” in this study.
24
See the sections titled “1 Corinthians 6” and “2 Corinthians 1” in this study.
25
The statement is a first-class conditional sentence in Greek, which in this setting likely affirms
the reality of the protasis (the “if ” clause) and then draws a conclusion in the apodosis (the “then”
clause). Thus, “If we believe that Jesus died and rose again [and we do], then God also those who
have fallen asleep through Jesus He will bring with Him” (author’s translation). The other possi-
bility is fairly similar: that Paul is expressing a syllogism with the protasis describing the premise
(“If we believe this”), and the apodosis expressing the consequent conclusion (“Then we must
also believe this”). See Richard C. Blight, 1–2 Thessalonians, SIL Exegetical Summary Series, 2nd
ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 128.
26
Note the way Paul stresses the all-encompassing nature of Christ’s creative work when he uses
“all things” twice in Colossians 1:16, along with two merisms, “heaven and earth” and “visible
and invisible.”
27
Moses was raised to life, Elijah and Elisha raised people to life, and Jesus, during His ministry,
raised numerous people to life.
primacy of position, a concept of leadership, rule, and origin.28 Jesus is

the origin of all created things but He is also King or leader of all the
dead. This last concept may seem strange to us since the dead are un-
conscious. Nevertheless, they have a connection with Jesus Christ. Paul
indicates in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that they are the dead “in Christ”—
the typical terminology he uses to describe Christian life. And in
Romans 14:7–9 he affirms,
For none of us lives to himself and none of dies to himself. For

also if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the
Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For
it was for this reason that Christ died and came to life, in order
that He might reign over the dead and the living.
We Adventists have made the grave too dark and cold a place. At
times we almost seem to delight in tearing down the misconception that
people go to heaven when they die, insisting that, no, they are uncon-
scious, resting in the grave. Little do we realize how cold and heartless
this comes across to those who take comfort in their loved ones watching
over them from above.29 In contrast, Scripture presents dead Christians
not only as unconscious, but also as firmly and most certainly still “in
Christ,” with a continuing connection with Him. They sleep through Jesus,
who is the Firstborn of the dead.30
The last phrase of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 encapsulates the result of the
resurrection of the saints when the Lord returns. God, says the apostle,
will bring them with Jesus. That this phrase does not somehow describe
people going to heaven when they die is made clear both by the overall
structure of verse 14 and by the subsequent explanation in verses 15–18
28
This second meaning is part of the legacy of the concept of the firstborn son receiving the
position of leadership in the family and also receiving a double portion of the inheritance.
29
This was brought home starkly to the author of this study when teaching non-Adventist
students. Upon hearing about the state of the dead as being unconscious in the grave, one stu-
dent who had recently lost her grandmother and was sure she was in heaven watching over her,
reacted sharply, even apoplectically. The experience illustrates the need to properly prepare
people for this truth. On further reflection, the author also sees the need for Adventists to
understand that the dead are still “in Christ.”
30
Firstborn of the dead is a Christological title (Col 1:18), indicating a special connection be-
tween Christ and the dead saints. Unlike we who are alive, Christ, having experienced death, has
a special connection with them. See the words of the risen Christ: “Do not fear, I am the First
and the Last, and the Living One, and I was dead and behold I am alive forever and ever and I
have the keys of death and the grave” (Rev 1:17–18).
that explicates its content. The overall structure of the verse is best
shown by a literal translation of its two halves:
A B
For if we believe that Jesus died and arose
A´ B´
Thus also God those who have fallen asleep through Jesus He will bring with Him
In the first phrase, “Jesus died” corresponds to “those who have fall-
en asleep through Jesus” in the second phrase. And “arose” in the first
phrase corresponds to “bring with Him” in the second phrase. Conse-
quently, “bring with Him” does not refer to going to heaven at death, but
rather describes the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return.31
This understanding is affirmed by the rest of the verses in the pas-
sage where Paul gives various indicators to affirm that the dead are not
in heaven today but are awaiting the Lord’s return to be raised to life. In
1 Thessalonians 4:15 he states that the living saints “will not precede those
who have fallen asleep.” Paul is not suggesting that they have already
gone to heaven, for in verse 16 he clearly states, “The dead in Christ will
rise first.” Then he says that we who remain to the coming of the Lord
will be “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in
the air, and thus we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).
The impact of this teaching on everyday life is evident every time
we repeat these words at a funeral. As Paul states, “So then, comfort
one another with these words” (1 Thess 4:18). Not only do these words
comfort us with the understanding that our departed friends are still
“in Christ,” still connected intimately with Him, but these words also
speak to our own knowledge and sense of mortality. As we age we may
become discouraged at the breakdown and loss of physical abilities. The
teaching of 1 Thessalonians 4 buoys our spirits as we realize that what we
experience here is not the end. Our Lord will soon return and bring to
an end all of the present sorrow. Yet should we die before His return, we
are not left alone, cold and sleeping in the grave. We sleep through Jesus
and are most certainly still “in Christ.”
31
See Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:14: “Knowing that the One who raised the Lord Jesus also
will raise us with Jesus and bring us into His presence with you.” These words are very much
like 1 Thessalonians 4, adding the notation that God will raise us with Jesus. Again, we are not
separated from our Lord by death.
Conclusion
The thesis presented in this study is that eschatology as expressed

through the resurrection of Jesus is integral to every aspect of our mis-
sion and brings balance to our perspective of the present and the future.
We have seen this thesis worked out in a study of key passages from
Paul’s writings. Starting with the beginning of Christian life in baptism
and justification, the resurrection of Jesus is there. Coming to everyday
experiences of ethics and mission, we see that the resurrection of Jesus
is also there. And finally, looking at the issue of death, we again find that
Jesus’ resurrection is clearly front and center.
Paul always talks about the resurrection of Jesus. This is not a philo-
sophical or theological discourse separated from our Lord. He is always
at the heart of the discussion—and indeed the theology, which is not
surprising when talking about the person we might call the first Chris-
tian theologian. But it bears emphasizing because we may be tempted,
when talking about eschatology and related topics, to speak of them in
the abstract and quietly, even subtly, separate them from Christ. Such
would be a grave mistake.32 Perhaps this is partly what has happened,
at least to some minds, when we talk about Adventist mission. Early
Adventists were on fire for the soon return of Jesus and were just as in-
volved in helping those around them in practical Christian ministry.
They were in the thick of the temperance movement, health reform,
and the abolition of slavery. We can learn from how they lived and from
what we have seen in Paul’s teaching: the resurrection of Jesus must be at
the center of all we do and teach. That is where balance is found.
32
Cf. Hendrikus Boers, “The Meaning of Christ’s Resurrection in Paul,” in Resurrection: The
Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Faith and Scholarship
Colloquies (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 106–107, who says, “Nowhere in his letters does
Paul present a teaching about Christ. When he brings to expression the meaning of Christ’s
resurrection, it is always part of his reasoning concerning specific issues for which Christ has
meaning. . . . It is possible to abstract a single, complex meaning of Christ’s resurrection for Paul
from the variety of his expressions, but that would not be what Christ meant for him in any
particular passage. The meanings expressed by Paul are not entirely new, but drawing on the
information about Christ which he had in his mind as a resource, he brought out new meanings
as they became relevant in each case.”
CHAPTER 10
Israel In Prophecy from A New

Testament Perspective
Clinton Wahlen
Many prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Israel have had

no obvious fulfillment;1 yet the writers of the New Testament consis-
tently speak of prophecies fulfilled.2 The relation of the New Testament
to the Old and the use of the Old Testament in the New have generated
no little discussion over the past several decades.3 Many deeper her-
meneutical issues underlie conclusions that are drawn in this field of
study and will not be discussed here, except to state the hermeneutical
framework and assumptions from which we will proceed. To adequately
cover this topic would require a book-length investigation, so this study
will necessarily be selective, focusing on some of the most important
1
See R. P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament
Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM Press, 1979).
2
This has led some interpreters to postulate a dispensational approach whereby God’s plans
and purposes for Israel and for the Gentile world are on completely separate tracks throughout
history, according to the different covenants on which they are based. There are many helpful
responses showing the untenability of this suggestion: e.g., Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Essence of
Dispensationalism,” Ministry, May 1981, 4–6; Gerhard F. Hasel, “Israel in Bible Prophecy,” Journal
of the Adventist Theological Society 3, no. 1 (1992): 120–155; and Hans K. LaRondelle, “Israel in
Biblical Prophecy,” Ministry, January 2007, 17–21. Consequently, this study will be more focused.
3
Recently, see, e.g., Clinton Wahlen, “The Use of Scripture by Bible Writers,” in The Gift of
Prophecy in Scripture and History, ed. Alberto R. Timm and Dwaine N. Esmond (Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 2015), 102–116 and G. K. Beale, “The Cognitive Peripheral Vision of Biblical Au-
thors,” Westminster Theological Journal 76 (2014): 263–293, applying the insights of E. D. Hirsch,
Jr. to difficult New Testament use of Old Testament passages; note also the objections (to which
Beale responds) raised by Steve Moyise, “Does Paul Respect the Context of His Quotations?”
in Paul and Scripture, ed. Christopher D. Stanley, SBL Early Christianity and Its Literature 9
(Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 97–99, 112.
passages for understanding New Testament perspectives on prophecies

regarding Israel’s future and their fulfillment in the Christian era.
After touching on some important hermeneutical consider-
ations that underlie this study, we will consider Jesus’ understanding of
Israel’s prophetic hope, and then proceed canonically with prophetic
expectations for Israel described in the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s extensive
discussion of prophetic expectations for Israel in Romans 9–11, and the
apocalyptic perspective found in the book of Revelation. Finally, we
will attempt to draw together these several perspectives into a coherent
picture of Israel in prophecy.
Operational Hermeneutical Framework
The hermeneutical framework from which this study will proceed

is shared by a considerable number of interpreters in terms of how the
biblical writers seem to use Scripture.4 First, when New Testament writ-
ers cite the Old Testament, they do so in a way that is sensitive to the
passages’ original meaning in their historical context while recognizing
a deeper meaning that was only partially grasped by the earlier writers
(Dan 12:8–10; 1 Pet 1:10–12).5 In other words, the meaning that the New
Testament writers explain represents a more complete picture of what
was already hinted at by the Old Testament writers. Consequently, “the
Christian interpreter cannot interpret the Old Testament in the final and
ultimate sense as if Christ has not yet come and as if the New Testament
has not yet been written.”6 Rather, a faithful interpretation of Scripture
will take into account “all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25).7
4
Foundational from an Old Testament perspective is Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward an Old Tes-
tament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978) and Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of
God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 1983). See also Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago,
IL: Moody, 1985); Hasel; and Richard M. Davidson, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament
Cognitive Peripheral Vision,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5, no. 1 (1994): 14–39.
For a concise listing of these hermeneutical presuppositional perspectives, see Beale, “Cognitive
Peripheral Vision,” 284–286.
5
This deeper meaning becomes evident through a consideration of the larger context of the writ-
ers’ perceptual vision that may not be explicit but is always organically connected to the explicit
meaning through what Beale calls their “cognitive peripheral vision” (see n. 3).
6
LaRondelle, Israel of God, 14.
7
For Seventh-day Adventist interpreters, this includes taking into consideration the inspired in-
sights given by Ellen G. White. See Executive Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists, “Methods of Bible Study,” October 12, 1986, 4(l), https://www.adventist.org/en/informa-
tion/official-statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study/(accessed July 5, 2018).
Second, Christ is viewed by New Testament writers as representing

in His person God’s true people Israel (Matt 2:15; 3:17; John 1:49).8 This
coincides at important points with messianic expectations in the Old
Testament, including the Servant Songs of Isaiah, the new exodus or-
acles in Hosea, and some of the Davidic psalms.9 Third, biblical history
unfolds as part of a divine plan so that elements of earlier passages
foreshadow, prefigure, and predict later parts of that plan (Matt 11:13–14;
1 Cor 10:11).10 This harmonious testimony of the Old and New Testa-
ments not only confirms the explanatory power of such an approach but
also elucidates the inspired character of the Bible as a divine revelation.
Some object that these principles of interpretation are invalid be-
cause they are not falsifiable.11 While, admittedly, it is impossible to
be absolutely certain regarding the theological connections that gave
rise to specific citations of Scripture by Bible writers, that does not
mean that probable conclusions regarding such connections cannot be
drawn. To the contrary, an inspired writer’s implicit meaning can be
deduced—with varying degrees of probability—from a close study
of what is made explicit. By way of analogy, even though we may only
see the tip of an iceberg (a text’s explicit meaning), we can be sure that
what lies under the water beneath it (its implicit meaning) is organi-
cally connected to it and determined by it rather than by an isolated
chunk of ice floating nearby.12 So, with this hermeneutical framework
in mind, we now proceed to a consideration of some important New
Testament perspectives on Israel in prophecy.
Jesus and Israel’s Prophetic Hope
An important, though challenging, starting point in our study

of Israel in prophecy is with the understanding of Jesus Himself on
this subject.13 While the details are fiercely debated, there is a broad
consensus that one of Jesus’ aims involved the restoration of Israel in
8
Beale, “Cognitive Peripheral Vision,” 285.
9
LaRondelle, Israel of God, 93–96 (the Servant Songs); Beale, “Cognitive Peripheral Vision,”
275–279 (new exodus in Hosea); and Davidson, “New Testament Use,” 23–28 (messianic Psalms).
10
LaRondelle, Israel of God, 39–40.
11
E.g., Moyise, 99.
12
This helpful analogy is from Beale, “Cognitive Peripheral Vision,” 268.
Much of the content in this section is summarized, and at some points further developed, from
13
Clinton Wahlen, “The Remnant in the Gospels,” in Toward a Theology of the Remnant, ed. Ángel
Manuel Rodríguez (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2009), 61–76.
some way.14 Evidence for this includes: 1) Jesus’ appointment of the

Twelve—a symbolic representation at least of a “regathering of the twelve
tribes” of Israel, both as a present reality and a future hope;15 2) the
Gospel portrayal, when viewed together, of Jesus’ ministry embracing
those dwelling within the biblical borders of Israel, even though some
of these areas were predominantly populated by Gentiles or Samaritans;16
and 3) His sending of the Twelve on a mission to Israel.
An obvious problem with the hypothesis that Jesus’ ministry was
connected with the restoration of Israel is the fact that, like His fore-
runner’s, His proclamation was rejected by the majority in Israel. But if
His kingdom proclamation pointed to the eschatological fulfillment of
prophetic hopes, why did it not eventuate in a restored national Israel?17
In response, it should be recognized that Jesus’ proclamation aimed at
more than merely a national revival based on kingdom ethics—“there
would be an eschatological judgment and sifting,”18 fulfilling prophetic
hopes that envisaged Israel’s restoration as the ultimate goal of divine
judgment. Interestingly, Jesus uses “language similar to what we find on
the lips of John the Baptist.”19 The similarity between the proclamations
of John and Jesus are most clearly seen in the litany of sayings connect-
ed in Matthew with the Beelzebul controversy (Matt 12:30–45 par.),20
14
Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2002), 107, shows that in first-century Israel competing understand-
ings existed as to how this restoration would be realized: “Restoration could be conceived of
either as a return to covenant fidelity or as the re-establishment of the twelve tribes and national
dominion.”
John P. Meier, “The Circle of the Twelve: Did it Exist During Jesus’ Public Ministry?” Journal of
15
Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 657; see also Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London:
SCM, 1971), 233–234.
16
Luke and John show Jesus’ concern for Samaritans (Luke 9:52; John 4:4; cf. 8:48, but also
Matt 10:5), while all four Gospels suggest His concern for Gentiles (e.g., Matt 8:10–13; Mark 7:31;
Luke 4:25–27; John 10:16; 12:20–25). On the latter concern, see Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the
Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa-
ment 2/185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 130–131 and James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 322–323.
Addressing this basic question, see Markus Bockmuehl, “Did Jesus Fail?” in This Jesus: Martyr,
17
Lord, Messiah (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 77–102.

18
Wahlen, “Remnant,” 70; cf. 68 and n. 48. This judgment includes but involves more than the
“eschatological reversal” and/or a final judgment at the end of the age suggested by Dunn, 412–17,
420–425.
19
Wahlen, “Remnant,” 70.
20
Although many of these sayings appear in a different setting in Luke, this independent wit-
ness to their being spoken by Jesus indicates that they are likely reflective of His proclamation.
Besides these similarities with John, Jesus warns that only the sign of Jonah will be given to “this
but there are other parallels also:21 The implication is that Jesus’ procla-
mation begins the time of fulfillment predicted by John.
John the Baptist Jesus

“Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit
“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit
will not be forgiven” (Matt 12:32;
and fire” (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16).
Luke 12:10).
“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to
“You brood of vipers! How can you speak
flee from the wrath to come?”
good, when you are evil?” (Matt 12:34).
(Matt 3:7; Luke 3:7).
“Bear fruit in keeping with
repentance. . . . Even now the axe is laid “Either make the tree good and its fruit
to the root of the trees. Every tree good, or make the tree bad and its fruit
therefore that does not bear good fruit is bad, for the tree is known by its fruit”
cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matt 12:33; Luke 6:43–44).
(Matt 3:8, 10; Luke 3:8–9).
“Whoever is not with me is against me,
“He will clear his threshing floor and and whoever does not gather with me
gather his wheat into the barn” scatters” (Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23);
(Matt 3:12a; Luke 3:17a). “Gather the wheat into my barn”
(Matt 13:30b).
“The chaff he will burn with unquench- “Bind them [the tares] in bundles to be
able fire” (Matt 3:12b; Luke 3:17b). burned” (Matt 13:30a).
From these parallels, it seems that both Jesus and John understood
their work not only as fulfilling prophecy; they also anticipated that
their proclamation would bring the people of Israel to a point of de-
cision that would give rise to a faithful remnant who accepted their
message. “As the gospel narratives present it, this sifting [within Israel]
already begins in a very real sense with the gathering of those who
choose to follow Jesus, His spiritual ‘family’ (Mark 3:31–35), and the ex-
clusive disclosures to the Twelve in recognition that many were not
accepting His gospel of the kingdom (4:11–12).”22 The judgment parables
generation” (Matt 12:38–42; Luke 11:29–32), and warns also of an unclean spirit returning with
seven spirits worse than himself (Matt 12:43–45; Luke 11:24–26), applying it in Matthew to “this
wicked generation” (Matt 12:45).
Emphasis supplied in the verses that follow. All biblical quotations are from the ESV, except
21
when the Greek or Hebrew text is provided in which case the translation is the author’s.
22
Wahlen, “Remnant,” 71.
further extrapolate on the opposition and rejection of Him.23 Recognizable

remnant terminology appears throughout Jesus’ teaching, indicating an
awareness that Israel’s future would center around His followers.24 Nev-
ertheless, the concept of the remnant in the teaching of Jesus is not
exclusive but is open to all who would accept His proclamation
(Matt 8:11 par.; cf. Luke 4:25–27). Jesus makes this clear by ministering
not only to Jews, but also to Gentiles and Samaritans (e.g., Matt 8:5–13
par.; Luke 17:11–19). Finally, just before His ascension, Jesus commis-
sions His followers to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matt 28:19–20),
beginning in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8).25 These more universal gospel com-
missions include the nation of Israel—then and now (cf. Rev 14:6).26
Israel in New Testament Prophecy
Looking more broadly across the New Testament, terms for all or
part of Israel appear frequently, usually in reference to the histori-
cal nation of Israel and its citizens.27 Prophecies about Israel are far less
common. This investigation necessarily includes not only these direct
references, but also some passages that are less explicit yet important
in order to present a complete picture of the topic.
From a canonical perspective, the Gospels present Jesus as the messi-
anic fulfillment of Israel’s hope for restoration, citing events in Jesus’ life as
fulfilling prophecy. Matthew identifies Jesus as the ideal King, who gathers
and shepherds Israel (Matt 2:6, citing Mic 5:2; Matt 9:36; cf. 12:30; 26:31),
and who, together with His disciples, proclaims “the gospel of the king-
dom” (Matt 4:17, 23; 9:35; 10:7). The Gospels highlight the significance of
23
In the context of this confrontation with the temple authorities, the parables represent an im-
plicit judgment on Israel’s leadership (esp. Mark 12:1–12 parr); further, see Clinton Wahlen, “The
Temple in Mark and Contested Authority,” Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007): 248–267.
24
This terminology includes loipos (“rest, remnant”), eklektōn (“elect”), seed imagery, the idea of
building and planting, “other sheep” or sheep that are “lost,” and various quantifying terminology
(“few/many, little ones, little flock, poor”). Further see Wahlen, “Remnant,” 72–75.
25
Significant in this connection is the expectation of the disciples that the kingdom would be
restored to Israel (Acts 1:6), whatever that might mean; cf. n. 14.
26
See James LaGrand, The Earliest Christian Mission to ‘All Nations’ in the Light of Matthew’s
Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999); Matthias Konradt, Israel, Church, and the Gentiles
in the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Kathleen Ess (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 311–322;
cf. Wahlen, Jesus, 110, 136.
27
These terms include “Israel” (sixty-eight times), “Israelite” (nine times), “tribes” (one or more
of the twelve, twenty-four times), “Jew” (or “Judean,” 194 times), and “Judea” (forty-four times).
All word frequencies are based on the NA28 text morphologically tagged by William D. Mounce
and Rex A. Koivisto, version 4.9, using Accordance, version 12.2.5, OakTree Software, May 2018.
the crowd calling Jesus “the son of David” (Matt 21:9), “the King who
comes in the name of the Lord,” (Luke 19:38; cf. Mark 11:9–10), and
even “the King of Israel” (John 12:13). Significantly, all four Gospels re-
cord the inscription above the cross, proclaiming Jesus as “the King of
the Jews” (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19).28 This ironic
reference to Jesus’ true status as the messianic King, together with
His proclamation of the advent of God’s kingdom, shifts the focus away
from an ethnic definition of Israel to one centered on following Him.
According to Matthew’s account, national Israel’s rejection of Jesus
would result in the kingdom being taken from them and “given to a
people producing its fruits” (Matt 21:43).29 Certain sayings and parables
fast forward to the second advent, at which time the Son of Man
appears “coming on the clouds of heaven,” to gather His people into the
promised kingdom (Matt 24:30–31 parr.; John 14:1–3). Jesus describes
Himself sitting on a throne in royal splendor (Matt 26:64 parr.) and
judging “all the nations,” dividing them into two groups “as a shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats.” This collective testimony of the
gospel writers points toward a redefinition of Israel, with Jesus not only
as King, but also as Judge who defines the basis for membership
in this kingdom and issues the verdict as to who will enter it and who
are shut out of it (Matt 25:31–46; John 5:26–29; cf. 12:48).
Acts 15
Ultimately, it is this widely recognized identification of Jesus as
Israel’s messianic King that is foundational for how the New Testa-
ment writers understand the prophecies related to Israel. In Acts 15, the
prophecy of Amos 9:11–12 led the Jerusalem Council to the realization
that the inclusion of believing Gentiles was an integral part of Israel’s
28
Outside of this phrase, which is identical in all Four Gospels, minor variations in their reports
of the rest of the sign reflect what might be expected from independent eyewitness accounts.
29
On this basis some argue for a sharp discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments in
which the church replaces Israel: e.g., Raoul Dederen, “The Church,” in Handbook of Seventh-day
Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 543–544
and Gerhard Pfandl, “Seventh-day Adventists and Replacement Theology,” in “The End from
the Beginning”: Festschrift Honoring Merling Alomia, ed. Benjamin Rojas et al. (Lima: Peruvian
Union University Press, 2015), 419–434. Others find a basis for more continuity. E.g., Richard
M. Davidson, “Israel and the Church: Continuity and Discontinuity—I,” in Message, Mission,
and Unity of the Church, ed. Ángel M. Rodríguez (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute,
2013), 395, writes, “The Church is not a replacement for Israel, not a New Israel, but an extension
and continuation of true Israel”; cf. Clinton Wahlen, “Matthew 27:25: Are the Jews Responsible
for the Death of Christ?” in Interpreting Scripture: Bible Questions and Answers, ed. Gerhard
Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute Studies 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2010),
297–300.
promised restoration and that this would happen through God’s direct
intervention to raise up or restore ( āqîm) the “booth” (Heb. sukkat)
or house of David,30 a prophecy the apostles interpret messianically as
referring to Jesus.31 Their reference to the “remnant of Mankind”32 is
described in Amos as “all the nations who are called by my name”—that
is, believing Gentiles (Acts 15:14–17; cf. vs. 7–11).33
Just prior to these verses describing Israel’s restoration quoted at the
Council, Amos indicates that this will be preceded by an act of God’s
judgment in which He shakes “the house of Israel among all the nations
as one shakes with a sieve” (Amos 9:9). From Amos’ eighth-century BC
perspective, this dispersion would seem to refer to the Assyrian and
Babylonian exiles. However, considering first-century Israel’s similarly
smug attitude toward Jerusalem with its rebuilt temple (John 2:20), their
rejection of Jesus, and Jesus’ ensuing prediction of the temple’s certain
destruction (Mark 13:1–2; Luke 21:20; cf. Dan 9:24–26), it may well
refer to the sifting process previously discussed in connection with Je-
sus that eventuated in the faithful remnant of Jews who became His
followers. As recorded by Luke, this understanding of the prophecy’s
fulfillment seems to have been held by the apostles, because no proph-
ecy of Israel’s restoration—including this one—could be complete without
the fulfillment of the promises to David that the kingdom of his seed
would be established forever (2 Sam 7:12–13; Ps 89:29; Jer 33:17–26),
a prophecy that would be fulfilled in Christ, the royal Son (Isa 9:6–7;
Luke 1:32–33; Rom 1:3).34 This faithful remnant of Jews together with
believing Gentiles (“all the nations who are called by my name”) repre-
sent the continuing purpose of God for Israel.35
30
See Billy K. Smith and Frank S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, The New American Commentary
19B (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 165–166.
31
A messianic interpretation of this passage is also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 7:16–21;
4QFlor 1:11–13).
32
Some copies of the Hebrew text, instead of ’dym (Edom), may have had the shorter form ’dm
(cf. LXX, tōn anthrōpōn, as in Acts 15:17) that, with different vocalization, could mean “mankind”
(cf. Gen 5:2, NKJV).
33
The Hebrew haggoyim (LXX, ta ethnē) can be translated either “the nations” or “the Gentiles.”
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1993), 365, shows the consonance of James’ interpretation with the context of Amos
(citing Amos 9:7), which indicates “that the nations will come under the rule of God, and . . . that
God is concerned for the nations themselves.”
34
Revelation confirms this interpretation by identifying Jesus as “the Root and the Offspring of
David” (Rev 22:16) who will rule the nations “with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5; 19:15; cf. Ps 2:9).
35
Cf. Jeff Niehaus, “Amos,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary,
vol. 1, Hosea, Joel, and, Amos, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
Expansive Terminology
Significantly, the New Testament writers seem to distance believ-
ers in Jesus from the unbelieving nation by their clear preference for the
ethnic term Ioudaios (Jew), which occurs three times more frequently
than references to national Israel.36 In five instances, qualifying termi-
nology or context indicates that “Israel” extends beyond the typical
ethnic conception of the term (Rom 9:6; 11:26; Gal 6:16; Heb 8:10; Rev 7:4).
The phenomenon also occurs in reverse to distinguish ethnic Israel from
this more expansive definition.37
Even the term “Jew” is occasionally modified in the direction of a
spiritual definition (Rom 2:28–29; Rev 2:9; 3:9).38 Also, Jesus’ reference
to Nathanael as “a true Israelite” (alēthōs Israēlitēs, John 1:47) indicates
the inadequacy of a strictly ethnic definition. Paul makes a similar
point in a detailed discussion of Abraham as the father of Israel
(Rom 4:9–18), describing him as the father of “all the seed” on the basis
of faith (ek pisteōs, Rom 4:16)—irrespective of whether they are “of the
law” (circumcised Jews physically descended from Abraham) or “of the
faith of Abraham” (Gentiles who, like Abraham, believe without being
circumcised).39
Romans 9–11
This modified understanding of crucial Old Testament terms
such as “seed” and “Jew” by Paul (esp. in Romans and Galatians)40
should be taken seriously in the interpretation of those references to
“Israel” in Romans 9–11 that include qualifiers that seem to broaden
its scope. Especially pertinent for us to consider is the affirmation that,
1992), 492. On the exegetical issues in relating the interpretation in Acts to the historical con-
text of Amos, see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles
(Amos 9:9–15 and Acts 15:13–18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems,” Journal of The Evan-
gelical Theological Society 20, no. 2 (1977): 97–111.
36
195 times (eighty-eight times in the Gospels, seventy-nine times in Acts, twenty-six times in
the Epistles, and two times in Revelation), compared to sixty-three of the sixty-eight occurrences
of Israēl in the New Testament.
37
“Israel according to the flesh” (Israēl kata sarka, 1 Cor 10:18).
38
Robert H. Mounce, Romans, The New American Commentary 27 (Nashville, TN: Broadman
and Holman), 102 and n. 141; cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 143–144.
39
Similarly, Mounce, 128 and Schreiner, 231–32. The more literal rendering of the Greek text by
the NKJV is utilized for the three quoted phrases, as well as in the table that follows in connec-
tion with Romans 9–11.
40
To fully grasp Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11, a consideration of Galatians (esp. 3:26–29;
4:21–31; 5:6; 6:15–16) is helpful.
ultimately, as a result of the gospel proclamation to the Gentiles, “all

Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26).41 The principal ways in which this
phrase has been understood are: 1) the whole of national Israel, including
every individual; 2) national Israel as a whole, but not necessarily
every individual; 3) the elect of national Israel; and 4) all the elect, both
Jews and Gentiles.42
Of the eleven occurrences of “Israel” in Romans (all of which are
in chapters 9–11), Paul’s first two uses of the term in Romans 9:6 obvi-
ously have two different senses. The first instance (“for not all who are
descended from Israel”)43 refers to the physical descendants of Abra-
ham, whereas the second instance (“belong to Israel”) indicates that only
some physical descendants of Abraham belong to “Israel.” Succeeding
verses make the same point in different words. The following table
summarizes Paul’s description of the two groups, national Israel and
Israel by promise (which includes Gentiles who believe).44
Romans National Israel Israel by Promise/Gentiles

not all who are descended from
9:6 belong to Israel
Israel
not all are children of Abraham through Isaac shall your off-
9:7
because they are his offspring spring be named
it is not the children of the flesh the children of the promise are
9:8
who are the children of God counted as offspring
9:13 Esau I hated Jacob I loved
it depends not on human will or
9:16 on God, who has mercy
exertion
though the number of the sons of those who were not my people
9:27, 25 Israel be as the sand of the sea, only I will call ‘my people,’. . . . ‘sons
a remnant of them will be saved of the living God’
If the Lord . . . had not left us
her who was not beloved I will
9:29, 25 offspring, we would have been like
call ‘beloved’
Sodom . . . like Gomorrah
For a summary of Paul’s argumentation in Romans 9–11, see Clinton Wahlen, “Romans 11:26:
41
Will All Jews Be Saved?” in Pfandl, Interpreting Scripture, 351–355.

42
Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
vol. 2, Romans 9–16, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 576
(given in a different order).
43
The Greek text is ou gar pantes hoi ex Israēl houtoi Israēl.
44
Emphasis supplied in the verses that follow.
Romans National Israel Israel by Promise/Gentiles

Israel who pursued a law that
Gentiles who did not pursue
9:31, 30 would lead to righteousness did not
righteousness have attained it
succeed in reaching that law
9:32, 30 based on works by faith
seeking to establish their own [righ- Christ is the end of the law for
10:3, 4 teousness], did not submit to God’s righteousness to everyone who
righteousness believes
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same
Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on Him.
10:12–13
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”
[Joel 2:32].
salvation has come to the
11:5, 11 a remnant chosen by grace
Gentiles
they were broken off because of
11:20 You stand fast through faith
their unbelief
. . . provided you continue in
If they do not continue in their
11:23, 22 his kindness. Otherwise you
unbelief, will be grafted in
too will be cut off
a partial hardening has come upon until the fullness of the Gentiles
11:25
Israel has come in
11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved
From this table, it becomes clear that national Israel could not all
be saved because, like Ishmael, they were children of Abraham only by
physical descent, whereas Isaac was the son of promise by means of a
miraculous birth. Ishmael and Isaac represent two different conceptions
of Israel, one “born according to the flesh” and the other “born accord-
ing to the Spirit” through faith in God’s promise (Gal 4:29; cf. John 1:13).
As Paul indicates, only “the children of the promise are counted as
offspring” (Rom 9:8). Use of the term logizomai (“counted”) is signifi-
cant as it connects the argument here with what was said earlier about
Abraham being the father of “all his offspring” (Rom 4:16)—meaning
all who believe as Abraham did whether or not they are circumcised.45
Nowhere does Paul limit this expansive definition of Israel to physical
45
The term logizomai is used repeatedly in connection with justification by faith—eleven times
in twelve verses (Rom 4:3–11, 22–24). Use of plural forms in Romans 9:8 shows that collective
entities are in view—national Israel (“the children of the flesh”) and believing Gentiles (“the
children of the promise”).
Jews. That is why at the outset of Romans 9, in referring to his “broth-

ers” as “my kinsmen,” he adds “according to the flesh,” in order to make
clear that he is talking about ethnic Israelites. In fact, the term “Israelites,”
like “Israel,” is always an ethnic designation unless it has some additional
qualifier to indicate a different definition.46
As we have seen, Paul explicitly includes believing Gentiles in his
definition of the “seed” or offspring of Abraham (Rom 4:11, 16). Fur-
thermore, he specifically denies ethnicity as having a role in salvation—
“there is neither Jew nor Greek, . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:28–29, NKJV).
National Israel and believing Gentiles represent two different approaches
to attaining righteousness, one based on works and the other based on
faith (Rom 9:30–31), which explains why national Israel stumbled: because
righteousness can never be attained through works (Rom 9:32; cf. 3:20,
28; 4:2, 6), but only by faith. At the same time, Paul is profoundly bur-
dened over the salvation of his fellow Jews—so much so that he wishes
he could be cut off from salvation if it could accrue to their account
(Rom 9:3), though he is clearly aware that this is not possible (cf.
Exod 32:32–34). More important still is the trustworthiness of God’s
promises. Paul unequivocally affirms that, despite Israel’s stumbling,
the word of God has not failed (Rom 9:6). Nor has God rejected His
people, pointing to himself as evidence that at least some Israelites can
be numbered among God’s people. A “remnant” (Rom 9:27), a faithful
“seed” of national Israel (Rom 9:29), will be saved. Blindness has hap-
pened to Israel only “in part” (Rom 11:25), so that “there is a remnant
according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5).
What then does Paul mean in affirming that “all Israel” (pas Israēl) will
be saved (Rom 11:26)? First of all, it is important to recognize that, as at
the outset in Romans 9:6, so here there is an added qualification—all
Israel.47 Based on what we have observed so far, “all Israel” cannot refer
to all Israelites, or even to national Israel more generally, because of
Paul’s repeated references to a “remnant” being saved. Furthermore, by
indicating that he hopes to save “some” of his fellow Jews (Rom 11:14),
he does not expect all to be saved or even the vast majority. Also un-
persuasive is the suggestion that “all Israel” refers to a faithful remnant
46
In eight of nine occurrences it is not further qualified and refers to ethnicity (Acts 2:22; 3:12;
5:35; 13:16; 21:28; Rom 9:4; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22). The other instance, as we have seen, is Jesus’ reference
to Nathaniel as a “true Israelite” (John 1:47) that, while likely referring to a subset within Israel,
nevertheless indicates that ethnicity alone is insufficient to belong to God’s Israel.
47
This is unlike the other uses of Israel in Romans. Apart from such further qualification, the
normal (ethnic) definition of Israel is implied (Rom 9:27 [2x], 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25).
from national Israel. How could such a narrow group be called “all Israel”?
Besides, the salvation of some Jews would appear to be assumed already,
so it hardly seems that this could be the profound “mystery” being re-
vealed (Rom 11:25). Applying this verse to a remnant of Jews also takes
insufficient account of Paul’s metaphor of the olive tree, which describes
natural branches (ethnic Israelites, Rom 11:21) being “broken off ” (sepa-
rated from God’s people) “because of unbelief ” (Rom 11:17, 20), so that
wild branches (believing Gentiles, Rom 11:17) can be grafted in (Rom 11:19).
Through this metaphor of the olive tree, Paul shows the unity of all
those who believe in Christ—believing Gentiles as well as the believing
remnant of national Israel.48 “The church has not replaced Israel. The
church is the natural continuation of Israel, just like the branches are the
natural continuation of a tree! Believers in Christ are the true Israel.”49
Thus, he can affirm in Galatians 6:15, among other places, that “neither
circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision” (cf. 1 Cor 7:19;
Gal 5:6). What does count, he adds, is a “new creation” (Gal 6:15) Then
Paul speaks about Israel, but again he adds a qualifier. “The Israel of God”
is what counts. It includes “all who walk by this rule”—namely, not cir-
cumcision in the flesh but “a new creation” (inward circumcision), which
comes through faith in Christ (Gal 6:13–15; 2:20).
Part of Israel was hardened that “the full number of Gentiles
might come in” (Rom 11:25).50 Come in to where? To Israel, which Paul
immediately points out: “And in this way all Israel will be saved”
(Rom 11:26). Since this is the result of believing Gentiles uniting with
the believing “remnant” of Israel (Rom 11:5), “all Israel” must include
both Jews and Gentiles.51 He proves this point by quoting two passages of
Scripture. The first (Isa 59:20–21) indicates that some in Israel will be
saved by removing “ungodliness from Jacob”—that is, by removing
unbelievers from Israel (through breaking off some of the natural
branches).52 Paul may also be thinking of the verse that precedes this
48
Similarly, Hasel, “Israel in Bible Prophecy,” 139–140; Hasel, “Remnant,” in The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 134.
49
Kim Papaioannou, “‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Establishing a Basis for a Valid Interpretation,”
Ministry, November 2015, 6–9.
50
Author’s translation of to plērōma tōn ethnōn eiselthē (cf. Luke 21:24). The word plērōma can
refer to completeness in the sense of the “full number” being made complete, as noted in Henry
George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. with revised supplement (Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1996), 1420.
51
Wahlen, “Romans 11:26,” 354.
52
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 59:20 refers to “those who turn from transgression” (focusing
on those who are saved), but Paul quotes the LXX, which refers negatively to those removed
passage, which mentions those who “fear the name of the Lord from
the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun” (Isa 59:19), and apply-
ing it to believing Gentiles. The second passage quoted (in Rom 11:27)
refers to God’s pardoning of sin (Isa 27:9). Paul hints that once God’s
mercy has been shown to the full number of Gentiles, the Jews will also
obtain mercy (Rom 11:11–12, 15, 31). Since both Jews and Gentiles have
been unbelieving, “God has shut up all to disobedience, that he might
have mercy on all” (Rom 11:32, WEB, emphasis supplied).53 The “all” here
clearly means all—both Jews and Gentiles. This is another reason to
conclude that by “all Israel” Paul likewise refers to both Jews and
Gentiles—all who believe in Christ. As we near the end of the gospel
work, we can expect many Jews to come to faith in Christ.54
Book of Revelation
Terminology in the book of Revelation poses special challenges
for interpreters because it is highly symbolic. The many allusions to the
Old Testament—especially to the book of Daniel55—and the way the
book is organized are important to consider, in order to understand the
meaning of any given passage.56 References to the people of God in
from Israel (“he will remove ungodliness [apostrepsei asebeias] from Jacob”).
53
Two words in this verse are hard to render adequately by a single word in English: “shut up”
(sunekleisen) refers to God’s righteous judgment on disobedience; the word “disobedience”
(ēpeithēsan) includes its cause of unbelief.
54
Cf. Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 381: “In
the closing proclamation of the gospel, when special work is to be done for classes of people
hitherto neglected, God expects His messengers to take particular interest in the Jewish people
whom they find in all parts of the earth. As the Old Testament Scriptures are blended with the
New in an explanation of Jehovah’s eternal purpose, this will be to many of the Jews as the dawn
of a new creation, the resurrection of the soul. As they see the Christ of the gospel dispensation
portrayed in the pages of the Old Testament Scriptures, and perceive how clearly the New Testa-
ment explains the Old, their slumbering faculties will be aroused, and they will recognize Christ
as the Saviour of the world. Many will by faith receive Christ as their Redeemer. To them will
be fulfilled the words, ‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of
God, even to them that believe on His name.’ John 1:12.
“Among the Jews are some who, like Saul of Tarsus, are mighty in the Scriptures, and these will
proclaim with wonderful power the immutability of the law of God. The God of Israel will bring
this to pass in our day. His arm is not shortened that it cannot save. As His servants labor in faith
for those who have long been neglected and despised, His salvation will be revealed.”
55
G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Book of Revelation
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).
56
Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed.
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 18, indicates that 278 of 404 verses con-
tain a total of 505 references or allusions, whether direct or indirect, to the Old Testament; cf.
the cautions in Jon Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: The Problematic Use of the Old Testament in
Revelation are frequent and described in many different ways, includ-

ing servants (of God), the churches, those clothed in white garments, a
great multitude, saints, the remnant, My people, those who fear God, etc.
The first references to Israel/Jews in the book of Revelation are in the
letters to the seven churches. This opening septet is particularly impor-
tant in that it provides clues that help readers decode the symbols that
follow later in the book. John “does this by using motifs from the mes-
sages to the churches and weaving them into his narrative, usually with
further development.”57 One of these clues is found in a phrase that
occurs in the letters to Smyrna and Philadelphia. In both places John
refers to those “who say that they are Jews and are not” (Rev 2:9; 3:9).
Many interpreters, reading Revelation from a preterist perspective, con-
sider this to be an ethnic reference to literal Jews persecuting Christians.58
However, John denies the claim of these people to be Jews. If he were
merely referring to their ethnicity then this could not be denied. The
Christian perspective of the book and the fact that these letters are
specifically addressed to Christian congregations (Rev 2:8; 3:7) indicate
that, as with much of the language of the Apocalypse, the term “Jews” is
a coded reference—in this case to those who claim to be Christians
but who are such in name only. Thus, “John no longer defines a Jew
according to ethnicity, but whether a person is a ‘Jew’ (i.e., a member of
the covenant people of God) is measured through spiritual faithful-
ness to God, a standard that John applies equally to both Jews and
Revelation,” Biblical Research 33 (1988): 37–53. On the organization of the book, see Clinton
Wahlen, “Heaven’s View of the Church in Revelation 2–3,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary
9, no. 2 (2006): 147–149; Wahlen, “Letters to the Seven Churches: Historical or Prophetic?”
Ministry, November 2008, 13, 15 (sidebar); and Richard Sabuin, “Repentance in the Book of
Revelation” (PhD diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2006), 54–61; cf.
Kenneth A. Strand, “The Eight Basic Visions of the Book of Revelation,” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 25, no. 1 (1987): 107–121; and Stefanovic, 25–43.
57
Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 128 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 193 n. 40, lists examples: “the church as true Israel (7:1–8, cf. 2:9; 3:9; 2:14, 20);
tribulation (7:14, cf. 1:9; 2:9, 10); white robes (7:9–14, cf. 3:5, 18); temple (7:15; 11:1, cf. 3:12); wit-
ness (11:3, cf. 2:13); conquering (11:7; 12:11; 13:7; 15:2, cf. chs. 1–2); the book of life (13:8, cf. 3:5); the
hearing formula (13:9, cf. chs. 1–2); faithfulness (13:10; 14:12, cf. 3:10, 13).” Cf. Clinton Wahlen, “The
Letter to Laodicea and the Eschatology of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
29, nos. 1–2 (2018): 147: “The letters to the seven churches prepare readers for understanding
the later chapters of the book of Revelation so that when read together they are mutually inter-
pretative.”
58
E.g., Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 137 n. 4, calls them “anti-Christian Jews,” though he admits—
by references to John 8:44; Rom 2:28–29; 11:17–21—that the meaning cannot be confined to this
(ibid., 131).
Gentiles.”59 In the final analysis, it is faith/faithfulness (pistis)60 that deter-

mines whether a person’s dwelling is in heaven or whether they are to be
numbered among the unfaithful earth dwellers.61 The faithful persevere
(Rev 2:19; 3:10; 13:10; 14:12), while the unfaithful, barring some dras-
tic change—for example, by those to whom the letter to Laodicea is
addressed—will ultimately be numbered among the worshippers of the
beast (Rev 13:12, 14; 17:2, 8).62
This spiritual definition of “Jew” conforms to the book’s larger ten-
dency toward universalization63 and prepares readers to understand
references to Israel and the 144,000 in Revelation 7. The chapter is in-
troduced in the context of the end time. Referring to the wrath of God
and that of the Lamb at the time of the second advent, the cry is heard,
“The great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Rev 6:17).
The implied answer is the 144,000, who are pictured immediately there-
after receiving the seal of God in their foreheads (Rev 7:3–4). This
number is derived from each of the twelve listed tribes of Israel hav-
ing 12,000 people. Since the references to those claiming to be “Jews”
in the letters to the seven churches apparently refer to those who are
Christians in name only, this group of 144,000 seems to represent, by
contrast, genuine Christians—the true Israel of the end time. It is prob-
ably for this reason that reference is never made merely to “Israel” but
always to “the sons of Israel” (Rev 2:14; 7:4; 21:12), thereby stressing the
spiritual significance of this name as the designation for the people of God.
Several clues help to enable this identification. First, the ideal num-
ber (12 x 12 x 1,000) suggests that, like other numbers in Revelation, this
is symbolic. Second, this list of tribes is unlike any other: Judah is listed
first, not Reuben, showing that Jesus, as “the lion of the tribe of Judah,”
stands at the head of this group (Rev 5:5; cf. 1:5); Manasseh is listed
but not Ephraim, Joseph’s other son, apparently because of idolatry to
59
Philip L. Mayo, Those Who Call Themselves Jews: The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of
John, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 60 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2006), 200.
60
The Hebrew concept of faithfulness (’ĕmûn/’ĕmûnâ), reflected in the New Testament usage of
pistis (used in Rev 2:13, 19; 13:10; 14:12), refers not only to an intellectual belief (cf. Jas 2:19) but,
especially and more importantly, to how that belief enables a person to endure trials and remain
faithful to God (e.g., Ps 119:30; Hab 2:4; cf. Deut 32:20; Matt 17:17).
61
Mayo, 200.
62
Further, see Wahlen, “Laodicea,” 146–147.
63
See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 91–92; e.g., Israel’s designation as a kingdom of priests
is applied to the church (Rev 1:6; 5:10); and the seven last plagues, unlike those poured out on
Egypt, are worldwide.
which this Northern tribe succumbed (cf. Hos 4:17); similarly, Dan, as
the locus of apostate worship in the north, is omitted (1 Kgs 12:29–30).
Third, apart from references to the major characters of the book
(God, Christ, Satan, and John himself), names of people in the book
of Revelation seem to be mentioned mainly for their symbolic signifi-
cance.64 The mention of Moses, for example, alludes to the exodus and
emphasizes his faithfulness as “the servant of God” (Rev 15:3).65 Fourth,
there is evidence that the church had already claimed for itself the
mantle of the restored twelve tribes of Israel (Jas 1:1). Fifth, the group
consists of all of God’s faithful servants at the end of time (Rev 7:3).66
They represent the culmination of the gospel work on the earth. They
belong to God and reflect His character because His name and the
name of the Lamb is written in their foreheads (Rev 14:1; cf. 22:4); they
follow the Lamb wherever He goes and are firstfruits to God and to the
Lamb (Rev 14:4); they are true Israelites, genuine through and through
(14:5; cf. John 1:47). The perfection of their number corresponds to the
perfection of their future home—the new Jerusalem, the length and
width and height of which are equal (Rev 21:16).67
John’s description of this city that will come down from heaven and
rest upon the earth (Rev 21:2; cf. 20:9) includes physical components
connected with both Old and New Testament Israel. The name itself,
the new Jerusalem, suggests both sameness and newness. It is God’s
city, not Israel’s city. He defines it, and Israel is defined by it. It is holy
(Rev 21:2, 10; 22:19); it reflects the perfect dimensions of the Holy of
Holies (1 Kgs 6:20), and none but the holy enter it (Rev 20:6; 22:11).
64
Cf. Kenneth Mathews Jr., Revelation Reveals Jesus: An Explanation of the Greek Text and
Application of the Symbolism Therein, vol. 1 (Greeneville, TN: Second Coming, 2012), 390: “Judah,
Reuben, and the rest of the names of the twelve tribes . . . are typical of the kinds of people who
will be overcomers by the blood of the Lamb and inherit the New Earth.”
65
The other names of people (or angels) that occur are: Abaddon and Apollyon (Rev 9:11, de-
scribing the destructive nature of this angel); David (Rev 3:7; 5:5; 22:16, for its royal and mes-
sianic overtones); Balaam, Balak, and Jezebel (Rev 2:14, 20, for their role in leading Israel into
apostasy); Gog and Magog (Rev 20:8, connoting Israel’s enemies); and Antipas (Rev 2:13, as the
epitome of a faithful witness even to the point of death; cf. 2:10). Mention of the Nicolaitans in
Revelation 2:6, 15, while not referring to a specific person, also has symbolic significance (“the
one who overcomes the people”). Michael (Rev 12:7), if understood as another name for Christ
(cf. Dan 12:1), meaning “who is like God?” is not an exception.
66
So Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 783. The term “servants” is used frequently of God’s
people as a whole (Rev 1:1; 2:20; 19:2, 5; 22:3, 6).
67
Interestingly, Ellen G. White saw the 144,000 standing on the sea of glass in the form of “a
perfect square” (Early Writings [Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1945], 16), which matches
Revelation’s description of the heavenly city.
The names of the twelve tribes, as already enumerated in connec-

tion with the 144,000, are inscribed on its gates (foreseen already in
Ezekiel 48:30–35). But these testify not to the ethnicity of its inhabitants
but to the totality of God’s people dwelling within it (Rev 21:3, 7, 24–27),
as do the twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles
(Rev 21:14).68 Thus, within the gates and the walls of the heavenly city
are the saved of all ages. No longer divided and no longer two—the
true church clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1–17) and the apostate church
drunk with the blood of the saints (Rev 17:3–6). God’s people who
were in Babylon were called out (Rev 18:1–4) to unite with God’s
last-day church so that they are now one, just as God is one. Finally
and forever in the New Jerusalem, God and His people are reunited.
Conclusion
This study has considered some of the most important passages for
understanding Israel’s future from a New Testament perspective. This
has resulted in a fairly coherent picture of Israel in prophecy. Israel’s
future was already foreshadowed, prefigured, and predicted in the Old
Testament. The prophecies concerning Israel are only intelligible in rela-
tion to Christ as the personification of Israel, redeeming Israel’s failure,
and through whom all receive the covenant promises made to Abraham
and his descendants. Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel’s hope, direct-
ed His efforts toward the restoration of God’s people through a process
of gathering and sifting. The response of human beings to Jesus is deci-
sive in determining the future shape of Israel. The resulting remnant,
faithful to the teachings of Jesus, is open to all, regardless of ethnicity.
Crucial also in this respect was the transition from circumcision to
baptism, instituting a sign of faith independent of gender.
The Gospels present Jesus as fulfilling Israel’s hope for the ideal King
who gathers and shepherds Israel. The New Testament makes clear that
God’s kingdom is not constricted by nationality or ethnicity, because
the God of the Bible is Lord of heaven and earth (Matt 11:25). He made
the heaven, earth, sea, and fountains of waters (Rev 14:7), and, there-
fore, He is the God of all nations (Acts 17:26; Rom 16:26). As Israel’s King
and Judge, it is Jesus that determines who will enter this kingdom and
who will be shut out. This fact is foundational for how the New Testa-
ment writers understand the prophecies related to Israel. The Jerusalem
68
The foundation of the city resembles that of the church, which is “built on the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20).
Council interprets Amos as envisaging God’s gathering of a remnant

from all people on earth and identifies “the nations” who are called by
His name with the Gentiles who believe.
The New Testament writers do more than universalize the Old Tes-
tament prophecies about Israel. They completely eliminate ethnicity
as a factor in salvation. The inadequacy of a strictly ethnic definition
of Israel, already identified by Isaiah, John, and Jesus, is shown by Paul
as invalid even in connection with Abraham and his seed. The miracu-
lous fathering of an Israel of faith, based on God’s immutable promise,
shows the futility of all human efforts at attaining righteousness of
their own and all human attempts at fulfilling prophecy. From first to
last, to be numbered among the people of Israel requires a miracle, and
whom God counts as Israel is what counts.
The divine conception of Israel’s future has never really changed. It
moves forward steadily, even if it fails to conform to human anticipa-
tions and His people’s all too narrow expectations. The New Testament’s
portrayal of Israel’s future is as simple and as solid as the growth of a
tree, stemming from the Seed of the woman, embracing all nations, and
ultimately filling the whole earth (cf. Mark 4:30–32; Dan 2:35). God’s
righteous judgment upon all as disobedient in order to have mercy on
all reveals that His intention from the beginning has been universal,
and that the promise to save all Israel is predicated upon the gospel’s
gathering of all willing to be saved (2 Pet 3:9).
The book of Revelation shows the culmination of this divine plan.
Just as not all who say “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven
(Matt 7:21), not all who claim to be spiritual Jews will enter the new
Jerusalem. Its twelve gates and twelve foundations show at once both
the constancy of God’s purpose for Israel throughout Scripture and the
unity of His true people in all ages. The 144,000 are simply the culmina-
tion of God’s plan for Israel and His purpose from the beginning: total
restoration, complete harmony with Him, and the revelation of His per-
fect love as the golden cord by which He draws the universe to Himself.
CHAPTER 11
“Shaking The Heavens And

The Earth”: Daniel And The
Eschatology Of Hebrews
Félix H. Cortez
In the introduction to volume 4 of the Daniel and Revelation Com-

mittee Series, Frank B. Holbrook relates the ways in which the Epistle to
the Hebrews has brought the church both joy and sadness:
Hebrews provided our pioneers with the initial insights to resolve

the dilemma of the 1844 disappointment. The Epistle pointed them
not to the church or the earth as the sanctuary to be cleansed
in the Christian era but to the heavenly sanctuary. . . . Strange as
it may seem, the book that brought great joy to our pioneers has
caused other Adventists to withdraw from the church. The charge
is that Hebrews denies the Adventist belief that Christ mediates
in a two-phased priestly ministry . . . with the latter ministry
beginning in 1844.1
This was one of the main arguments of Desmond Ford. He argued

that he could not find an allusion to Daniel in Hebrews2 and the Daniel
and Revelation Committee agreed on this point, concluding that Hebrews
neither explicitly teaches nor denies Christ’s two-phased ministry in
1
Frank B. Holbrook, ed., Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Daniel and Revelation Committee Se-
ries 4 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), xi.
2
See Frank B. Holbrook, ed., Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, Daniel and Revela-
tion Committee Series 5 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), 218.
heaven.3 This study suggests, however, that not only Desmond Ford and
critics of the Adventist understanding of Jesus’ two-phased ministry in
the heavenly sanctuary but also Adventist scholarship have missed an
important allusion to Daniel 7:18 in Hebrews 12:28.4 This allusion is im-
portant not only because it is an allusion to Daniel and the pre-advent
judgment, but also because it raises the question regarding the extent to
which the eschatology of the Letter to the Hebrews was shaped by Daniel.
The purpose of this study, then, is to explore the role that the allu-
sion to Daniel 7:18 plays in the argument of Hebrews 12:18–29 and the
understanding of eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews.
Haggai, Daniel, and Hebrews 12:18–29
An allusion is a way to talk about a hermeneutical event. As Richard

B. Hays briefly and helpfully describes, an allusive echo “functions to
suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad
interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of text A beyond those
explicitly echoed.”5 This means that the author of Hebrews expects the
reader to grasp allusions beyond those he explicitly states in the text
and believes that the readers have “ears to hear” those allusive echoes. In
other words, the author places his audience “within a field of whispered
or unstated correspondences” because he expects them to understand
them.6 Being able to “hear” these echoes will help the reader better
understand the document.
With this in mind, let us analyze the function of the allusions to
Haggai 2 and Daniel 7 in Hebrews 12:25–29:
See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did
not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth,
3
Holbrook, Issues, xi.
4
See cross references in Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Johannes Karavidopoulos, eds., Novum
Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
5
Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989), 20. See also Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1–33. The author of the present study understands allusions
as equivalent to Hays’s echoes. It is important to note, however, a critique of Hays’ method to
identify an echo: Stanley E. Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use
of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBL Symposium Series 50 (Atlanta,
GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 29–40. See this evaluation of Hays’ method and Porter’s
critique: G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and
Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2012), 29–40.
6
Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 20.
much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.
At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised,
“Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the
heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of
things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—
in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.
Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that can-
not be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship,
with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.7
This passage has three sentences and therefore three main important
assertions.8 First, it warns that there will be a judgment that those who
“refuse” God—who is speaking to them from heaven—will not es-
cape (Heb 12:25–26). This assertion brings to a culmination the author’s
exhortation to believers throughout the letter that they should be care-
ful not to disregard God who is speaking to them in the person of His
Son (Heb 1:2).9 Secondly, this judgment includes a shaking of heaven and
earth and a removal of those things that can be shaken (Heb 12:27). This
assertion makes an allusion to Haggai 2:6–7 that we will explore below.
Thirdly, the author exhorts believers to be grateful because they will
receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken (Heb 12:28–29). This assertion
contains an allusion to Daniel 7:18, which will be the main concern of
this study. Let us explore each one of these assertions.
“See that you not refuse him who is speaking”
First, Hebrews warns that those who reject God, who is speaking
to them “from heaven,” will not escape God’s judgment (Heb 12:25–26).
This warning caps an argument made in the passage immediately be-
fore. In verses 18–24, the author contrasts the desert generation, who
came to God at Sinai and heard God speak in the context of frighten-
ing phenomena (vs. 18–21), with believers, who have heard God speak
at “Mount Zion,” “the heavenly Jerusalem,” as part of a festal gathering
(vs. 22–24). Believers have heard God’s voice speaking through Jesus,
whose blood speaks “a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24;
cf. 1:2). Hebrews makes the point, then, that believers have experienced
a greater revelation and benefits than the desert generation did and,
7
All biblical quotations are from ESV, unless otherwise indicated.
8
This study follows here the text of Aland, Aland, and Karavidopoulos.
9
Also Hebrews 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:8.
therefore, they are more accountable before God in the judgment should
they refuse Him.10 If the desert generation did not escape judgment when
they refused to hear God at Sinai, much less them.
This warning not only culminates the argument of verses 18–24, but
also culminates two motifs that have appeared throughout the letter:
the call to hear the word of God in the person of Jesus, and the contrast
between believers and the desert generation. The first assertion of the
letter is that “in these last days, [God] has spoken to us in [his] son”
(Heb 1:2).11 This idea that God is speaking to us not only continues but
is also pervasive throughout the letter.12 Also, the first warning section
against disregarding God’s voice comes shortly after the beginning:
We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard. . . . For

since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and ev-
ery transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how
shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (Heb 2:1–3a).
This warning is repeated in Hebrews 3:7–4:13, 5:11–6:8, 10:26–31, and

12:25–31. Finally, these warnings are given in the context of a comparison
between believers, who have enjoyed God’s revelation in the Son, and
the desert generation who refused to hear God who spoke to them
from Sinai (Heb 2:1–4; 3:1–4:16; 5:11–6:8; 10:26–31, 35–39). Thus Hebrews
12:25–29 culminates the call to believers throughout the epistle to hear
the voice of God and prepare for future judgment.
The Removal of Things That Are Shaken
Hebrews 12:26–27 quotes Haggai 2:6–7 (cf. Hag 2:21–22) to make the
point that God’s judgment will include the heavenly things. The quo-
tation of this passage in Hebrews is very significant because the author
modifies the original text to emphasize the points he wants to make.
10
The verb paraiteomai (“I refuse”), used in Hebrews 12:25 to warn against refusing to hear God,
appears also in v. 19, referring to the Israelite generation’s refusal to hear God who was speak-
ing to them from Mount Sinai.
11
Author’s translation. Similarly, ASV and NASB.
12
Hebrews 3:1, 7, 15; 4:7, 12–13; 5:12; 12:5–6; etc. See Felix H. Cortez, “‘See that you do not refuse the
one who is speaking’: Hearing God Preach and Obedience in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Jour-
nal of the Adventist Theological Society 19 (2008): 98–108 and Jonathan I. Griffiths, Hebrews and
Divine Speech, Library of New Testament Studies 507 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).
Yet once more, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea
and the dry land (Hag 2:6, author’s translation).
Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens
(Heb 12:26)
eti hapax egō seisō ton ouranon kai tēn gēn kai tēn thalassan kai
tēn (Hag 2:6)
eti hapax egō seisō ou monon tēn gēn alla kai ton ouranon (Heb
12:26).
The author introduces three changes to the text of Haggai 2:6 (see
also Hag 2:21). First, he deletes any reference to the sea and the dry
land. The only important thing for him is earth and heaven, which are
in fact two very important categories throughout Hebrews. Secondly,
the author changes the order of the words to put heaven at the end for
emphasis. Finally, and more importantly, he adds the expressions “not
only” and “but” to further emphasize the word “heaven.” Thus, the
author wants us to know that God is going to shake both the “earth and
the heaven” but especially, and most importantly, “heaven” (cf. Matt 24:29;
Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26).
The author also emphasizes the finality of the shaking. The author
argues that the expression “yet once more” (eti hapax) indicates or makes
clear the removal of things that are shaken (Heb 12:27). The author
argues throughout the letter that Christ died “once for all” (hapax), re-
ferring to the finality of His sacrifice (Heb 9:26–28; 10:2).13 Similarly,
the shaking of heaven and earth will also be final in Hebrews 12:25–29.
Verse 27 explains that the expression “once more” (eti hapax, v. 26) does
not refer simply to a “shaking,” but to a removal of things that can be
shaken so that those things “that cannot be shaken may remain.” What
remains is “a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (v. 28). This means, then,
that the “shaking” refers to an event in the earthly and, especially, in
the heavenly realm, whose consequences are final.
13
According to William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 2000), 97, s.v. “ἅπαξ.” The word hapax means “once” (cf. Heb 6:4; 9:7). Hebrews 9:26–28
and 10:2 apply this term to the death of Jesus but the context implies that Jesus’ death has hap-
pened “once for all.” Thus, in other places, the author uses the cognate efapax which means “once
for all, once and never again” (ibid., 417, s.v. “ἐφάπαξ”), to refer to Jesus’ sacrifice, His ascension,
and the sanctification that His sacrifice achieves on behalf of believers (Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).
In the Old Testament, the shaking of the earth is a common figure

of the presence of God, who shows up to deliver His people.14 When
Deborah and Barak fought against King Jabin of Canaan and Sisera,
the commander of his army, God fought from heaven on their behalf
(Judg 5:20). This is described as a powerful earthquake, a shaking of the
earth and mountains because of the presence of the Lord (Judg 5:4–5).
This same image appears throughout the Old Testament when God ap-
pears to deliver the oppressed.15 Thus, shaking becomes a signal of
God’s judgment on the oppressors.16 It is related to the enthronement
of God as judge over the peoples of the earth (Ps 96:9–10; 99:1). In the
Prophets it happens in the context of the Day of the Lord.17 That is why,
according to the Hebrew Bible, it is the righteous who are not “shaken.”18
Now in order to understand the logic of Hebrews 12:25–29, we need
to understand the meaning of Haggai 2, which was uttered about seven
weeks after Haggai gave the leaders and the people the message that it
was necessary for them to begin rebuilding the temple, and four weeks
after they had actually begun building it. The precise date was the twenty-
first of the seventh month, the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles.19
This feast commemorated God’s care for Israel through the desert, and
also the dedication of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 8:2). This recollection,
however, made the people think that the temple they were building was
14
Haggai 2:6–7, 21, quoted in Hebrews 12:26–27, uses the Hebrew root rā aš, which denotes a
phenomenon that involves sound and movement, and could refer to an earthquake through
the clatter of chariots, trampling of boots, a storm in the sea, etc., as noted by H. Schmoldt,
“‫ ׁש‬,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer
Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004),
589–593. The LXX Haggai 2:6–7, 21, translates the Hebrew rā aš with the Greek verb seiō, which
is largely equivalent in meaning, according to Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary
of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 4:278–280.
Interestingly, all earthquakes in the New Testament are divinely caused. Hebrews 12:26–27
also uses the verb saleyō, largely a synonym of seiō, in its interpretation of the passage. The
verb saleyō, however, is mostly used figuratively, referring to mental agitation (e.g., Pss 15:5; 16:8;
Silva, 4:232).
15
Psalms 10:6; 46:5–6; 60:2; 68:7–8; 77:17–18; 97:4; 107:27; Micah 1:4; Nah 1:5; Habakkuk 3:6.
Similarly, Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26; cf. Acts 16:26.
16
Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Commentary on the New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 665. In fact, saleyō means “judgment” in LXX
(2 Kgs 17:20; Ps 47:6–7 [MT 48:5–6]; Lam 1:8).
17
Isaiah 13:13; 24:18–23; Ezek 38:20–23; Joel 2:10–11; Hab 3:6, 14. See Peter A. Verhoef, The Books
of Haggai and Malachi, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 103.
18
Psalms 14:5 (MT 15:5); 15:8 (MT 16:8); 20:8 (MT 21:8); 61:3 (MT 62:2); 111:6 (MT 112:6).
19
This was approximately October 17, 520 BC.
not worth the effort because it would not have been even nearly as glo-
rious as Solomon’s Temple (Hag 2:3). Notwithstanding, Haggai prom-
ised that God would “shake the heavens and the earth . . . and all the
nations” and fill this temple with glory by bringing their treasures to the
temple they were building. He explained this in an oracle pronounced
two months later, on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (520 BC;
Hag 2:21–23), when the foundation of the temple was laid (Hag 2:18).
The oracle explains that the Lord will overthrow the kingdoms and their
armies and then establish His own king in Jerusalem, from the line of
David (represented by Zerubbabel), giving him total authority, like that
represented by a signet ring (Hag 2:23). He will be the plenipotentiary of
the Lord.20 The filling of the temple with glory in Haggai probably does
not have to do with the riches inside, but with the political clout or re-
spect it would command as the symbol of the restored empire of God as
king over Israel and the Davidic king as His plenipotentiary. Note that
the glory of the first temple was that it was a symbol of the Davidic em-
pire, and the subjugated nations sent their riches to that temple. The new
temple will command the respect of the nations for the rule of God.21
The context of the message of Haggai is remarkably appropriate for
the argument of Hebrews. The message of Hebrews is given in the con-
text of the inauguration of a heavenly temple that “the Lord, and not
any mortal, has set up” (Heb 8:2), consecrated with the sacrifice of Jesus
(Heb 9:15–23). Haggai refers to the enthronement of the Davidic king in
Jerusalem with total authority. Hebrews brings the news that Jesus has
been enthroned “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” as the fulfill-
ment of the promises made to David in Psalm 110.
What does the shaking of heaven and earth mean in Hebrews?22
20
Verhoef, 148.
21
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduc-
tion and Commentary, Anchor Bible 25B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 72–76.
22
Some commentators consider that this passage shows how the Platonic worldview has been
incorporated into and adapted to the argument of the author of Hebrews (Johnson, 335).
Similarly, Erich Gräßer, An die Hebräer, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament 17 (Zurich: Benziger Neukirchener, 1990–1997), argues that the author of He-
brews distinguishes a lower transient heaven and earth (Heb 1:10–12) from the eternal heav-
ens where God and Christ abide. James W. Thompson, “‘That which cannot be shaken’: Some
Metaphysical Assumptions in Hebrews 12:27,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 580–587,
e.g., argues that this passage contrasts the sense-perceptible world to the intelligible world. The
author of Hebrews, however, is not a Platonist; neither does he hold a metaphysical dualistic
view of the universe. See Cockerill, 666–669 and Felix H. Cortez, “Creation in Hebrews,” An-
drews University Seminary Studies 53 (2015): 282–290, 310–312. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 26 (New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 2008), 547, suggests that the shaking of heaven in Hebrews 12:26 is related to the
The expression “heaven and earth” refers to totality; it is a merism. In

Haggai 2:22, the “shaking” meant the destruction of kingdoms and
thrones. The enemies of Israel would be destroyed and their riches
would fill the temple with glory. The result of this judgment is the final
removal of what can be shaken. This same word (metathesis) is used for
the removal of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:12) and for Enoch’s re-
moval from the earth (Heb 11:5), which are not temporary. In Hebrews,
the shaking of “heaven and earth” implies the judgment of everything,
but especially of things in heaven, which the author emphasizes. This
includes, first of all, believers who are described in Hebrews as already
with God in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22–24).23 Thus one of the
main concerns of the letter is to warn believers about the future judgment
they will face.24 If they are unfaithful, God will judge them as enemies
(Heb 10:27, 30–31). The shaking of heaven probably also includes judg-
ment and destruction of the devil and evil spiritual powers (Heb 2:14–16).
Jesus made them “powerless” (katargēsē) through His death, but they
will be destroyed in the future (Heb 1:14; 10:11–14). What remains, on
the other hand, is Jesus Himself (1:11); His priesthood (Heb 7:3, 24); the
inheritance of the new covenant (Heb 10:34); and the righteous, which
are those who have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:10; 12:23).
Clearly, it is the righteous ones who are not “shaken.”25
“Let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom”
The expression “we are receiving a kingdom” in Hebrews 12:28 is most

likely an allusion to Daniel 7:18.26 Note the important verbal connections.27
cleansing of heaven in 9:23. This connection is very intriguing, but it has the problem that
the cleansing of heaven in 9:23 appears to be an event of the past, while the shaking of heav-
en in 12:26–27 lies in the future. Nevertheless, the fact is that Hebrews 9:23–24 is so com-
plex that it calls for a closer scrutiny of this passage—something this study will not be able to
accomplish here.
23
Similarly, Revelation constantly describes believers as standing in heaven before the throne
(Rev 7:9–17; 14:1–4; 15:1–4) and Paul also describes believers as being seated already with Christ
(Eph 2:5–6).
24
Hebrews 2:1–4; 4:12–13; 6:4–8; 10:26–31, 35–39; 12:18–29.
25
Psalm 14:5 (MT 15:5); 15:8 (MT 16:8); 20:8 (MT 21:8); 61:3 (MT 62:2); 111:6 (MT 112:6).
26
See the marginal reading of Hebrews 12:28 in Aland, Aland, and Karavidopoulos.
27
Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use, 31, states, “The telltale key to discerning an allusion
is that of recognizing an incomparable or unique parallel in wording, syntax, concept, or cluster
of motifs in the same order or structure.”
But [the] saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom
(Dan 7:18, author’s translation, emphasis supplied).
Therefore, since we are receiving an unshakeable kingdom, let us

be thankful (Heb 12:28, emphasis supplied)
kai paralēpsontai tēn basileian hagioi hypsistouκαὶ (Dan 7:18, em-

phasis supplied)
dio basileian asaleuton paralambanontes echōmen charin (Heb

12:28, emphasis supplied).
The marginal notes to Hebrews 12:28 in the twenty-eighth revised

edition of Novum Testamentum Graece (also known as the Nestle-Aland
edition),28 as well as many other commentaries,29 note the verbal paral-
lelism. Both passages talk about a kingdom that is received by believers
(“the saints”). Furthermore, both passages affirm that that kingdom
cannot be destroyed. It will last forever. There are several reasons why
Hebrews 12:28 is likely an allusion to Daniel 7:18. It is clear that the
author knew the story of Daniel. Hebrews 11:33 refers to Daniel’s rescue
from the mouths of the lions (Dan 6:23), and probably to his friends
being rescued from the fiery furnace (Heb 11:34, alluding to Dan 3:25).
Furthermore, what we know about the early church suggests that the
author of Hebrews and the book’s audience were probably acquainted
with the text of Daniel—or at least with the prophecy of Daniel 7. The
book of Daniel is cited frequently in Jewish apocalyptic literature30 and
in the New Testament. Matthew 24:15 refers to Daniel by name. The
twenty-eighth edition of Novum Testamentum Graece suggests that more
than 150 passages in the New Testament contain allusions to the book
of Daniel,31 which is significant given that Daniel is not a large book. Most
importantly, the majority of the allusions (around a third of the total) are
28
See Aland, Aland, and Karavidopoulos, 682, 866.
29
See, e.g., Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress, 1989), 382 n. 58; Cockerill, 670 n. 44; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 689; Koester,
557; and esp. William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13, Word Biblical Commentary 47b; (Dallas, TX: Word,
1991), 484–485 and Vanhoye, “L’οίκουμένη dans l’épitre aux Hébreux,” Biblica 45 (1964): 248–53.
30
See G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St.
John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).
31
See Aland, Aland, and Karavidopoulos, 865–866.
to Daniel 7.32 In fact, the clearest allusions to Daniel in the New Testa-
ment are to Daniel 7:13.33 The Apostolic Fathers quote Daniel at least six
times, three of which are from Daniel 7.34 It is clear, then, that the proph-
ecy of Daniel 7 was an important text for New Testament authors and the
early Christian church.
The immediate context also suggests that the author had Daniel 7 in
mind. Daniel 7 describes a judgment scene before an “Ancient of Days,”
where “ten thousand times ten thousand” serve Him and where the
books are open. The result of the judgment is that “the saints of the
Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever,
forever and ever” (Dan 7:18). Similarly, Hebrews 12:22–29 describes a
festive meeting at Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, where believ-
ers, who are enrolled in heaven, and “innumerable angels”35 come before
God, the Judge of all, and to Jesus who mediates a new covenant in
their favor. The author, then, warns believers that they will be judged
(Heb 12:25–27) but those who “remain” after the judgment will receive
“a kingdom that cannot be shaken” (Heb 12:28). The author of the pres-
ent study is not aware of any biblical passage, besides Daniel 7, that refers
to the idea that the saints will receive a kingdom that cannot be shak-
en, or that will remain forever, as a result of a judgment. Finally, note
that Matthew 24:39–30 and Luke 21:26–27 allude to Haggai 2:6 and
Daniel 7 together and in the same order they appear in Hebrews 12:25–28.36
It is probable, then, that the author of Hebrews had Daniel 7 in mind
when he wrote Hebrews 12:18–29. This has important implications for
the way we should interpret this passage. As mentioned at the begin-
ning of this passage, an allusive echo “functions to suggest to the reader
that text B [Heb 12:28] should be understood in light of a broad interplay
with text A [Dan 7:18], encompassing aspects of text A [Dan 7:18] beyond
those explicitly echoed.”37 The reference to judgment in Hebrews 12:25–29
32
According to the Aland, Aland, and Karavidopoulos, there are more than fifty allusions
to Daniel 7 in the New Testament.
33
Daniel 7:13 is clearly referred to in Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 21:27; Revelation
1:7; 14:14.
34
1 Clement 34:6 (Dan 7:10); 1 Clement 45:6 (Dan 6:16); 1 Clement 45:7 (Dan 3:19–21); Barnabas 4:4
(Dan 7:24); Barnabas 4:5 (Dan 7:7–8); Barnabas 16:6 (Dan 9:24).
35
Literally, “ten thousands.”
36
First there is an allusion to the shaking of heaven and then a reference to the Son of Man
coming to the Ancient of Days, or the believers receiving the kingdom. Haggai 2:6 may be also
referring back to the shaking of the heavens found in Joel 2:10–11 (which also mentions Jerusalem
and Mount Zion in 2:1, 32).
37
Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 20.
is all the more important, however, because it is the theological and

rhetorical climax of the letter and sheds light on the nature of the
author’s eschatological understanding.
Daniel and the Eschatology of Hebrews
Eschatology has to do with history and time. It implies a linear de-

velopment of the history of the world and of the relationship between
God and the world. The structure of the argument of Hebrews is emi-
nently historical. This temporal framework is clearly established in its
first sentence:38 “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke
to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us
by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also
he created the world” (Heb 1:1–2). The story of the world is divided in
two: the past, characterized by God’s word through the prophets, and the
present, inaugurated by God’s word in the Son in “these last days.” It also
identifies the first act, God’s creation of the world through the Son, and
the last act, the inheritance of the world by the Son. All of these events
are caused by God’s word. In the past, God created the world. He has
sustained it through His word (Heb 1:3; 11:3). “[I]n these last days,”
God has enthroned Jesus in heaven at His right hand (Heb 1:5–14) and
appointed Him high priest “according to the order of Melchizedek”
through His word (Heb 4:5–6).39 More importantly, however, God
will speak “yet once more” and “shake not only the earth but also the
heavens” to establish the Son’s unshakeable kingdom at the end of his-
tory (Heb 12:25–29).40 It is this eschatological orientation of God’s work
through Jesus that gives the work theological and hortatory coher-
ence. The defeat of the devil (Heb 2:14–16) and the enthronement of
Jesus in heaven (Heb 1:5–14) lack relevance if they do not lead in the
end to the subjection of the enemies as the “footstool” of Jesus’ throne
(Heb 1:13; 10:13). Jesus’ offering of His life as high priest is significant only
if it leads to believers being saved in the final judgment (Heb 9:27–28).
Thus, the subjection of the enemies consummates Jesus’ enthronement
38
James C. Miller, “Paul and Hebrews: A Comparison of Narrative Worlds,” Hebrews: Contem-
porary Methods—New Insights, ed. Gabriella Gelardini, Biblical Interpretation Series 75 (Leiden:
Brill, 2005), 245–264.
39
Cortez, “See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking.”
40
The parallelism between God’s voice that shook the earth in the past at Sinai (Heb 12:18–21), in
the present at Zion (Heb 12:22–24), implies that God’s voice will shake the earth and the heavens
in the end (Heb 12:25–29).
and the deliverance of believers in the judgment consummates Jesus’

sacrifice and ascension.
Hebrews understands, then, Jesus’ death and ascension as a piv-
otal moment that changes the history of the world and suggests that
Jesus’ achievements can only be rightly understood from the perspective
of the end they precipitate. The same happens if we want to understand
Hebrews itself. In order to fully appreciate the eschatology of Hebrews,
it is necessary to understand the relationship that Hebrews 12:18–29, the
theological and rhetorical climax of the letter, has with the rest of the
work. As it is with the history of the world, prophecy, our own lives, or
even fiction, it is the ending that gives sense to the story.41
Hebrews 12:18–29 as the Theological and

Rhetorical Climax of the Letter
Many scholars recognize that Hebrews 12:18–29 is the rhetorical
and theological climax of the letter.42 In terms of rhetoric, the contrast
between Sinai and Zion in verses 18–24 condenses the antitheses between
the angels and the Son (Heb 1:4–14), Moses and the Son (Heb 3:1–6),
the desert generation and believers (Heb 3:7–4:13), the Levites and Jesus
(Heb 5:1–7:28), and the old and new covenants with their sacrifices, sanc-
tuaries, and provisions (Heb 8:1–10:25). Also, the alternation between
exposition and exhortation throughout the letter climaxes in a final
alternation between the exposition of verses 18–24,43 which compares
Sinai and Zion, and the exhortation to pay attention to God’s voice in
verses 25–29. In terms of theology, Hebrews 12:18–24 provides short
references to the main ideas of the letter: Jesus as mediator of a new
41
See Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction with a New Epilogue
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
42
See Kiwoong Son, Zion Symbolism in Hebrews: Hebrews 12:18–24 as a Hermeneutical Key to
the Epistle (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 77–124. Also, George H. Guthrie, The Structure
of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Novum Testamentum, Supplement Series 73 (Leiden:
Brill, 1994), 143; Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” New Testament Stud-
ies 35 (1989): 402; Ellingworth, 669; Marie E. Isaacs, Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 37
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 87; Lane, 448; and Koester, 548.
43
Most scholars identify Hebrews 12:18–24 as part of an exhortation that ends in verse 29. See
Attridge, 19; Guthrie, 127–134; and A. Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Subsidia Biblica 12 (Rome: Institute Pontificio Biblico, 1989), 79. It should be not-
ed, however, that there is a clear difference between verses 18–24 and verses 25–29 regarding
the nature of their arguments. The contrast between Sinai and Zion provide the logical and
theological basis upon which the exhortation of verses 25–29 is developed. See Son, 84.
covenant (Heb 12:23), Jesus’ sacrifice as the “sprinkled blood that speaks
a better word than Abel” (Heb 12:24, author’s translation), the perfec-
tion of believers (Heb 12:23), etc. As William L. Lane recognizes, “the
passage furnishes a magisterial résumé of themes and motifs introduced
throughout the homily.”44
Most importantly, however, Hebrews 12:18–29 forms an inclusion
with 1:1–2:4 that spans the whole letter and gives coherence and unity to
its seemingly diverse theological arguments. Hebrews 1:1–2:4 is divided
in three sections. The first section, Heb 1:1–4, affirms that God, hav-
ing spoken through prophets in the past, has spoken to us in these last
days through His Son. The second section, Hebrews 1:5–14, reports God’s
words to the Son in the context of his ascension to the heavenly Mount
Zion inviting him to seat at his right hand.45 Finally, Hebrews 2:1–4
exhorts the audience to pay attention to what God has been saying by
comparing them to the Israelite desert generation who heard God speak
at Mount Sinai. The author warns them that if the Israelite desert gen-
eration did not escape when they disobeyed God’s voice much less will
believers escape today should they neglect God’s word spoken to them
from heaven through the Son. Thus, the central idea of Hebrews 1:1–2:4
is that God has spoken to us in the Son and that we should pay atten-
tion to what God has said. This idea, in fact, is the backbone of the
theological argument of the letter as a whole.46 At the end of the letter,
in Hebrews 12:18–29, the author closes the argument of Hebrews with the
same ideas he used in the introduction of the letter. Hebrews 12:18–24
contrasts God’s revelations to the Israelite desert generation in the
past and to believers in the present through a contrast between God’s
speeches at Mount Sinai and Mount Zion.47 Also, the festal gather-
ing of innumerable angels at the heavenly Mount Zion described in
Hebrews 12:22–24 refers probably to the enthronement of the Son in the
presence of God’s angels at the ascension described in 1:5–14. Finally, the
warning of Hebrews 12:25–29 has remarkable parallels to the warning
in 2:1–4. Both of them exhort believers to pay attention to God’s voice and
both compare believers to the Israelite desert generation. Hebrews 1:1–2:4
and 12:18–29 provide, then, a clearly discernible inclusio that encapsulates
44
Lane, 448.
45
Note that all the OT passages quoted in 1:5–14 have Mt Zion or Jerusalem as the background of
the enthronement scene. See next section below.
46
Hebrews 2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:8; etc. See Cortez, “‘See that you do not refuse the one who is
speaking.’”
47
Son, 84–85.
the argument of the whole letter. Hebrews 12:18–29 is both a microcosm

as well as the climax that integrates in a nutshell the rhetorical and
theological output of Hebrews.
The purpose of Hebrews 12:18–29, as rhetorical and theological cli-
max, is not to bring new theological or rhetorical elements into the argu-
ment, but to culminate in a powerful précis the rhetorical and theological
devices the author has already wielded. It is possible that some impor-
tant elements of the theology of Hebrews remains somehow below the
surface, as part of a subtext to Hebrews or not clearly distinguishable,
but then have finally emerged into our view in the grand finale of the
argument. It is not that the conclusion has arbitrarily altered somehow the
nature and meaning of those concepts and images. It is simply that the
author is bringing them into focus. This is what this study suggests
happens with the contribution of Daniel to the eschatology of Hebrews.
The clearest significant allusion to Daniel appears only at the conclu-
sion, in Hebrews 12:28. Once we recognize, however, the relationship that
this section has with the previous sections of the letter, it dawns on us
that Daniel was always there. Daniel provides the conceptual frame-
work to understand the author’s understanding of “these last days” in
Hebrews 1:1–4, the enthronement scene of 1:5–2:5, the son of man figure
of 2:6–9, and the judgment concern that pervades the epistle.
The Feast at Zion, Judgment, and Jesus’ Enthronement
The structural relationship between Hebrews 12:18–29 and 1:1–2:4

helps better understand the nature of the judgment/panegyric scene
described in 12:18–24. The location of the scene is Mount Zion, the
heavenly Jerusalem. At the center of the scene is God, the judge, who
speaks through Jesus, the covenant mediator. Also attending are in-
numerable angels48 and the assembly of the firstborn, the spirits of the
righteous made perfect.49 The strong verbal and thematic connec-
tions between 12:18–29 and 1:1–2:4 (see previous section) suggest that
these passages form an inclusio and that they refer to the same event.
48
The original hand of Codex Bezae has myriasin myriōn hagiōn angelōn (“ten thousands of ten
thousands of holy angels”). This brings to mind the LXX myriai myriades of Daniel 7:10.
49
The definition of who “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” are needs further clarification;
however, the argument of this paper does not depend on it. This study operates under the pro-
visional view that “the assembly of the firstborn” and “the spirits of the righteous made perfect”
refer to the same persons, and that the expression “the spirits of the righteous made perfect” is a
synecdoche in which the part (“the spirit”) stands for the whole (“the person”; e.g., Num 16:22;
27:16; Ps 76:12 [LXX 75:13]; 1 Cor 14:32; Heb 12:23; 1 John 4:1; Rev 22:6).
Hebrews 1:5–14, in the center of this first section, describes the scene
of the enthronement of Jesus.50 The central idea of this section is that
God is speaking from heaven the words of Scripture. This passage is
formed by a chain of Old Testament quotations that are introduced by an
expression in which God is the one who speaks.51 All the passages
quoted have as a background Mount Zion or Jerusalem. Hebrews 1:5a
quotes Psalm 2:7, which refers to God’s installation of His Son as king at
Zion (Ps 2:6). Hebrews 1:5b quotes 2 Samuel 7:14 and 1 Chronicles 17:13,
which refer to God’s adoption of the Davidic king as a response to
David’s wish to build a temple for God at Mount Zion. Hebrews 1:8–12
quotes Psalms 45:6–7 and 102:25–27, referring to the eternal nature and
rule of the Son. It contrasts the Son’s eternity and immutability with
creation’s transience. The context of this psalm is Zion as well (Ps 102:21).
Finally, Hebrews 1:13 quotes Psalm 110:4, which refers to the Son’s en-
thronement at God’s right hand as king and priest at Zion (Ps 110:2). The
author of Hebrews, then, describes in 1:5–14 the audience as participat-
ing, through the words of Scripture, in the enthronement ceremony of the
Son at Mount Zion (Heb 1:5–2:5).52
This heavenly event at Mount Zion when God speaks does not end
with the enthronement of the Son. God also speaks to appoint Jesus as
high priest (Heb 5:5–6, quoting Ps 2:7; 110:4) and to inaugurate the new
covenant (Heb 8:8–12, quoting Jer 31:31–34). These events, which are
the backbone of the expository argument of Hebrews, also happen at
Zion.53 All these events, and the motif of God’s speech, come to a climac-
tic summary at the joyous judgment scene of Hebrews 12:22–29. This
scene is joyous because it celebrates Jesus as king, priest, and mediator
in favor of believers, the saints. Hebrews 12:22–29 describes it as a judg-
ment because it has in mind Daniel 7:18, alluded in 12:28, which describes
the enthronement of the Son of Man at heavenly Zion in favor of the
saints as a result of judgment.54
50
Note references to all the elements of an enthronement ceremony included in the pas-
sage: adoption (1:5), obeisance and presentation of subjects (1:6–7), giving of royal symbols
(throne, scepter, anointment; 1:8–9), affirmation of the eternal nature of the kingdom (1:10–12),
enthronement (1:13–14). See Felix H. Cortez, “‘The anchor of the soul that enters within the
veil’: The Ascension of the ‘Son’ in the Letter to the Hebrews” (PhD diss., Andrews University,
2008), 224–235.
51
See Cortez, “‘See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking.’”
52
Hebrews also describes Jesus’ consecration as priest (5:1–6:20) and the inauguration of the new
covenant (8:1–10:31).
53
See Psalm 2:6; 110:2; Jeremiah 30:17; 31:6. See further, Cortez, “Anchor,” 442–445.
54
This would agree with the assertion in John and other Gospels that the world was judged in the
This would help us understand two other features of the argument of

Hebrews. First, the description of the enthronement of Jesus (Heb 1:5–14;
12:22–24) is followed by a warning against disobeying the voice of God
(Heb 2:1–4; 12:25–29).55 This also happens with the enthronement in
Psalms 2:10–12 and 110:5–7 and with the events that follow the enthrone-
ment ceremonies of Solomon, Zimri, Jehu, Athalia, Jehoash, and Jesus
at the eschaton.56 It also helps us understand why references to judg-
ment in Hebrews may be positive (Heb 9:27–18; 12:22–24, 28) or negative
(Heb 4:12–13; 10:26–31; 12:25–27).
“These last days”: Daniel, Hebrews, and the

Establishment of the Unshakable Kingdom
The relationship between Hebrews 12:18–29 and 1:1–2:4 makes us
rethink the meaning of the expression “in these last days he has spoken
to us by his son” (Heb 1:2). The LXX normally translates the Hebrew
bĕ a ărît hayyāmîm with the Greek expression ep’ eschatou tōn hēmerōn.
This expression was frequently used in ancient Near Eastern historical
and legal texts to refer to the future in general or to a specific moment
in the future.57 In the Old Testament, it is used twelve times outside of
Daniel, whether to predict events in the future,58 or to announce the es-
chatological restoration of Israel and the cosmos.59 So, the prophets
person of Jesus, the devil was cast out, and Jesus was given all dominion and power (Matt 28:18–
20; John 12:31; 16:11). This may also shed light on the discussion of whether or not Revelation 4–5
refers to a judgment scene. While the author agrees with Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus
Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 2009),163–184 and Norman Gulley, “Judgment or Inauguration?” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 8 (1997): 59–81, that there is no reference in Revelation 4–5 to the pre-advent
judgment, he understands that judgment and enthronement are not mutually exclusive ideas.
Jesus’ rule was inaugurated at His ascension as a result of judgment implied (John 12:31; 16:11;
Matt 28:18–20). Jesus’ accession to the throne, however, will be consummated at the second
coming as a result of the pre-advent judgment. For a short description of the allusions to
Daniel 7 in Revelation 4–5, see G. K. Beale, “Primary Ways the New Testament Uses the Old
Testament,” chap. 4 in Handbook on the New Testament Use.
55
Note that similar warnings accompany the consecration of Jesus as priest (Heb 5:11–6:8) and the
mediation of the new covenant (Heb 10:26–31).
56
Cf. 1 Kings 2; 16:11; 2 Kings 9:14–10:27; 11:1, 13–16; Revelation 19:15–16.
57
Gerhard Pfandl, The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, Adventist Theological Society Dis-
sertation Series 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 311–312.
58
For example, to refer to the time of the judges (Deut 31:29), the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 23:20,
30:24), the Babylonian Exile (Deut 4:30), and the restoration after the Persian Empire (Jer 48:47;
49:39).
59
Pfandl, 312; Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
announced that in “the latter days,” 1) a king would come who would
defeat the enemies of Israel and that the peoples would gather to him
(Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Hos 3:5), 2) Israel would be exalted and the na-
tions would convert to God (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1), and 3) evil forces would be
totally defeated (Ezek 38:16).
These eschatological prophecies are echoed in Daniel 2, where God
announces that in “the latter days” God would “set up a kingdom that shall
never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It
shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it
shall stand forever” (Dan 2:28, 44). This new kingdom is described as a
mountain that would grow and fill the whole earth, just as Isaiah 2:2 and
Micah 4:1 had prophesied that Mount Zion would be “established as the
highest of the mountains.” It also implies the coming of a new king who
would defeat the forces of evil (cf. Dan 7:13–14), just as in Genesis 49:1,
Numbers 24:14, Ezekiel 38:16, and Hosea 3:5. In the Old Testament es-
chatological passages outside of Daniel, the phrase “the latter days”
is connected to the establishment of God’s kingdom through the roy-
al supremacy of Judah (Gen 49:1, 8–10; Num 24:14) or the Davidic king
(Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; cf. Ezek 37:25). Daniel’s main concern is also the
establishment of the kingdom of God. He does not, however, connect
the fulfillment explicitly to the Davidic king or to Judah, but both Jewish
interpreters and the New Testament connected the fulfillment of the
promises of Daniel with the Davidic promises. The “Son of God” text
from Qumran, some early Jewish writings (4 Ezra 12–13; cf. 1 Enoch 46–48;
62:2–71), and some rabbinic sources (b. Sanhedrin 38, 96, 98) interpret
the “one like a son of man” of Daniel 7 as the Davidic Messiah.60 Simi-
larly, according to the Gospels, Jesus referred to Himself as “the Son of
Man” who will come and judge the world (e.g., Matt 16:27; 19:27–28; 25:31;
Mark 8:38; 14:62; Luke 21:36; John 5:22–27). He was identifying Him-
self as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 7, where “one like a
son of man” (ESV) comes to the father and receives “dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom” (Dan 7:14).61 Jesus also conflated the fulfillment
of Daniel 7 with the enthronement of the Davidic king in Psalm 110:1
at God’s “right hand” (Matt 19:27–28; Mark 14:62; cf. Acts 7:56). This
60
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 191 and Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 133–134.
61
For a brief introduction to the history of interpretation of this expression, see Adela Yarbro
Collins, “Son of Man,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob
Sakenfeld, vol. 5 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006–2009), 342–347.
reading of Daniel 7 in terms of the Davidic covenant (Ps 110:1) was prob-
ably anticipated by Psalm 80:17, where the psalmist asks God to restore
Israel—who is suffering under nations that behave like animals (Ps 80:13)—
by restoring the man/Son of Man of His right hand. This connection be-
tween “one like a son of man” and the Davidic promises helps explain
why the author of Hebrews jumps from the description of the en-
thronement of Jesus as Davidic king, at the right hand of God on the
heavenly Mount Zion (Heb 1:5–14), to a discussion of Psalm 8 and why
he asks, if everything has been submitted under the “son of man,” why
we don’t yet see everything submitted under Him (Heb 2:8).62 Prob-
ably, then, the author of Hebrews has Daniel 7 in mind when he applies
Psalm 8 to Jesus, but recognizes it has not been fulfilled for believers, hu-
man beings that are represented by Him. This connection between the
“son of man” and the “saints” is explicit in Daniel 7 but not in Psalm 8.
The author is probably reading Psalm 8 through Daniel 7.
Hebrews 12:28 and the Bifurcation of the

Fulfillment of Daniel 7
This leads us to a significant phenomenon of the interpretation of
Daniel 7 in Hebrews. The letter sees Jesus enthroned at His ascension in
fulfillment of the Davidic promises,63 but the fulfillment of the promis-
es for the people are still in the future.64 In other words, while the “son
of man” has come to the Father in the clouds of heaven for judgment,
He is found righteous and seated at God’s right hand (Matt 28:18–20;
John 12:31; 16:8–11; Acts 1:9; 2:22–35). Jesus is the righteous one par ex-
cellence (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14) who is “not shaken” at the moment of
judgment but resurrected in vindication (Acts 2:25–28). The saints of the
Most High, however, have not yet received the kingdom. According to
Hebrews, that is still in the future (Heb 12:25–28). The judgment of
believers is still in the future (Heb 9:27–28; 10:25; 12:25–28).
In Daniel, the bifurcation of the fulfillment of prophecy of Daniel 7
becomes clear until Daniel 9 and the seventy weeks. Hebrews connects
the fulfillment of the prophesies of Daniel 9 to Jesus’ sacrifice on earth
62
Cf. Psalm 8 is tied with Psalm 110 in other passages in the New Testament (1 Cor 15:26–27;
Eph 1:20–22).
63
Hebrews 1:3, 13; 2:9; 8:1; 10:12; 12:1–2.
64
Some aspects of the biblical text may suggest that this bifurcation of fulfillment is even im-
plied in the text of Daniel 7:9–14, 27. See James M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven: The
Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology 32 (Downers Grove, IL;
England: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2015), 147–153.
and intercession at His ascension in AD 31. On the one hand, the theo-
logical argument of Hebrews 9–10 is that Jesus’ sacrifice has inaugurated
a new covenant (Heb 9:15) and a new heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:23).
Thus, it has redeemed from the transgressions (Heb 9:15), removed the
sacrifices (Heb 10:18), and removed sin (Heb 9:26). Also, Jesus’ removal
of sin is preliminary to the judgment (Heb 9:27–28). On the other hand,
Daniel 9:24 says that seventy weeks were decreed in order to
finish the transgression, to put an end to sin [removal of sin?;

Heb 9:26], and to atone for iniquity [redeem from transgressions?;
Heb 9:15], to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vi-
sion and prophecy, and to anoint a most holy place [inauguration
of the heavenly sanctuary?; Heb 9:23].
Daniel 9:27 adds,
He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week [inau-
gurate the new covenant; Heb 9:15–21], and for half of the week
he shall make sacrifice and offering cease [cf. Heb 10:18]; and
in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the
decreed end is poured out upon the desolator [the subjection of
the enemy is still in the future; Heb 10:11–14].
All the elements of Daniel 9 are fulfilled in Jesus’ death and ascen-
sion to heaven. Yet, Hebrews 9:23–29 describes two appearances of Jesus
before the Father. This study suggests that these two appearances refer
to two phases in the ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.
The Two Appearances in Hebrews 9:23–28 and the

Two Phases of Jesus’ Ministry in Heaven
Hebrews 9:23–28 refers to two “appearances” of Jesus. Hebrews
9:24–26 emphasizes that Jesus appeared before the Father in heaven to
atone for our sins by His own blood. Of course, this appearance im-
plies that Jesus appeared on earth to die for us (1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:20;
1 John 3:5, 8; cf. 2 Cor 5:10), but the text emphasizes Jesus’ intercession
before God in heaven.
Hebrews 9:27–28 refers to a second appearance:
And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that
the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins
of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to
save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Heb 9:24–28, NRSV,
emphasis supplied).
The argument of this passage is that the human experience that

consists of death and judgment represents two appearances of Christ.
The first—represented by death—refers to Jesus’ presentation of His
blood before the Father for the removal of sin. This appearance requires
Jesus’ death on earth but Hebrews emphasizes instead Jesus’ intercession
before God in heaven. (After all, it is the presentation of Jesus’ blood—
His sacrifice—before the Father that makes Jesus’ death significant.) The
second appearance—represented by judgment—refers to the parousia—
Jesus’ arrival on this earth to save those who are waiting for Him. The
very fact, however, that it refers to this appearance as a “second” one
(Heb 9:28), when the context identifies Jesus’ intercession before the
Father as the “first” one (Heb 9:24–26), implies that Jesus’ parousia in-
cludes an appearance of Jesus before the Father preceding His coming to
earth to save. This agrees with another fact. Salvation in Hebrews im-
plies that the enemies have been made “a footstool” for Jesus’ feet.
Hebrews is clear, however, that Jesus is waiting for God to subject the
enemies under His feet (Heb 1:13; 10:11–14). Hebrews 9:27 seems to
suggest, then, that this submission of the enemies will be done by God as
a result of judgment. Again, this makes sense if Daniel 7 is part of the
subtext of the letter because Daniel 7 connects judgment, salvation, and
the subjection of enemies.
Where Are We Now?
From the point of view of Hebrews, believers were living at an

eschatological moment that was similar to that of those who were build-
ing the temple of God in the time of Haggai. According to Psalm 96
(LXX 95), which, according to the superscript in the LXX translation,
was composed “when the house was being rebuilt after the captivity,” the
building of the temple of God implied the establishment of God’s king-
dom on earth: “Say among the nations, ‘The LORD reigns!’” (Ps 96:10). It
also implied the announcement that God will come to judge the
earth—“sing for joy before the Lord for he comes, for he comes to judge
the earth” (Ps 96:13; cf. vs. 10–13). For believers in the time of Haggai,
the foundations of the temple had been set but the glory that would be
brought by God’s judgment on the nations was still in the future. For the
believers of Hebrews, the heavenly temple had already been “set up” by
the Lord (Heb 8:2). God had also set up His king in Zion (Heb 1:5–14; 8:1).
Yet, judgment and salvation for believers were still in the future (Heb 1:14;
10:11–14; 10:25–29).
For the author of Hebrews, believers are in an eschatological mo-
ment similar to that of the righteous one of Habakkuk 2:4, referred to in
Hebrews 10:35–39.65 God had commanded the prophet to “write” down
the vision concerning God’s judgment on the Chaldeans that would
“shake” them (Hab 2:7). That vision had its “appointed time” and they
needed to wait for it, or for Him,66 because in the greater context of
Habakkuk the one who comes is the Lord Himself. Similarly, believers
are going through difficulties but have to wait on the promise that God
will judge, or “shake,” their enemies (Heb 12:25–27). They needed to wait
because the vision would come at its “appointed time.”
And we could continue, because in the rhetorical re-description
of space and time in the Letter to the Hebrews, the readers are at the
same place the desert generation was at Kadesh-Barnea, just before they
entered Canaan (Num 13–14; Heb 3–4). God had appointed a captain
that would go before them into the promised land (archēgos; Heb 2:10),
but it was time for them to exercise faith. They should not be “of those
who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and
preserve their souls” (Heb 10:39, ESV).
Conclusion
The allusion to Daniel 7:18 in Hebrews 12:28 seems faint at the be-
ginning, but once we give it a closer look we discover that it is like a
little spring of water that witnesses to an undercurrent below the sur-
face that feeds the eschatology of Hebrews. Hebrews 12:28 alludes to the
promise of Daniel 7:18 that there will be a judgment resulting in the
saints receiving the kingdom. This judgment is a main theme of the ex-
hortatory sections of Hebrews. The author constantly urges believers
to prepare for that judgment. The connections to Hebrews 1:1–2:4 also
show that this coming judgment is an iteration of God’s voice that has
already spoken “in a Son” (Heb 1:2). Jesus, the Son of Man, has fulfilled
in His person the promises of Daniel 7 and secured, therefore, the fulfill-
ment of the promise. The kingdom of God has been established in heav-
en in the person of the Son and judgment has been decided in His favor
65
See Cockerill, 506–512.
66
In the LXX translation, vision (horasis) is feminine, but the text exhorts the reader to wait for
“him” (auton, masculine).
(Heb 2:5, cf. 1:5–14; 9:24–26), yet, this kingdom still needs to be con-
summated on earth. This bifurcation of the fulfillment of Daniel is fur-
ther explained in Daniel 9, in which the renewal of the covenant is
accomplished through the Messiah, but the hope for the consummation
of God’s kingdom on earth has to wait for the future. Believers, then, live
after the confirmation of the promises of Daniel 7, but before their con-
summation. Thus, the author invites them to “hold fast” their “confession”
because the one who promised is “faithful (Heb 4:14; 10:23). They need
to wait “yet a little while” because “the coming one will come and will
not delay” (Heb 10:37).
It seems that the message of Hebrews is very much relevant for us
who are even closer to the border of the land of Canaan, right before the
rest. The shaking of the heavens and the earth began in 1844 and very
soon we will see the Son of Man coming for our salvation.
“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken,
let us hold on to grace” (Heb 12:28, HCSB).
CHAPTER 12
Is Eschatology A Threat To
Science? 2 Peter 3 And God’s
Action In History
Ronald Nalin
Scientists try to make sense of the past and predict the future by
organizing observations of physical realities in a systematic way. Many
scientists are also Christians, and they often actively contribute to theo-
logical discussions about origins, because much information about
the past can be extracted from the natural world. It is rare, however, to
see them engage in eschatological reflections,1 even though the doctrine
of last things is foundational to Christianity, both at the ecclesiological
and individual level. Part of this reluctance could be explained by the
obvious lack of observational data available for events that have yet to
occur. However, a deeper challenge to conversations on eschatology
from a scientific perspective lies in the very nature of the end-time
events described in the Bible, such as Christ’s second coming, the resur-
rection of the dead, and the establishment of a new heaven and a new
earth where death is no more. Belief in these biblical descriptions re-
quires, at a minimum, the acknowledgement of a gap in our understanding
of the physical processes involved in the manifestation of such events. It
1
This is not to claim a complete lack of publications addressing eschatological topics from a sci-
entific perspective. For some examples of this approach, see references in n. 7 of this study or, for
a less technical reflection, Cliff Goldstein, “A Reasonable Expectation of the Supernatural,” Ad-
ventist Review, February 24, 2018, http://www.adventistreview.org/a-reasonable-expectation-of-
the-supernatural (accessed February 16, 2020). The point here is that reflections on eschatology
are much less represented than those on origins—within the literature addressing the relation-
ship between faith and science.
would certainly elicit a strong resistance from scientists who are commit-
ted to naturalism, a philosophical posture that excludes the possibility
of God.2
The existential threat that eschatology presents to a certain view of
science lies in its infringement of the principle of methodological uni-
formitarianism. Methodological uniformitarianism is, in the words
of S. J. Gould, “a procedural principle asserting spatial and temporal
invariance of natural laws.”3 This principle eliminates “supernatural
explanations of material phenomena; for this uniformity denies divine
intervention (the suspension of natural laws) and affirms that elucida-
tion of earth history belongs to the domain of science.”4 Appealing to
supernatural intervention to explain the resurrection of the dead or the
translation of the saints in the air (1 Thess 4:16–17) breaks the cardinal
tenet of methodological uniformitarianism. Therefore, a scientist who
accepts uniformitarianism as indispensable cannot believe in the literal
nature of these events, unless they were to somehow unfold under the
constraints of uniformitarian laws and processes. An eschatology that
affirms the reality of the supernatural would be deemed “unscientific.”
A Christian could contend in return that a strictly uniformitarian
worldview is inadequate to explain all of reality. For humans to exclude
the possibility of divine supernatural intervention in the universe would
be akin to clay telling the potter, “You have no hands!” (cf. Isa 45:9).
After all, historical truth can certainly be bigger than the space afforded
it by a definition of science. The problem with this response, however, is
that in modern culture science is predominantly perceived as the main
gateway to truth. Labeling something “unscientific” implicitly conveys
a challenge to its value and respectability. A clear demarcation (you ei-
ther call yourself a scientist and exclude all these miraculous possibilities,
or you should not call yourself a scientist)5 can become a powerful way
of diminishing differing perspectives.
2
An example of this defensive reaction is this quote by biologist J. A. Coyne, Why Evolution is
True (New York: Penguin, 2009), 224–225: “Science cannot completely exclude the possibility of
supernatural explanation. It is possible— though very unlikely— that our whole world is con-
trolled by elves. But supernatural explanations like these are simply never needed: we manage to
understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism.”
3
S. J. Gould, “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?” American Journal of Science 263 (1965): 223.
4
Ibid., 224.
5
See, e.g., this excerpt from The Geological Society of America, “Teaching Evolution,” GSA posi-
tion statement, adopted October 2005, revised May 2009, November 2012, and May 2017, https://
www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position1.aspx (accessed February 26, 2020): “Creationism is
not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested. It therefore has no
place in a science curriculum.”
Is Eschatology a Threat to Science? 2 Peter 3 and God’s Action in History 225
Given the stigma attached to the concept of supernatural inter-

vention, it is not surprising that “much of the development of modern
theology of a more liberal sort can be seen as an attempt to maintain
Christian teaching about God’s involvement in ‘salvation history’ with-
out resorting to accounts of supernatural intervention in the natural
order.”6 The result has been a series of attempts to find ways in which
biblical eschatology can be integrated with a traditional naturalistic
understanding of physics, cosmology, and earth history.7 However, other
Christian scientists are more interested in a view of history (including
end-time events) that embraces God’s intervention.8 These scientists,
who attempt to reach out to the modern mindset, have to address two
questions for their view of reality to look attractive and coherent. The
first is more philosophical, and asks if methodological uniformitari-
anism is essential to science. Are we betraying the principles of science
in affirming the existence of a God who acts in ways that surpass the
laws of the cosmos? The second is more ontological, and asks if the prin-
ciple of uniformitarianism is true. Are the laws of the universe abso-
lutely invariable in space and time, and are they adequate and sufficient
to describe all that was and all that will be?
Question 1: Is Divine Intervention Incompatible with Science?
There are two processes at play in the practice of science: the first is
the work of gathering observations of material realities and physical phe-
nomena (the data, or empirical evidence); the second is the attempt to
define rules and patterns that describe accurately how these physical
realities interact (the laws of nature). A common contention is that
these processes would be compromised by affirming the reality of
supernatural intervention. This section will discuss some of the major
objections raised by those who oppose the notion of the supernatural.
6
Nancey Murphey, “Introduction,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Prob-
lem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey Murphey, Robert John Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), xiii.
7
Good examples of these attempts can be found in Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Scien-
tific Cosmology: From Deadlock to Interaction” Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 997–1014 and D. Edwards,
“Why is God Doing This? Suffering, the Universe, and Christian Eschatology,” in Murphey,
Russell, and Stoeger, 247–266. For an interesting critique of some of the problems these mod-
els run into, see Adriani Milli Rodrigues, “Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions
in Evolutionary Theodicy,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 25, no. 2 (2014): 3–28.
8
Among them, the scientists on staff at the Geoscience Research Institute, including the author
of this study.
Detectability
On the observational level, the first issue with the supernatural is
its detectability: truly “supernatural” entities are beyond the realm of
empirical observation, and therefore cannot be studied by science.9 This
claim would be correct if we conceived of God (or other supernatu-
ral beings) as inaccessible and segregated to a metaphysical domain.
However, the Christian message hinges on the idea that the supernatu-
ral interacts with the natural, that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14),10
bridging the divide between earthly and heavenly things (John 3:11–13).
The word “intervention” implies an interaction with the physical world.
Therefore, if it is true that we cannot scientifically examine the agent
behind a supernatural intervention, we can nevertheless access and ob-
serve the results of this intervention. One might not be able to fully
understand how God activated geologic processes during the flood,
but these processes formed rocks and deposits that can be studied. The
empirical effects of a supernatural cause are detectable and should
be deemed a subject of scientific study, even if the mechanics of their
causation are not fully understood. This conclusion is similar to the
argument championed by the intelligent design movement, which pos-
its that it is possible to infer that an intelligent agent was involved in a
process by looking at the results of this process, even without knowing
much about the agent himself. For example, analysis of the DNA mole-
cule as an information carrier leads to the inference that it was designed,
even if we do not know the specifics of how the design was implemented
or who the designer was.11
God of the Gaps

Another common objection to supernatural intervention is that it
runs into the “God of the gaps” problem and becomes a “science stopper.”12
Isn’t there a risk of invoking supernatural causes as a cover-up for
ignorance or lack of effort in understanding the real processes at play?
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more rewarding to seek naturalistic explanations
9
See quote in n. 5 in this study.
10
This point is extensively covered in books such as Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Infor-
11
mation (Bielefeld: Christliche, 1997), 256 and S. C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the
Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 613.
12
See, e.g., the following quote by one of the fathers of modern geology, C. Lyell, Principles
of Geology, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1830), 324: “Never was there a dogma more calculated
to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity, than this assumption of the discor-
dance between the ancient and existing causes of change.”
of physical realities rather than leaving the door open for mysterious
causes for which we cannot provide specific mechanisms? These objections
voice the concern that accepting the reality of supernatural interven-
tion would undermine the application of the principle of simplicity, one
of the basic operational principles of science. This principle states that
“we will postulate no unnecessary theoretical processes as long as ob-
servable ones can successfully explain past changes.”13 Appealing to the
supernatural could indeed break the principle of simplicity if it required
an unnecessary (and unknown) mechanism in the presence of a known
one that can already account for what is seen. However, there are areas
of scientific investigation where the principle of simplicity would seem
to point away from naturalistic models. Take, for instance, the field of
chemical evolution.14 Not only does the naturalistic model lack a mod-
ern analogue for abiogenesis, but it also requires the astronomically
improbable scenario of molecules arranging themselves in complex and
extremely specific functional sequences. Therefore, rather than being
a methodological hurdle for those open to the possibility of supernatu-
ral intervention, the principle of simplicity may represent a valuable
tool that positively highlights areas where the inference of God’s action
in history should be considered.
Consistency and Regularities

The strongest objection against supernatural intervention is that it
compromises the predictive and interpretive power of induction and
deduction. If there are different ways of producing the same effect (e.g.,
the growth of a mature tree on the third day of creation versus the
growth of a new tree after creation week), how can we decide what was
at play in the past? If the regularities that govern nature today can be
changed in the future, how can we confidently predict what will hap-
pen to a system? In the words of Gould, “without assuming this spatial
and temporal invariance we have no basis for extrapolating from the
known to the unknown” and “have no warrant for asserting that mod-
ern processes acted similarly in past ages.”15 Christianity does not negate
the existence and importance of regularities in the functioning of the
universe; rather, it includes these regularities among the ways in
which God sustains the world (cf. Col. 1:16–17). The upholding of
these regularities could in itself be considered a form of supernatural
13
Gould, 227.
14
This is the area of science that seeks for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life.
15
Gould, 226.
intervention.16 We are asking, however, if God also interacts with this

order in ways that transcend its regularities, and what issues this would
create for our epistemological abilities.
With regard to these questions, we should begin by asking if phe-
nomena that are considered instances of God breaking the laws of nature
simply reflect our limited understanding of those laws. For example, in
most versions of the game of checkers, only the king can move backwards
to capture another piece. A player without a thorough knowledge of the
rules of the game may call a backward jump by a king “illegal,” when in
reality it is not. If God’s action never bends the laws of nature, a “super-
natural” process could ultimately be explained in a way that is consistent
with uniformitarianism, after gaining a fuller knowledge of all the variables
involved in the process.17
The second question to ask is whether supernatural intervention
leaves a distinctive signature in the effects it creates. If material entities
affected by supernatural action were to preserve some permanent proper-
ties that set them apart, then it would be possible to maintain an effective
and coherent system of abductive reasoning18 capable of identifying in-
stances of supernatural intervention. A parallel way of thinking is used
by intelligent design advocates to infer the presence of design: mo-
lecular machines in the cell possess distinctive properties (irreducible
16
See, e.g., Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1903), 131: “The power
of God is still exercised in upholding the objects of His creation. It is not because the mechanism
once set in motion continues to act by its own inherent energy that the pulse beats, and breath
follows breath. Every breath, every pulsation of the heart, is an evidence of the care of Him in
whom we live and move and have our being.” See also White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1904), 259–260: “In dwelling upon the laws of matter and
the laws of nature, many lose sight of, if they do not deny, the continual and direct agency of
God. They convey the idea that nature acts independently of God, having in and of itself its
own limits and its own powers wherewith to work. In their minds there is a marked distinc-
tion between the natural and the supernatural. The natural is ascribed to ordinary causes,
unconnected with the power of God. Vital power is attributed to matter, and nature is made
a deity. It is supposed that matter is placed in certain relations and left to act from fixed laws
with which God Himself cannot interfere; that nature is endowed with certain properties
and placed subject to laws, and is then left to itself to obey these laws and perform the work
originally commanded. This is false science; there is nothing in the word of God to sustain
it. God does not annul His laws, but He is continually working through them, using them as
His instruments. They are not self-working. God is perpetually at work in nature. She is His
servant, directed as He pleases. Nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and
active agency of a being who moves in all His works according to His will.”
17
This possibility is discussed further in the section of this study titled “The ‘Flatland’ Approach.”
18
For a simple explanation of the difference between abductive, deductive, and inductive reason-
ing, see Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for
Intelligent Design (New York: HarperCollins, 2013), 343–345.
complexity and specified information) commonly known to be the prod-

uct of intelligent design, and therefore the best possible inference is that
they also are the result of intelligent design.19 Biblical descriptions of
miracles appear to indicate that while distinctive phenomena could be
witnessed at the time of the manifestation of a miracle, it is not clear
that one could posteriorly discern from the effects of the miracle that a
supernatural act was involved. Did the wine at Canaan, the leftovers
after the feeding of the five thousand, and Lazarus after his resurrec-
tion yield physical evidence of a special interaction with the Master?
This remains an open question.
A final aspect to keep in perspective while discussing regularities and
supernatural intervention is the role of agency among the possible causes
of an event. Laws help predict the behavior of a system under specific
conditions but might not be the most appropriate tool to predict if or
when an agent will actualize those specific conditions. Engineers can
design bridges to withstand a large range of stresses, including some
caused by human agents. But they cannot predict if or when a person
will place an explosive charge on a bridge. Agents harness the rules and
materials of nature to accomplish their purpose and create something
that would not be created otherwise.20 Engineers, who are also intelligent
agents, routinely consider the possibility that humans may use their free
will to interact with material entities in a variety of ways, and therefore
design blast-resistant bridges that would not otherwise exist. Free choic-
es of intelligent agents constitute a class of events that is not strictly
predictable, even when expressed within the constraints of natural laws.21
Allowing for God to act in ways that supersede the laws of nature does
not introduce the unpredictability already intrinsic to the causal pro-
cess of agency. It does, however, raise the question of when and why He
would choose to act in a non-uniformitarian manner.
In considering this question, we should first notice that non-unifor-
mitarian supernatural action cannot be performed by material realities
19
See, e.g., Meyer, 395–396.
20
In this sense, therefore, their creations are neither the result of chance nor necessity, unless
one negated the existence of free will and had a deterministic view of mental processes.
For chance, necessity, and agency as causal explanations for phenomena, see the explanatory
filter of William A. Dembski, “Signs of Intelligence,” in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding
Intelligent Design, ed. William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos,
2001), 171–192.
21
See how one philosopher applies this form of argument to the issue of natural evil in
William Lane Craig, “God’s Permitting Natural Evil,” Reasonable Faith (blog), December
30, 2013, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gods-permitting-natu-
ral-evil (accessed February 16, 2020).
within the cosmos, including humans. Therefore, the regularities of

uniformitarianism would still be applicable to the vast majority of in-
teractions that occur in the universe. Then, we would have to inquire if
there were specific and predictable reasons why God would choose to
operate outside of uniformitarianism. If we knew of specific triggers to
non-uniformitarian supernatural action, we could still maintain a basic
level of interpretive or predictive ability of past and future phenomena.
The checkers analogy can be used again to illustrate this point: Italians
play checkers differently than most of the rest of the world in that
men cannot jump kings. Nevertheless, one could still play checkers
effectively in Italy, if they knew that being in Italy implies the adoption of
a different set of rules.
The issue of consistency versus arbitrariness of God’s action is also a
major theological concern, especially in relation to the problem of evil.
If God is good and able to intervene in nature, which criteria deter-
mine His decision to act in specific instances?22 It appears that when we
adopt a view of God that includes His ability to supersede methodologi-
cal uniformitarianism, we still seek for regularities to make sense of His
action in history. A germinal suggestion of possible criteria underly-
ing God’s supernatural intervention, mostly based on 2 Peter 3, is offered
later in this study.
Attempts to Reconcile Uniformitarianism and the Bible

Perhaps, instead of accepting the notion of supernatural interven-
tion, our hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures should strive to
uphold methodological uniformitarianism even when it comes to bibli-
cal accounts of divine action, including eschatological depictions. What
follows is a discussion of two different strategies that attempt to accom-
plish this goal.
The “Flatland” Approach

Flatland23 is a novella that describes a fictional two-dimensional
world (Flatland) inhabited by planar geometric shapes. In the second part
of the book, the protagonist, a square, receives the revelation by a sphere
of the existence of solids and a third dimension. This revelation helps
22
See, e.g., David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 2nd ed. (London, 1779), 184,
and his classic reformulation of Epicurus’ questions: “Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not
able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Whence then is evil?”.
23
Edwin Abbott, Flatland (London: Seeley, 1884), http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201 (ac-
cessed February 21, 2020).
the square make sense of the miraculous appearance and disappear-

ance from his field of view of a circle of varying diameter. The cause of
this phenomenon is the intersection of the moving sphere with the
Flatland plane, first perceived by the square as a point appearing out of
nothing (at the moment of tangential contact between the sphere and
the plane), growing into a larger and larger circle and then diminishing
in diameter, until it disappears out of the plane. This amusing literary
depiction is a good analogy to the view that miracles are not violations
of the laws of nature but a reflection of our limited understanding
of God’s action in the cosmos. What if the apparent rupture of natu-
ral laws during “supernatural” events was just the equivalent of the
Flatlanders’ ignorance of an extra dimension? Ellen White effectively
captures this idea:
As commonly used, the term ‘laws of nature’ comprises what

men have been able to discover with regard to the laws that gov-
ern the physical world; but how limited is their knowledge, and
how vast the field in which the Creator can work in harmony
with His own laws and yet wholly beyond the comprehension of
finite beings! . . . God does not annul His laws or work contrary
to them, but He is continually using them as His instruments.24
From a biblical perspective, however, uniformitarianism can only

go so far. One singularity, the creation ex nihilo, is sufficient to break
uniformitarianism. The Bible does not portray an infinite, self-contained
universe, with “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end,”25
but affirms a beginning for all material realities originating from the
word of God (Gen 1:1; John 1:1–3). We could postulate a “soft unifor-
mitarianism,” whereby once the laws of nature are established, they
cannot be superseded. But if there were a time when the present laws
were not, then there could be a time in the future when they will be
different. If we accept that God precedes the laws of nature, His acting
according to them becomes a choice, not a constraint. In the words
of White, “the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature, and that
Omnipotence is at no loss for means to accomplish His purposes.”26
24
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1913), 114.
25
This is the famous ending of James Hutton’s “Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the
Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land Upon the Globe,”
Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1, no. 2 (1788), 304.
26
White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 104.
The other problem with this type of “soft uniformitarianism” is

that many scientists would still find it tough to digest, because it does
not endorse naturalism. This is not a view where the universe is a
closed system. God is an agent who can interact with the system from
outside, albeit in a uniformitarian fashion, at least after the creation.
In stating his view of how a commitment to naturalism is necessary
for a scientist, Richard C. Lewontin explains that
we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant

scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe
in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent
deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may
be ruptured, that miracles may happen.27
It seems that a God who does not rupture the regularities of nature
would still be perceived as suspiciously trying to put His “divine foot
in the door.” It could be that the real problem with miracles, for those
who resist the supernatural, is not that we do not know how they work,
but that they are caused by God.
The “Platonic Hermeneutics” Approach

If humans are limited in their knowledge of the laws of the cos-
mos, a similar argument centered on our ignorance could be built with
regard to the study of God’s self-revelation in Scripture. What if God
had to tailor the account of His action in history to the shortcomings
of a fallen human race? What if only myth and symbols could convey a
complex reality? In the allegory of the cavern,28 Plato likens the human
condition to that of people imprisoned in a dark cave, looking at the
shadows of objects moving in front of a fire and projected against the
wall of the cave. The prisoners think the reflections constitute the real
world, when in fact the illuminated world, with real entities, lies outside
the cave. The term “Platonic hermeneutics” here refers to an approach
to Scripture that sees biblical accounts of supernatural intervention as
dark flickering reflections, like those in the myth of the cavern. The term
also encapsulates a hermeneutical approach to biblical narrations of
eschatological events that emphasize immaterial, spiritual concepts over
their physical and historical quality.
27
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, Janu-
ary 9, 1997, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons (ac-
28
This allegory is introduced in Plato, The Republic, book VII.
A student of Scripture may find that a dualistic contraposition be-

tween the heavenly and earthly or the carnal and the spiritual is not
extraneous from some biblical passages. However, the Christian solution
to this contraposition is the incarnation, not the separation of two do-
mains. The Bible tells the story of an encounter, manifested in the
calling of the patriarchs, in the election of Israel, in the coming of Christ,
in the inspiration of biblical writers, and in the reunion with the saved
at the second coming. Both the denial of God (naturalism) and the
minimization of His involvement in the creation (a deistic form of uni-
formitarianism) are contrary to the central biblical narrative of God’s
solution to the loss of communion with humanity.
Incarnation does imply that God meets humans where they are
and speaks in a language they can understand. But if the goal of divine
communication is to deliver clarity and understanding, why would the
message point to realities that never were or never will be? Why would
God lead generations of followers to believe in a blessed hope that will
not physically exist or in a creation week that did not occur? Perhaps,
the issue is one of progressive revelation, where the ancients were not
ready to take in the truths we can now absorb. Beliefs of early Christians
were rudimentary and simplistic, until the enlightened uniformitarians
came out of the cave and could afford to look at reality face-to-face. This
view of forward progress away from darkness should be tempered with
the realizations that incomplete understanding of God’s revelation has
accompanied humanity throughout time, that present truth does not
imply negation of past truth, and that the pragmatism of God, His ad-
justment to our limits, does not entail a negation of His principles.
In fact, one could argue that the central issue of the great controversy,
the reason why Christ came, was the upholding of God’s principles, to
prevent the accuser from charging God of being arbitrary and com-
placent with humans. God’s power can indeed find completion in our
weakness (2 Cor 12:9).
The result of Platonic hermeneutics becoming mainstream in the
church would be a toning down of the supernatural in eschatological
depictions or its complete spiritualization. The former would re-
sult in views like the new Jerusalem being considered a real city in the
future, but built by a human society renewed by the work of the spir-
it. The latter would seek purely spiritual applications from end-time
imagery to realize the “eschaton” in the everyday life of the Christian.
This neutralization of the supernatural is similar to the strategies used
to interpret protological passages, where the creation is either read
as a historical but oversimplified account (e.g., the day-age theory of
creation week) or approached as a poetic/mythological text providing

only theological lessons. It would indeed be paradoxical if Seventh-day
Adventists were to embrace a hermeneutical stance where neither the
seventh day nor the advent were grounded in literal, historical events.
Question 2: Are Naturalism and Uniformitarianism True?
Ultimately, the question of real importance is not how belief in

the supernatural affects science, but what the truth about reality is.
Are naturalism and uniformitarianism simply philosophical assump-
tions, which some deem necessary for the practice of science, or do
they accurately describe how the universe has always operated and will
always operate? To answer this question, we turn to the Scriptures,29 and
in particular to 2 Peter 3.
In this epistle Peter30 addresses the problem of the negative influ-
ence spread within the community of believers by false prophets and
teachers. In chapter 3, he singles out a particular argument presented
by mockers who question the veracity of the promise of the second com-
ing. Their challenge to Christian eschatology is anchored on the prin-
ciple of uniformitarianism. The core of their argument is essentially an
extrapolation based on a uniformitarian view of history: “all things con-
tinue [diamenei] as they were [outōs] from the beginning of creation”
(2 Pet 3:4), therefore it would be naïve and unwarranted to expect a fu-
ture change in how things are. The verb diamenō and the adverb outōs
(which could be translated as “in the same way”) convey the notion of
permanence and invariability of conditions through time. Note that
the mockers provide a starting point for this uniformity of conditions:
“from the beginning of creation [ap’archēs ktiseōs].” It is unclear if this
29
The only way one could attempt to prove that uniformitarianism is true by using science
would be through induction—that is, by showing a collection of observations demonstrating
that the laws of nature do not change in space and time. However, the problem is that conclu-
sions based on induction cannot be proved to be absolutely true but only good or sound. For
more on this, see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “The Problem of Induction,” https://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem (accessed on March 14, 2018).
30
The author of this study is aware that the majority of biblical scholars question Peter’s
authorship of this epistle. How that would affect the value of the arguments presented in the
letter and our view of biblical inspiration is an important question that is outside the scope of
this study. However, D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 663, state well what is also the present author’s choice
on the issue: “We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter’s prima facie claim to
have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical
status. Since the usual arguments against Petrine authorship are not finally conclusive, we prefer
the former option.” Therefore, this study will refer to Peter as the author of the letter.
phraseology is simply a way of saying “forever” or if it represents an im-

plicit acknowledgement of a beginning for the universe, and therefore en-
dorsement of what we defined earlier as a “soft” form of uniformitarianism.
Peter’s Rebuttal
Peter’s response to the mockers’ argument consists of three main
points, which find a striking application to the philosophical discussions
on the relation between the supernatural and science.
“They willfully [thelontas] forget”

The argument of the mockers rests on partial evidence. It is based
on a conscious, a priori commitment to disregard a set of possibilities.
Lewontin’s acknowledgement of “a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism”31 comes to mind. But what is it exactly that the mockers
are willingly disregarding? This is explained in the next two points of
Peter’s response.
We Are Dealing with God

The mockers willfully forget the role of God in history. Peter remarks
how it is “by the word of God” that the heavens existed, the earth stood
out of water, and the ancient world was destroyed,32 and the present
heavens and earth are kept for the day of judgment. The generic refer-
ence of the mockers to the beginning of creation omits any mention of
God. To this, Peter juxtaposes a clear proclamation of the reality of God
and His agency in the cosmos. He is therefore openly rejecting the nat-
uralistic assumption shared by many modern scientists. Later in his
exposition, Peter also reflects upon how God’s way of doing and see-
ing things is different from ours (2 Pet 3:8), implicitly remarking on the
limitations and presumption of humanistic interpretations of reality.
There Have Been Discontinuities

The other aspect the mockers willfully forget is that things have not
always been the same. The first singularity indicated by Peter is the exis-
tence of heavens “of old [ekpalai]” (2 Pet 3:5)33 and the emergence of the
31
Lewontin.
32
In verse 6, the plural relative pronoun hōn refers to the Word of God and water, mentioned at
the end of verse 5. See Richard J. Bauckman, Jude, 2 Peter, World Biblical Commentary 50 (Waco,
TX: Word, 1983), 298.
33
This seems a direct response to the affirmation of the mockers that things have been the same
“since the beginning of creation.” It is as if Peter is saying, “That very beginning, the fact that the
heavens exist of old, is in itself proof that things have not always been the same.”
earth from water by the word of God. These references to the creation
are followed by the second discontinuity of the past—the time when “the
world that then [tote] existed” (2 Pet 3:6)34 was flooded and destroyed.
By affirming the truth of these unique divine interventions, Peter is
challenging the mockers’ view of uniformitarianism. In fact, by means
of an ingenious rhetorical strategy that flips their argument against
them,35 Peter asserts that true uniformitarianism warrants that the
same kind of divine action that happened in the past will happen in the
future. Not only was there a creation, not only was there a flood, but
there will also be a day of judgment. What is truly invariable through-
out this history is the word of God, not the physical realities it brought
into existence. The word that preserves the present world is “the same
[auto]” (2 Pet 3:7) one by which the heavens were of old (2 Peter 3:5) and
by which they were destroyed (2 Pet 3:6).
Punctuated Equilibria
This powerful passage of the word of inspiration paints a picture
of earth history that consists of three distinct economies: the ancient
(after creation and to the time of the flood), the present (after the flood),
and the new (after the day of judgment) (2 Pet 3:13). Although these
three economies initiate from acts of God that surpass the boundaries
of uniformitarianism, there is reason to believe that each one of them
represents, after its origination, a system where God upholds underlying
regularities. After the creation, sustaining a natural order was God’s way
of providing an environment that allowed for humans to plan, make
reliable inferences, and ultimately exert free will through choices. The
centrality of this order for the original creation is implied by the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil being located in the middle of the garden
of Eden (Gen 2:8), and by God’s statement of the certain consequences
of eating the fruit of that tree: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall
surely die” (Gen 2:17). This divine statement formulated the most fun-
damental law of that world, the transgression of which introduced sin
on this earth.
Several biblical passages affirm the divine commitment to uphold
regularities in the present postdiluvian world. The first is found right
after Noah’s exit from the ark: “While the earth remains, seedtime and
34
This is the same “ancient [archaiou] world” alluded to in 2 Peter 2:5.
35
A point aptly brought out by T. Shepherd, “Creation in the General Epistles” (paper presented,
Faith and Science Council meeting, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, October 2012).
harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall
not cease” (Gen 8:22). This promise seems to be echoed in Jesus’
description of the Father’s attitude toward humanity: “He makes His
sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and
on the unjust” (Matt 5:45). Finally, Peter also describes God’s word as
actively preserving and reserving the present heavens and earth until the
day of judgement (2 Pet 3:7). From these texts, it seems that upholding
regularities in a fallen world is necessary to provide a fair backdrop for
the great controversy to unfold, until a clear and unassailable judgment
can be pronounced.
That the new heavens and the new earth will also be characterized
by regularities can be inferred from passages like Revelation 21:4, which
states the categorical absence of death and pain from the new creation,
and Isaiah 65:21–23, which highlights stability and predictability in the
description of life on God’s holy mountain. Perhaps the greatest benefit
of the consistency of this eschatological order will be the certainty that
sin will be no more.
Does God Act Arbitrarily?

The three instances of non-uniformitarian intervention indicated by
Peter (the creation, the flood, and the day of judgment) provide us with
a compass to understand the guiding principles behind God’s choice
to act in the cosmos. At the creation, God’s action is an expression of
love, revealed in the free choice to bring other realities into existence
ex nihilo—that is, without being constrained by preexisting conditions.36
At the flood, God’s action is a response to the manifestation of sin in
history, implying that the unfolding of the cosmic conflict had dy-
namic effects, both requiring divine intervention but also limiting it to
maintain the integrity of the precious gift of free will. At the day of
judgment, God’s action is an expression of His character of justice and
His determination to definitively eradicate sin. Therefore, we find that
the most precious aspects of the character of God (love, freedom, justice)
36
This point is eloquently made by Thomas F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1981), 2: “Far from being immanently bound up with the universe, God
remains eternally and transcendently free, the absolute Lord over all space and time. Far from
being a necessary emanation from the being of God, therefore, the universe is understood to
have come into existence out of nothing freely through the Will and power of God, as something
utterly distinct from God and utterly dependent upon his ordering interaction with it. While the
universe might have been other than it is, it came into being not without divine reason. Far from
being merely an arbitrary product of God’s will, the creation is regarded as having had its origin
in the love of God and as ultimately grounded in the eternal truth and rationality of God.”
are recapitulated in the three singularities of history. The same as-

pects are found, for example, in the proclamation of the name of God
(Exod 34:6–7), where there is reference to His goodness, to His con-
stant and proactive engagement with humanity in the context of a sinful
world, and to His unwavering commitment to uphold justice.
Conclusions
We can respond to the initial question of eschatology being a threat

to science by considering Peter’s view of history. Peter affirms the su-
periority of the Creator over His creation and opposes the attempts to
minimize or deny God’s involvement in the physical world. He also
establishes a linear understanding of history, consisting of three dis-
tinct economies—the ancient, the present, and the future. Scientific
investigation can coexist with this understanding of history only by
acknowledging: 1) the reality of God the Creator, as preexisting and
distinct from His creation; 2) that there have been divinely caused
processes in the past, when God intervened in nature; and 3) that—in
truly uniformitarian fashion—these past divine interventions warrant
the possibility of a future one.
Accepting these interventions does not negate: 1) the possibility
that God can work through His laws, rather than violate them; 2) that
regularities are an important aspect of the world in each of the econ-
omies established by God’s intervention; and 3) that we may be able to
detect a signature of divine agency in physical realities, making it eas-
ier to understand when God’s intervention was involved. We can also
learn that there is a rationale behind God’s “non-uniformitarian” in-
teraction with human history. God’s intervention is not arbitrary, but
is consistent with His character and follows the principles of love, free-
dom, and justice, with the ultimate goal of the eradication of evil.
CHAPTER 13
The Hastening Of The Parousia

In 2 Peter 3:12
Eike Mueller
In 2 Peter 3:12, believers are admonished to be “waiting for and

hastening the coming of the day of God” (ESV) (prosdokōntas kai
speudontas tēn parousian tēs tou theou hēmeras). The translation of the
second participle, speudontas, as “hastening” is not without question,
though. A few translations prefer the alternate reading “as you wait
eagerly”1 or note the range of meaning for speudontas by adding a foot-
note for this participle.2 The difference in translation between the active
process of “hastening” the parousia or the passive act of “eagerly await-
ing” the same event are significant and carry substantial exegetical and
theological implications.3
1
See, e.g., the ASV, RV, HCSB, and Message.
2
The NIV and NRSV note the alternate translation possibility as a marginal comment.
3
Theological issues that cannot be developed in this study include the sovereignty of God
versus the free will of man. If this passage is rendered as “hastening,” conditionality and apoca-
lyptic certainty become entangled. Open theist and dispensationalist scholars have equally
flocked to this ambiguous passage to defend their views, though largely by explaining 2 Peter
3:12 in light of other Old Testament and New Testament passages. See, e.g., the debates between
Boyd and Stallard specifically addressing this passage: Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A
Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 71–72 and
Michael D. Stallard, “A Dispensational Critique of Open Theism’s View of Prophecy,” Biblio-
theca Sacra 161 (2004): 27. Richard Bauckham, “The Delay of the Parousia,” Tyndale Bulletin 31
(1980): 3–36, attempts to respond with a both/and approach arguing for the flexibility of God
to adjust His coming and His sovereignty in predetermining the event. Additionally, ques-
tions of individual versus corporal responsibility become an issue; in other words do actions
of the community or church result in the “hastening” or do individual acts of godliness? More
recently proponents of Last Generation Theology have used the passage to argue that charac-
ter perfection hastens the second coming. Citing 2 Peter 3:12, Kevin Paulson, “Five Popular
This paper examines the morphological, syntactical, and contex-

tual issues of the pericope to determine the best translation. It will be
argued that the transitive use of speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12 is distinct
from the intransitive usages in the Luke-Acts corpus and the LXX.
Additionally, the syntactical structure places the participle speudontas
in a parallel rather than a contrastive relationship with prosdokōntas.
The structural patterns within the verse and the surrounding context
further corroborate the parallelism. Finally the proper context of the
passage should not be the Messianic expectations of Second Temple
Judaism,4 but rather the author’s defense that God acts sovereignly
in history against accusations of a parousia delay.
Historical Overview
History of Translations
The translation of speudontas in the sense of “hastening” is attested
in Bible translations dating back to the Vulgate (fourth century) and
early translations starting in the Reformation period (sixteenth century).
Importantly, Jerome seems to realize the difficulty of the translation of
speudontas and adds a preposition in the Latin translation that does
not exist in the Greek: “exspectantes et properantes in adventum Dei
diei” (“awaiting and hastening to the coming of the day of God”).5 The
additional preposition is significant as it turns the transitive verb into an
intransitive. In other words, while Jerome translates speudontas in the
sense of “hastening,” the preposition changes the object of the hasten-
ing: it is not the parousia that can be hastened, but instead the believer
himself/herself hastens toward the coming. The concept of preparation
for the parousia event is thus emphasized. All early Reformation transla-
tions follow Jerome’s example and add a preposition after “hastening.”
Myths about Last Generation Theology,” ADvindicate, May 17, 2017, http://advindicate.com/
articles/2017/5/21/five-popular-myths-about-last-generation-theology (accessed February 17,
2020), defends this concept by claiming that this passage is “especially clear in noting that the
total removal of sin from the Christian life is to occur in advance of the second coming, not
when the second coming takes place. This is why Peter urges the Christian to ‘hasten’ the com-
ing of Jesus by means of the practical holiness being described (II Peter 3:12), and why he urges
believers to be ‘found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless’ (verse 14). Notice how it
is necessary to be ‘found’ in this condition when Jesus comes, which means this preparation
must be complete before He appears.”
4
This view, given prominence in the writings of Richard Bauckham and many subsequent au-
thors, is the prevailing opinion amongst scholars.
5
Emphasis supplied.
Table 1: Early Translations of 2 Peter 3:12

Jerome’s Vulgate (420) “exspectantes et properantes in adventum Dei diei”
“abiding and hieing into the coming of the day of our Lord
Wycliffe (1382)
Jesus Christ”
“daß ihr wartet und eilet zu der Zukunft des Tages des
Luther (1545)
Herrn”
“Lokyng for, and hastyng vnto the comyng of the day of
Bishop’s Bible (1568)
God”
“Looking for, and hasting vnto the coming of that day of
Geneva (1599)
God”
Reina-Valera (1602) “Esperando y apresurándoos para la venida del día de Dios”
“Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of
King James (1611)
God”
Subsequent translations drop the preposition, significantly alter-

ing the meaning of the passage. See, for example, the 1984 update to the
Luther translation “die ihr das Kommen des Tages Gottes erwartet und
erstrebt,”6 or the NKJV (1982) “looking for and hastening the coming
of the day of God.” While the later translations are correct that the prep-
osition is not present in the Greek manuscripts, a reevaluation of the
meaning of speudontas or its transitive/intransitive nature seems not to
have been a part of the deliberations for this passage.
Though the translators have not left us with explanations why they
chose to translate the passage as such, two assumptions can be inferred.
First, the various scholars translated the participle speudontas most
likely in the sense of “hastening” in 2 Peter 3:12 based on the use of speudō
in the rest of the New Testament. Second, the translators added the
preposition as they did not understand this passage to emphasize hu-
man beings’ ability to influence God’s timing of the parousia, but rather
God’s sovereignty. In this sense, the hastening functions reflexively on
the believer, not the event of the coming day of God.
Early Discussion on speudontas

Calvin’s commentary might be one of the first commentaries that
specifically address the complicated nature of speudontas. Calvin trans-
lates the passage as “waiting in haste for the coming of the day of God”7
6
Surprisingly the preposition remains as late as the 1912 edition of the Luther translation: “daß
ihr wartet und eilet zu der Zukunft des Tages des HERRN.”
7
John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. John King (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,
1847), par. 99739.
by understanding the participle as functioning adverbially to the previ-

ous participle. Additionally, he points out the “contrarious” concepts of
the two participles “in opposition”: “For as quietness and waiting are the
peculiarities of hope, so we must always take heed lest the security of
the flesh should creep in; we ought, therefore, strenuously to labor in
good works, and run quickly in the race of our calling.”8
In contrast to Calvin’s own words, the editor of Calvin’s Commen-
taries felt it necessary to include a footnote pointing out the lexico-
semantic difficulty of Calvin’s commentary. He critiques Calvin for
connecting speudontas adverbially to the preceding participle prosdokōntas
rather than the main verb. He argues that speudontas is “followed as
here by an accusative case” and therefore “has often the secondary
meaning of earnestly desiring a thing. It is so taken here by Schleusner,
Parkhurst, and Macknight; ‘Expecting and earnestly desiring the coming
of the day of God.’”9
Bauckham’s Contribution
Among commentators on 2 Peter 3, few have shaped the conversa-
tion as significantly as Richard Bauckham. Beginning with an article on
“The Delay of the Parousia” in 1980, and later in his commentary on
Jude and 2 Peter in the Word Biblical Commentary series, Bauckham
promotes a new perspective based on “relevant Jewish parallels which,
so far as I can tell, the commentators have not noticed.”10 In his article
he particularly notes two points. First he notes the rabbinic discus-
sions referencing Abraham driving the birds of prey from the covenant
offering as an apocalyptic end-time judgment scenario of the Gen-
tiles in which Abraham’s one day is considered a thousand years before
God (Apocalypse of Abraham 28–30). Second, he notes that the Apocalypse
of Baruch, just like 2 Peter 3:8, harkens back to Psalm 90:4 and “reflects
on the contrast between the transience of man and the eternity of God.”11
After establishing the similarities in the treatment of Psalm 90:4
and apocalyptic literature in the first century AD, Bauckham devel-
ops his ideas further. According to references in the Babylonian and
8
Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, par. 99652.
9
Ibid., 421, par. 99803. See also John Parkhurst, “speudō,” in A Greek and English Dictionary of
the New Testament in Which the Words and Phrases Occurring in those Sacred Books are Distinctly
Explained; and the Meanings Assigned to Each Authorized by References to Passages of Scripture
(London: Rivington, 1829), 795, who writes, “Transitively, To wish earnestly for, q. d. to stick close
or cleave to in mind. occ. 2 Pet. iii. 12.”
10
Bauckham, “The Delay of the Parousia,” 23.
11
Ibid., 25.
Jerusalem Talmuds, discussions between rabbis included questions

regarding the delay of the messianic figure. He summarizes the current
debate:
R. Joshua maintains the traditional apocalyptic appeal to the

sovereignty of God, who has determined the time of the End.
When the appointed time arrives, the eschatological redemption
will come as God’s sovereign grace to Israel, in no way depen-
dent on Israel’s preparation. R. Eliezer, on the other hand, makes
the coming of redemption conditional on Israel’s repentance.12
Furthermore, the Apocalypse of Baruch plays on both the negative

and positive aspects of the delay of the messianic figure. On the one hand
it allows for the destruction of Jerusalem, but on the other hand “the
delay in judgment is also founded on the character of God, on his long-
suffering, which restrains his wrath towards the wicked (but therefore
also delays his mercy to the righteous).”13 In summary then, Bauckham’s
argument is: “In fact the passage 3:5–13 contains nothing which could
not have been written by a non-Christian Jewish writer”14 because
“the author of 2 Peter, then, met the problem of delay as posed by
the ‘scoffers’ from the resources of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.”15
With the background of this Second Temple understanding of the
parousia delay, Bauckham writes his commentary on 2 Peter and spe-
cifically verse 12. Here he notes the morphological range of meaning for
the participle speudontas but concludes that “the Jewish background is
decisive in favor of ‘hastening.’”16 Bauckham is aware that the Old Tes-
tament views God as the sole agent of the parousia: “Usually, as in
Isa 60:22, it is God who is said to hasten the coming of the End.” But
he explains that the author of 2 Peter bases his logical development on
the Jewish background of the rabbinic debates, rather than the Old
Testament sources. Thus, “R. Eliezer’s view implies that, since God
hastens in response to repentance, repentance itself might be said
12
Bauckham, 12. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Dallas, TX: Word,
1983), 325, also mentions a similar interpretation attributed to R. Joshua b. Levi (ca. AD 250):
“If you have merit, I will hasten it; if not, [it comes] in its time” (y. Ta anit 1:1; b. Sanhedrin 98a;
Cant. Rab. 8:14).
13
14
Ibid., 19.
15
Ibid., 27.
16
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 325.
to hasten the End.”17 Bauckham’s position is largely accepted by most

commentators today.18
Questions Regarding Bauckham’s Interpretation

Bauckham’s position does raise a few questions though: First, in
regard to the interpretation of the participle speudontas, Bauckham
overextends the significance of the Jewish writings. The passages he
cites contain discussions on the tension of God’s sovereignty and His
longsuffering and express comments regarding Psalm 90:4, but they do
not resolve the issues one way or another. The extra-biblical passages
focus on the struggle and complexity of the topic rather than the
solution to the dilemma. The debate between the rabbis is not resolved,
nor does the Apocalypse of Baruch have a singular focus. Second, the
epistle is a Christian epistle, written to strengthen Christian believers in
regard to the second appearance of Jesus. The setting of the Jewish
writings, largely bemoaning the absence of a messianic deliverer against
the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, is vastly different. In the first
instance, the absence of Jesus can be measured in decades and He has
already revealed His glory (2 Pet 1:16–18); in the latter case, the Messi-
ah is still nondescript and His absence is measured in millennia. In the
first instance, the parousia includes a cosmic destruction (2 Pet 3:10–11);
in the second instance, the authors expect a messianic restoration of
the Jewish nation. The assumption that Jewish writings and their set-
ting are the best socio-historical background for 2 Peter is not readily
17
18
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary 37 (Nashville, TN: Broad-
man and Holman, 2003), 390; Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, Pillar New
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 291; Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter
and Jude, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 198; Norman
Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, New International Biblical Commentary 16 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1992), 219; Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary,
Tyndale New Testament Commentary 18 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), 164; Gene L.
Green, 2 Peter and Jude, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Baker, 2008), 333–334; Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New
Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 732; and Robert Johnston, Peter & Jude:
Living in Dangerous Times, The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier, ed. George R. Knight (Boise,
ID: Pacific Press, 1995), 174–175. There are opponents to the majority view as well: R. Larry
Overstreet, “A Study of 2 Peter 3:10–13,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980): 366, briefly presents the two
options and shows the theological problems of the “hastening” approach. Jerome H. Neyrey,
2 Peter, Jude, Anchor Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), 240, avoids the dis-
cussion altogether, instead focusing on the ethical claim of the clause. See also Pheme Perkins,
First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1995), 191.
clear. Third, the passages Bauckham cites largely focus on the idea that
God delays judgment in order that people can repent (2 Pet 3:9). The
issue in 2 Peter 3:11–12, however one translates speudontas, is no longer
repentance but godly living (v. 11). At this point for the Petrine author,
repentance is assumed. Bauckham connects the “hastening” in verse 12
to the delay of verse 9, but in the process ignores the immediate con-
text and syntactical dependent construction of verse 11. Finally, the em-
phasis on the Scriptures as assurance from God to be heeded with care
(2 Pet 1:18–21) and the opposition to human agents and interpretations
(2 Pet 1:16; 2:1–3; 3:1) call into question Bauckham’s proposition to view
rabbinic or Jewish apocalyptic writings as the lens through which the
author of 2 Peter views the Old Testament.
Contrary to Bauckham then, this paper will argue that the immediate
context of 2 Peter 3 and the references to the Old Testament, rather than
a construction of a Jewish discussion, should guide the interpretation
of the troublesome passage.
Brief Excursus: Missiological Interpretation

Some have proposed a call to evangelism or mission in 2 Peter 3:12.
In this understanding God is delaying His return so that believers can
bring unbelievers to repentance (2 Pet 3:9), and thus believers can be
said to be “hastening the coming of the day of God.” Craig Keener
argues, “Christians hasten the coming of the end by missions and evan-
gelism (cf. Mt 24:14), thereby enabling the conversion of those for whose
sake God has delayed the end (2 Pet 3:9, 15).”19 Michael Pocock also points
to mission as the central concept, summarizing the section in 2 Peter 3
as a call to “avoid being complacent about completing the Great Com-
mission.” At the same time, he notes that the passage itself refers only to
godly living, and he then places evangelization as an extension of godly
living. The “hastening” then refers to “a combination of personal and
corporate holiness in the church, an attitude of eagerness about the
Lord’s return, and involvement in that for which history now continues—
the evangelization of the lost.”20
As appealing as the missiological emphasis sounds, the passage itself
makes no reference to evangelism or the spreading of the good news. The
participles in 2 Peter 3:12, prosdokōntas and speudontas, instead modify
the previous main clause, “it is necessary for you to be in holy conduct
19
Keener, 732.
20
Michael Pocock, “The Destiny of the World and the Work of Missions,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145
(1988): 444. As an interesting side note for later discussion, note that Pocock renders the core
of the passage as “eagerness about the Lord’s return,” rather than “hastening the Lord’s return.”
and godliness” (v. 11). The subject (“you”) of the clause is a reference to
the believers’ collective or personal action in daily life, often mentioned
in lists of vices in the New Testament both positively (2 Pet 1:5–10)21 and
negatively (Mark 7:21–23). In this instance, not the conversion of un-
believers but the sanctification of believers is important to Peter.
The central claim for Peter is the twofold call to “holy conduct and
godliness.”22 As Thomas Duke explains, “Peter is primarily concerned
with eschatology, not soteriology, seeking to confirm in the minds of
his readers the certainty of Christ’s Parousia for the purpose of motivat-
ing them to holy living.”23 Bauckham is more blunt in dealing with the
missiological interpretation: “The Christian mission is not here in view.”24
This is not to say that evangelism and mission are not important to
the Christian cause—far from it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus con-
nects the concepts of eschatology and the spreading of the good news in
the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:14), and in His parting words to the disci-
ples He commissions every believer to be a messenger of the teachings of
Christ (Matt 28:19–20). Nonetheless, Peter’s focus in this passage is not
the missionary endeavor but the assurance of the coming parousia. Here
Peter places a similar emphasis as does Paul: in light of the coming of
the Lord with “the voice of an archangel and the sound of the trumpet”
(1 Thess 4:13–18), “aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs,
and to work with your hands” (1 Thess 4:11).25
21
The similarities between 2 Peter 3:11–12 and the catalog of virtues in 1:5–10 are not just thematic.
The same word group is used to describe the intensity and effort in both passages. In 2 Peter 3:12
the verb speudō is used, in 1:5 the cognate noun spoudē, and in 1:10 the verb spoudazō from the
same word group. As L. E. Brown, “Mission, Godliness, and Reward in 2 Peter 1:5–11,” Journal of
the Grace Evangelical Society 25 (2012): 78–79, states, “Peter adjured his readers to make special
effort to develop these virtues in ever increasing measure. Verse 5 ‘make every effort’ uses the
noun spoudē where v 10 ‘be all the more diligent’ uses the cognate verb spoudazō, bracketing
the passage with an urgent plea for diligence in cultivating Christian character.”
22
Whether the “you” (hymas, 2 Pet 3:11), here in plural, refers to the community as a whole or to
individuals within the community is not immediately clear. In fact the author might not see a
tension between these two concepts.
23
Thomas H. Duke, “An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Peter 3:9,” Faith and Mission 16 (1999): 11. See
also Kenneth O. Gangel, “A Vision of Future World History,” Grace Theological Journal 6, no. 2
(1985): 255, who comments that “believers’ lives should reflect their eschatology.”
24
25
Paul lists specific examples for the Christian lifestyle in 1 Thessalonians 4:1–11 before he sum-
marizes his view in these three points. Significantly, the concept of conducting one’s life is found
both in Paul and Peter though with different terminology (peripateō in 1 Thess 4:12; hagiais an-
astrofais in 2 Pet 3:11).
A Reevaluation of speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12
After the initial observations about the state of scholarship on

2 Peter 3:12, this paper will present a threefold approach to revisit the
ambiguous participle speudontas.26 First, this study will examine the
morphological range of the word group along with its usage and setting
in the Petrine pericope. Second, syntactical issues will be addressed.
Finally, the study will conclude with an examination of the rhetorical
flow of the pericope.
Morphological Considerations
Dictionaries
The dictionaries form a consensus regarding the word speudō and
its most frequent related forms speudē and spoudazō. They all designate
the word group to carry the range of meaning consisting of “hasten” and
“being diligent, exceedingly” and note a distinct usage whether the word
is used in a transitive or intransitive setting.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and
Exegesis summarizes the concept succinctly:
This word group (from an IE root *(s)peud-, ‘to press, hurry’)

expresses first of all quick movement in the interests of a per-
son or cause, but hurrying to do something usually reflects
eagerness, and so early on the terms suggest what we might call
‘inner movement’ or a strong desire and exertion in carrying out
of a matter.27
The article continues to demonstrate both the usage of “hurry, haste”

and “earnestness, eagerness” throughout Classical and Koine Greek
26
The term “ambiguous” in this context is non-technical and does not refer to lexical ambiguity.
Rather it points to the polysemantic value at the outset of the exploration of the co-text. To be
more attuned to the state of lexical semantics, it should be noted that the lexeme speudō has
polysemy, but the context of 2 Peter 3:12 is determinative to the meaning. The ensuing study
seeks to reevaluate the correct sense that the author of 2 Peter has in mind in 3:12. “Whereas
most words are polysemous . . . the context of the utterance usually singles out the one sense,
which is intended, from amongst the various senses of which the word is potentially capable”
(Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation [Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1989], 175). For an overview of lexical semantics, see Constantine R. Campbell,
Advances in the Study of Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 72–90.
27
Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 4
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 347, s.v. “σπεύδω.”
and across the verbal, adjectival, and nominal forms within the word
group. Thus Homer describes Agamemnon as “eager [speudō] for bat-
tle” (Il. 4.225). In regard to the noun speudē, Homer (Od. 21.409), Plato
(Symp. 192c), and Herodotus (Hdt. 6.107.3), among others, use the
noun in the sense of “eagerness.” The adjective spoudaios and the verb
spoudazō seldom carries the meaning of ‘in haste,’ instead most often it
means “earnest, serious.”
The LXX largely employs the verb as “rendering of I H4554 pi.,
‘to hasten, hurry’ (e.g., Gen28 18:6 [2x]; 1 Sam 25:18 et al.)”29 in intransi-
tive constructions, though several references refer to “eagerness, zeal”
(Wisdom of Solomon 14:17; 1 Esdras 6:9; Sirach 27:3) and even “the sense
‘fright’ (e.g., Jer 15:8 [for ֶ H988].”30 Contrary to the use in the LXX,
in the Jewish writings of Philo and Josephus “the sense ‘haste’ is rela-
tively infreq. in both, whereas ‘earnestness’ is prominent (e.g., Philo
Congr. 112, in a list of virtues; Jos. A. J. 4.214, of judges who have zeal
for righteousness).”31
It should be noted that the New Testament uses the word group
spoudazō/spoudē/spoudaios thirty times, overwhelmingly in the sense of
“earnestness” or “eagerness.”32 Paul specifically (twenty of thirty references)
employs the word group predominantly to emphasize a “zeal” or “eager-
ness” for exemplary Christian conduct and responsibility toward others
28
Silva, ed., 4:348. Note also that Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1996), 1627, s.v. “σπεύδω,” separate only by transitive and intransitive and com-
bine the meaning of haste and eagerness: “1. trans., set going, urge on, hasten, ταῦτα δ ἅμα
χρὴ σπεύδειν Il.13.236; οἱ δὲ γάμον σπεύδουσιν Od.19.137, cf. Hdt.1.38; παῦσαι σπεύδων τὰ
σπεύδεις ib. 206; σ. ἀθλίαν ὁδόν E.Ion1226; σ. οἱ μὲν ἴγδιν, οἱ δὲ σίλφιον, οἱ δ ὔξος procure
quickly, get ready, Sol.39; κλίμακας E.IT1352; σπευσίω ὅτι κα δύναμαι κακὸν τᾷ πόλει SIG l.c.
(in Hdt.8.46, Δημοκρίτου σπεύσαντος, an acc. must be supplied). . . . II. more freq. intr., press
on, hasten. διὰ δρυμὰ πυκνὰ καὶ ὕλην σπεύδουσ Il.11.119, cf. 8.191, 23.414, Hes.Sc.228; σ. ἀπὸ
ῥυτῆρος with loose rein, S.OC900; δρόμῳ E.Ion1556; πεζῇ X.An.3.4.49, etc.; exert oneself, strive
eagerly or anxiously, of warriors fighting, Il.4.232, cf. 8.293, etc.”
29
Silva, New International Dictionary, 4:348.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid., 4:349. Harder, “spoudazō spoudē spoudaios,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testa-
ment, VII:564, expands on the discussion of the moral component for the word group spoudazō/
spoudē/spoudaios: “What is not found in Jos. is all the more common in Philo, namely, the use of
σπουδαῖος for the morally ‘good’ as in Stoic circles → 560, 39 ff. (opp. φαῦλος). The σπουδαῖος is
the ‘upright and virtuous man,’ Leg. All., III, 67 cf. Mut. Nom., 31.”
32
Two usages of the noun spoudē clearly refer to “haste” (Mark 6:25; Luke 1:39), while three are
ambiguous (2 Tim 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12). Silva, New International Dictionary, prefers to render these
as “eagerness” while William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press, 2000), 937, categorizes it in the “haste” notion.
inside and outside of the community. “For Paul, earnestness or diligence is

a necessary expression of the life of the Christian community, determin-
ing its ethical actions and behavior.”33 This same idea is expressed by the
three references to spoudazō in 2 Peter (1:10, 15; 3:14).34
The specific use of speudō in the New Testament is limited to a total
of six references, including the ambiguous passage in 2 Peter 3:12 under
consideration. The five other references are all in Luke-Acts and are ex-
clusively rendered as “hastening”: the shepherds hastened to see Jesus
(Luke 2:16), Zacchaeus hurried from the tree (Luke 19:5, 6), Paul has-
tened to return to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), and was commanded to “make
haste and get out of Jerusalem” (Acts 22:18).
In summary, the word family speudō and its use in the sense of
“haste” and “exceedingly” is well attested in the various settings of Greek
literature, though at times one usage is preferred over the other. Along
with Paul, the first-century Jewish writers Philo and Josephus prefer the
sense of “exceedingly,” while the LXX and Luke make more frequent use
of the meaning “haste.”
Assessment of speudō in 2 Peter 3:12

Two arguments can be advanced in favor of translating speudontas
in the sense of “hastening.” First, all other New Testament references
translate the verb in the sense of “hastening.”35 Second, the context of
2 Peter 3:9 indicates a delay for the sake of repentance, and the parti-
ciple speudontas harkens back to this concept. The first argument will
be addressed first based on the information mentioned above and
subsequently the syntactical discussion; the second argument will be
addressed in the section on the context below.
Addressing the first point above and based on the aforementioned
information from the dictionaries, three arguments speak in favor of
translating speudō in the sense of “eagerly awaiting” instead of “has-
tening.” First, despite the overwhelming support for the meaning of
“hastening” in the New Testament and large parts of the Old Testa-
ment, speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12 stands out because of its transitive use.
Since Luke exclusively retains the intransitive form of the verb, the
33
34
“In the later writings of the NT σπουδή and σπουδάζω are used in a somewhat more general
way, but here too the emphasis is on Christian living. Our whole conduct must be molded by
earnestness and diligence” (ibid.).
35
Schreiner, 390, is aware of discussions on the meaning of the word speudontas, even referring
to a short section to this effect by Overstreet, yet argues that “this is not the most natural sense
of the verb” and then proceeds to quote the six references to speudō in the Luke-Acts corpus.
reference in 2 Peter 3:12 stands out among all comparative entries in the
New Testament.36 Pointing out this fact, the New International Dictionary
of New Testament Theology and Exegesis claims, “The remaining ex-
ample [2 Peter 3:12], a trans. use, is remarkable.”37 The distinct usage of
speudō breaks with all other New Testament references and therefore
encourages a distinct examination based on the context of 2 Peter 3:12.
It is not possible to apply indiscriminately the meaning of speudō in
Luke–Acts or the LXX into the context of 2 Peter.38 Lexical semantics
has long noted this problematic approach, and Peter Cotterell and
Max Turner summarize a long discussion by noting that “etymology
cannot be counted on for determining meaning of words, but only syn-
chronic analysis of the language will aid accurate interpretation.”39
Second, the Petrine context already uses the same word group in
the sense of “exceedingly” and “earnestly.” Besides the verb in question,
the verb speudazō and the noun spoudē appear a total of four times in
2 Peter, and most significantly in a parallel construction two verses
after the ambiguous reference of speudō. In 2 Peter 3:14, the author
employs the phrase prosdokōntes spoudasate in order to remind the
reader of two previous passages: Peter points back to the almost identi-
cal wording of prosdokōntas kai speudontas two verses earlier (v. 12).
The parallels of wording (prosdokōntas) and the word group spoudazō/
spoudē/speudō are a progression of thought, not a contrast. Peter first
outlines the practical implications of the surety of the parousia (“since
all these things are thus to be dissolved,” 2 Pet 3:11) for the community
(“what sort of people is it necessary for you to become,” potapous dei
hyparchein hymas, v. 11) by pointing to Christian living (“holy living
and godliness,” hagias avastrofais kai eusebeiais), which is further defined
in light of the parousia as “waiting and eagerly anticipating the day of
God” (prosdokōntas kai speudontas). In verse 14 Peter repeats the idea of
verses 11–12, but now steps up the rhetoric by appealing to the audience
36
Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 333, notes, “The second verb, σπεύδω . . . is not intransitive
here . . . but with the direct object τὴν παρουσίαν (tēn parousian, the coming, the object of the
previous verb as well) is instead transitive.”
37
38
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 66, summarizes his discus-
sion on exegetical fallacies: “The heart of the issue is that semantics, meaning, is more than the
meaning of words. It involves phrases, sentences, discourse, genre, style; it demands a feel for not
only syntagmatic word studies (those that relate words to other words) but also paradigmatic
word studies (those that ponder why this word is used instead of that word).”
39
Cotterell and Turner, 178. See also Moises Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduc-
tion to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983).
to act on this earlier statement. He accomplishes this by replacing the

interrogative opening with the vocative “Beloved!” (agapētoi, 2 Pet 3:14)
and employing the imperative voice instead of a double participle: “Wait-
ing for these things, be diligent!” (prosdokōntas kai speudontas). The
appeal to Christian living is worded in adjectives “without spot or blemish”
(aspiloi kai amōmētoi, 2 Pet 3:14), but is analogous to verses 11–12.40
Table 2: Comparison of 2 Peter 3:11–12 and 3:14

vv. 11–12 v. 14
In light of context
toutōn houtōs pantōn lyomenōn Dio
(parousia)
Address to audience potapous dei hyparchein hymas Agapētoi
Action prosdokōntas kai speudontas prosdokōntes spoudasate
en hagiais avastrofais kai euse- aspiloi kai amōmētoi autō
Christian living
beiais eurethēnai en eirēnē
Peter links back to two usages of speudazō in 2 Peter 1:10, 15. In chapter
1, Peter first calls his audience to godly living (2 Pet 1:5–9), introduced
by spoudē (2 Pet 1:5), and climaxing in a call to be “earnest” in covenant
faithfulness (spoudazō, 2 Pet 1:10). Finally, Peter affirms his own com-
mitment (“And I will make every effort” spoudazō, 2 Pet 1:15) to the
message that “our Lord Jesus Christ made clear” (2 Pet 1:14).
Peter’s use of the entire word family clearly favors the meaning of
“earnestness” and “zeal.” The ambiguous verb speudō should be viewed
in light of Peter’s own usage of the word group, rather than the usage of
Luke-Acts or the LXX. This is particularly true in light of the same
theme of Christian living connected to all of the references and the
specific parallelism between 2 Peter 3:11–12 and 3:14.
A third argument favors the translation of speudō as “eagerly await-
ing.” The common theme of a virtuous Christian life, already explored
above in 2 Peter, connects closely to the Pauline use of moral develop-
ment in the same usage of the word family.
For Paul, earnestness or diligence is a necessary expression of

the life of the Christian community, determining its ethical ac-
tions and behavior: “Do not lag in zeal [τῇ σπουδῇ], be ardent
40
“The ‘so then’ refers back to the situation described in the previous section, that is, the end
of the second age of the world and the beginning of the third, the new heavens and new earth.
This is made clear by the participial phrase ‘since you are looking forward to this’” (Davids, 294).
[ζέοντες] in spirit, serve the Lord” (Rom 12:11 NRSV). It is a gift

of God that must be developed. Its power should be seen in the
effort to maintain unity (Eph 4:3), to aid other Christians (Gal 2:10;
2 Cor 8:7–8, 16–17), to make good of a wrong done (7:11–12), and
to exercise the leadership of the church (Rom 12:8).41
The common theme in both Petrine and Pauline usage seems to in-
dicate a closer thematic correspondence than the Luke–Acts corpus,
which focuses on the physical movement of individuals from one place
to another.
In summary, the morphological discussion notes not only the pos-
sibility of translating the participle speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12 with the
sense of “eagerly” or “earnestly,” but the distinct plausibility based on
the transitive use in Peter compared to the intransitive use in the rest of
the biblical record, the parallel and unambiguous use of the word fam-
ily in 2 Peter, and the similar thematic use of the word family in the
Pauline material. Syntactical and contextual discussions will further
advance the argument.
Syntactical Considerations
The traditional translation of the participle speudontas as “hasten-
ing” produces an interesting conundrum: the idea of “hastening” is
antithetical to the idea of “waiting.”42 Commentators explain the con-
trast by distinguishing between passive waiting and active waiting, the
latter resulting in missionary endeavors.43 Others consider the parti-
ciple prosdokōntas to refer to the “expectation” rather than the “waiting,”
and in essence subordinate to the idea of “hastening.”44 Nonetheless, the
41
Silva, New International Dictionary, 4:349, s.v. “speudō.”
42
Schreiner, 390, realizes the difficulty somewhat by noting, “We may be surprised to see that
Peter spoke of hastening the day of God.”
43
Davids, 290, transitions from the discussion on prosdokōntas to speudontas by noting, “But one
does not simply ‘look forward to’ or ‘await’ or ‘watch’ passively.” Green, 164, argues, “Christians
are expected to look for the coming of the Lord; had not Jesus himself told them to watch? But
this does not mean pious inactivity. It means action. For, wonderful as it may seem, we can actu-
ally ‘hasten it on’ (NEB) (not ‘hasting unto’ as in AV). In other words, the timing of the advent
is to some extent dependent upon the state of the church and of society. . . . It is intended to be a
time of active co-operation with God in the redemption of society.”
44
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 324, thwarts efforts to limit prosdokōntas to “expecting” rather than
“waiting” by noting the particular context of the parousia. Thus prosdokōntas denotes specific es-
chatological waiting that can also be found “in 2 Macc 7:14; 12:44; Matt 11:3; Luke 7:19–20; IClem
23:5; IgnPol 3:2; Justin, Dial 120.3; cf IgnMagn 9:3).” Schreiner, 390, on the other hand attempts to
align the two participles more closely by diminishing the “waiting” to “look forward to.”
traditional understanding produces stark contrast between prosdokōntas

and speudontas, in which the latter is used in contrast to the former.
There are two difficulties, however, to this approach: First, the syn-
tactical construction of two adverbial participles connected by a kai and
modifying a single finite verb do not naturally function in contrast to
each other. Second, the context of this section is full of word parallels that
express overlapping rather than contrasting senses.
The first proposition against the traditional understanding exam-
ines more closely the syntactical interaction between the two participles
prosdokōntas and speudontas (2 Pet 3:12). In the sentence both parti-
ciples, connected by the conjunction kai, modify the same main clause
potapous dei hyparchein hymas (2 Pet 3:11). This construction is common-
place in the New Testament and deserves in and of itself no particular
mention.45 One should note that this construction is either synonymous—
that is, the semantic range of the second participle almost completely
covers the semantic range of the first participle (“agitating and stirring
up,” Acts 17:23; “singing and making melody,” Eph 5:19), or progressive—
that is, the second participle expands on the idea of the first participle
(“rooted and built upon him [Jesus],” Col 2:7; “bearing one another and
forgiving each other,” Col 3:13). But in 2 Peter 3:12, neither the coordinating
conjunction kai, nor the parallel use of participles indicate an adversative
syntactical construction.
The author of 2 Peter is not without choice to establish a contrasting
relationship.46 He could have accomplished this in three ways: 1) Perhaps
the easiest approach of indicating a contrast between prosdokōntas and
speudontas would have been to use an adversative conjunction (alla, plēn;
“but, only, except”), disjunctive conjunction (hē, “or”), or at least a correla-
tive conjunction (men…de, “on the one hand… on the other”).47 In fact, the
45
The particular construction of participle + kai + participle occurs more than two hundred
times in the New Testament. It functions the same whether it is adjectival or adverbial, though
the passage in 2 Peter 3:12 is an adverbial use.
46
The concept of choice is important in modern linguistics, specifically systemic functional
linguistics. “Meaning is created through meaningful choices within a system of options.” That
is, choosing one idea is also “‘unchoosing’ other options . . . [and] whatever has been ‘uncho-
sen’ helps to convey what is meant by what is chosen” (Constantine R. Campbell, Advances in
the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-
van, 2015], 63). Note the standard work of Halliday and Matthiessen on this topic: M. A. K.
Halliday and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar,
4th ed. (London: Routledge, 2014). For a comparison of different approaches, see Christopher
S. Butler, Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories, 2 vols.
(Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2003).
47
See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
pericope actually features two such contrastive parallelisms. In verse 9

Peter employs alla (“but”) twice: “not delaying…but patient” and “not
wishing any to perish, but that all receive repentance.” Considering that
he employs contrastive disjunctions in the same context, the coordinating
conjunction in verse 12 seems a deliberate choice by the author. 2) The
author could have used personal or demonstrative pronouns to point out
contrast. Pronouns could indicate a contrast “either of kind (antithetical)
or degree (comparison).”48 3) The syntactical use of a concessive participle
could have also indicated a definitive contrast. The sentence construction
then would have required a few changes: concessive participles are found
in subclauses that modify the finite verb in the main clause (tyflos ōn
arti blepō, “although being blind, now I see,” John 9:25). Additionally, the
concessive participle usually precedes the main verb it modifies and
often uses markers (such as kaiper and kaitoige) to indicate the contrast.49
Since the clause in 2 Peter 3:11–12 does not use any of the contrastive or
concessive options available to the author, and instead employs coordi-
nating elements, the participles are best understood as parallel to each
other. The syntax encourages the reader to understand speudontas in
the sense of “eagerly awaiting” rather than “hastening.”
In addition to the immediate structure, the second syntactical rea-
son for translating speudontas as “eagerly awaiting” is the overall style of
the pericope. The epistle of 2 Peter exhibits a distinct poetic style, but
chapter 3 is particularly replete with parallelisms both in parallel lexemes
and parallel syntactical structures. The clause (2 Pet 3:11–12), as noted
above, parallels “holy conduct” with “godliness” (en hagiais anastrofais
kai eusebeiais, 2 Pet 3:11) in the main clause and it links closely in wording
and structure to verse 14 (prosdokōntas kai speudontas and prosdokōntes
spoudasate), as discussed in the previous section. Additionally, the final
clause in the sentence (2 Pet 3:12) contains an elaborate parallelism:
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 671–672.

48
In the context of this citation, ibid., 321, gives examples for amplification: “The emphasis [of
pronouns] may involve some sort of contrast. In such instances, two subjects are normally in
view, though one might be only implied. This contrast is either of kind (antithetical) or degree
(comparison). For example, in ‘He washed and she dried,’ the contrast is comparative (both
people doing the dishes). In the sentence ‘He slept and she worked,’ the contrast is antithetical.”
49
“The concessive participle implies that the state or action of the main verb is true in spite of the
state or action of the participle. Its force is usually best translated with although . . . . First, this is
semantically the opposite of the causal participle, but structurally identical (i.e., it typically pre-
cedes the verb and fits the contours of a causal participle—i.e., antecedent time and thus aorist,
perfect or sometimes present). Second, there are often particles that help to make the concessive
idea more obvious (such as καίπερ, καίτοιγε, κτλ.)” (ibid., 634).
Table 3: Parallelism in 2 Peter 3:12c

ouranoi “The heavens” Nominative
“Being on fire, will be des-
pyroumenoi lythēsontai Participle modifies verb
troyed”
kai stoicheia “And the heavenly bodies” Nominative
kausoumena tēketai “Burning, melt” Participle modifies verb
As can be seen in table 3, verse 12c ends with a twofold paral-

lel outlining the destruction of the heavens (ouranoi) and the heavenly
bodies (stoicheia).50 Each of these is further described by the same syn-
tactical structure of an adverbial participle followed by a verb. The
participles (pyroumenoi and kausoumena) and the verbs (lythesontai
and tēketai) in both sections parallel each other. The close poetic paral-
lelism does not describe two separate events but elaborates the same
event in parallel fashion, both syntactically and morphologically.
This intricate structure at the end of verse 12 additionally harkens
back to verse 10, in which Peter describes the results of the coming of
the Day of the Lord affecting the realms of heaven, heavenly bodies, and
the earth:51
Table 4: Parallelism in 2 Peter 3:10

hou ouranoi hroizēdon pareleusontai “the heavens will pass away with a roar”
“and the heavenly bodies will be burned up
stoicheia de kausoumena lythēsetai
and dissolved”
“and the earth and the works that are done
kai gē kai ta en autē ergaheurethēsetai
on it will be exposed”
Verses 10 and 12c are similar to each other not only in describing
the effects of the parousia,52 but in that the two verses share a number of
key words: “heavens” (ouranoi, vs. 10, 12) and “heavenly bodies” (stoicheia,
vs. 10, 12) and the two words “burning” (kausoumena, vs. 10, 12) and “it
will be destroyed” (lythēsetai, singular in v. 10 and plural in v. 12).53
50
The earth is not mentioned in this section, though it has been previously included (v. 10).
51
Craig Blaising, “The Day of the Lord Will Come: Reflections on 2 Peter 3:1–18,” Bibliotheca Sacra
169 (2012): 395–396, points out the connection between verse 10 and verse 12.
52
The three parallel sections in verse 10 do not exhibit the same syntactical unity as was not-
ed earlier for verse 12c (noun-adverb-verb; noun-participle-verb; noun-noun-verb). Instead
they explore the same event in three realms.
53
The verb “destroying” (lythēsetai, v. 10) shifts its subject from stoicheia in verse 10 to ouranoi
This style of parallelism within the sentence and then the pericope
also helps note a further point of connection: in verse 12 Peter uses the
unprecedented form of “Day of God” instead of the more typical reference
of “Day of the Lord” found in verse 10.54 Based on Peter’s style noted in
this section and the multiple connections between verse 10 and 12, the
“Day of God” then is a parallel that poetically enhances the reference to
the more common “Day of the Lord” mentioned in verse 10.55
Finally, the pericope contains numerous additional complementary
parallelisms. These parallels exist in verse 7 (tethēsaurismenoi . . . tēroumenoi,
“being stored up . . . being kept”; eis hēmeran kriseōs kai apōleias tōn
asebōn anthrōpōn, “day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly hu-
mans”) and verse 13 (kainous ouranous kai gēn kainēn, “new heavens and
new earth”).
In summary, complementary parallelisms are an abundant stylistic
feature of the pericope of 2 Peter 3:1–14. Some parallels are limited to the
immediate clause, some are between clauses, and some connect over larg-
er stretches within the pericope. Additionally, some are thematic parallels,
and some syntactical, but many parallels are based on repeated lexemes. In
particular verse 12 exhibits multiple levels of complementary parallels that
connect within clauses but also to the larger context (vs. 10, 14). The author
employs disjunctive conjunctions (alla) to express contrast in verse 9, fur-
ther supporting the coordinative use of kai in verse 12. Thus it is best to
read prosdokōntas kai speudontas as a coordinating parallelism in which
“waiting” is followed by “eagerly awaiting” or “eagerly desiring.”
The Rhetorical Development of 2 Peter 3:1–14

The final section of this study will explore Peter’s response to the
scoffers regarding the “delay” of the parousia. In particular verse 9 is of
interest, as most scholars cite this as the referent for the “hastening” in
verse 12.56
in verse 12, further indicating the interchangeable parallelism in the context.

54
“Elsewhere in early Christian literature παρουσία always has a personal subject, and with
eschatological reference the subject is always Christ (as in 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4)” (Bauckham, Jude,
2 Peter, 325).
55
As Davids, 289, observes, “2 Pet 3:10 has called this ‘the day of the Lord,’ and here it is called
‘the day of God,’ so it looks as if ‘the Lord’ in the previous part of the chapter is God rather than
Jesus, although in practice it makes little difference. What is clear is that ‘the day of the Lord’ and
the ‘day of God’ refer to the same eschatological event, which is also spoken of as the ‘coming’
or ‘Parousia’ of Christ. . . . This overlapping terminology should make us extremely cautious in
trying to separate these terms or in applying them to separate events. For our author they apply
to a single event that we are to await.”
56
In a recent study, Christian Cardona, “Interpretation of the Verbal Participle Speudontas in
The Scoffers’ Claim

The identity of the scoffers at the beginning of the chapter (2 Pet 3:3–4)
is not as important or certain57 as their twofold critique of the prophets’
words:58 They “mock the delayed judgment of God (Amos 9:10; Mal 2:17;
cf. Ezek 12:22; Zeph 1:12) and their [the prophets’] predictions of divine
judgment on them (Isa 5:18–20; Jer 5:12–24; Amos 9:10).”59 With a rhetori-
cal question and two examples, the death of ancestors and the continuity
of the material world, the scoffers present their claims. This twofold claim
can be summarized60 as questioning the reality of God’s judgment due
to the delay of the parousia by asking, “Where is the promise of his com-
ing?” (v. 4)61 and denying the possibility of divine intervention, since “all
things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (v. 4).62
Both issues the scoffers purportedly bring up deal with God’s limited
ability to act—one pointing out His perceived temporal limitation, and
the other addressing His perceived historical limitations. Recognizing the
dual accusation in the scoffers’ claim is instrumental in following Peter’s
dual retort.
2 Peter 3:12: A Rhetorical Analysis” (master’s thesis, Adventist International Institute of Ad-
vanced Studies, 2018), explores the rhetoric development of the pericope in detail. The present
study bases some of its conclusions in this section on Cardona’s more elaborate work.
57
As Schreiner, 374, recognizes, “unfortunately, our knowledge of them, despite the contents of
2 Peter, is rather scanty.”
58
As paraphrased by Neyrey, 226, the scoffers claim, “We are always dependent upon the au-
thor’s version of what his opponents said. Here he appears to be citing their very words, as he
quotes them asking a challenging question, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’”
59
60
“The content of the insult or mockery is two-part. The first part is a question, ‘Where is
this “coming” [parousia] he promised?’ not unlike the question that was thrown at Jeremiah
(‘Where is the word of the LORD? Let it now be fulfilled!’ Jer 17:15) and other OT prophets. The
second part is the observation behind the mocking question, ‘Ever since our fathers died, every-
thing goes on as it has since the beginning of creation’” (Davids, 263).
61
Moo, 166, remarks, “In asking where this coming was, the false teachers were implying that
it was past due and that it was therefore not going to happen at all.”
62
As Schreiner, 374, observes, “Scholars sometimes have seen in the view of the scoffers the
Aristotelian view that the world is eternal. But all the text demands is that they argue against any
divine intervention in the world.” In a similar vein, Moo, 168, notes, “They held to a milder form
of historical continuity, denying the possibility of any event that would materially change the na-
ture of the world. The Parousia would not, then, fit into their scheme of things because it involved
a transformation of both the world and of human beings. If this was their view, it also explains
why Peter has chosen the examples of God’s intervention in history that he has in verses 5–7.”
Peter’s Dual Response

Overview
In reverse order Peter addresses both of the claims. First Peter de-
fends God’s divine intervention by using the examples of creation and the
flood as supreme acts of divine intervention (vs. 5–7). He then turns to
the issue of God’s time by paralleling the twofold witness above with
a twofold prophetic witness: First, he quotes from Psalm 90:4—“with
the Lord one day is as a thousand years”—and complements the state-
ment with the opposite claim, “a thousand years as one day” (v. 8). Second,
Peter paraphrases in verse 9 an extended reference to God’s coming
judgment from Habakkuk 2:3: “For still the vision awaits its appointed
time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it
will surely come; it will not delay.”63
Peter divides the two responses with an introductory phrase for
each retort—namely, lanthanō (“overlook,” vs. 5, 8). In the first instance
he indicts the scoffers for deliberately overlooking the facts of God’s in-
tervention at creation and the flood. Their focus is limited to a selective
time frame that suits their viewpoint, excluding all evidence to the
contrary. In his second response he appeals to the readers to not follow
the pattern of the scoffers (mē lanthanetō hymas, agapētoi, “Beloved,
[you, emphatic] do not overlook!” (v. 8), ignoring the prophetic evidence
in the Old Testament.
Additionally, the twofold examples for each question mirror each oth-
er. The psalmist speaks of the thousand years as a day in the context of
creation: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had
formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are
God” (Ps 90:2). At the same time, Habakkuk’s vision refers to the de-
struction the Chaldeans will bring upon the nation of Israel (Hab 1:5–11).
The interrelatedness also extends to the concept of time. The creation
account is lined with references to time, including the night-day cycle,
the weekly cycle as inaugurated by the Sabbath, the months, and the
seasons.64 Equally, the flood account makes frequent reference to time,
both durational and specific (Gen 7:4, 6, 10–14, 17, 24; 8:3–6, 10, 12–14).
In all examples, God’s timing is predetermined and cannot be influenced
by man.65
63
For a detailed intertextual study of the two passages and Peter’s dependence on Habakkuk 2:3,
see A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spät-
jüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habbakuk 2,2ff, Novum Testamentum, Supplement Series 2
(Leiden: Brill, 1961), 87–96.
64
References to creation in later writings are often in the context of time. See Exodus 20:8–11.
65
Note God’s specific reference to this predetermination in Genesis 6:13. As Gordon J. Wenham,
Peter employs the four examples to prefigure the parousia event. God
can and has intervened in human history, through the creation event
and judgment events, such as the flood and the destruction by the
Babylonians. At the parousia both events occur again: the heavens, heav-
enly bodies, and the earth are destroyed but the believers are redeemed
and restored. The imagery of the new creation is alluded here in the
reversal imagery (2 Pet 3:13). More significantly, all events in question
are predetermined events in which God is in complete control of time,
regardless of human activity.66
The “Delay” in Verse 9

Verse 9 deserves specific attention as it is commonly viewed as the
referent for the participle speudontas in the traditional view. The structure
of the verse is as follows:
A. ou bradynei kyrios tēs epaggelias

B. ōs tines bradytēta hēgountai
C. alla makrothymei eis hymas
A’. mē boulomenos tinas apolesthai
C’. alla pantas eis metanoian chōrēsai.
Two interpretative possibilities have been advanced. On the sur-

face the emphatic opening of the main clause of verse 9 with a particle
of negation (ou) signifies that “the Lord does not delay his promise.”67
Others, on the other hand, argue that the dependent clauses mitigating
the opening clause suggest that there is a delay. In this view the negative
phrase “The Lord is not delayed” must then be understood in a relative
sense.
The statement is not meant to rule out any kind of delay, for in his
reference to the Lord’s forbearance in the second half of this v the
Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), 172, states, “‘The end of all
flesh has been determined by me’ (literally, ‘come before me’), suggests its irrevocability. The
issue has been brought before the divine king and he has decided to act (cf. Esth 9:11). ‘I am
about to ruin them’ again highlights the immediacy and certainty of the coming judgment. ‫ננ‬
(I am about to) plus participle is most often used to announce an imminent divine judgment or
blessing (cf. Oberforcher, Die Flutprologe, 453).”
66
Other options are available to the author, such as the judgment announcement by Jonah, the
redemptive theme in Hosea, or even the repeated themes of God’s longsuffering.
67
Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 311, referring to Harnisch, Existenz, 108, says that “this rejection of the
scoffers’ view has something of the character of an authoritative rebuke.”
author clearly acknowledges a deferment of the Parousia, at any

rate from the human point of view. What he here denies is that
the Lord is “late,” in the sense that he has failed to fulfill the prom-
ise (so Harnisch, Existenz, 107). The meaning is almost […]: “The
Lord is not too late to fulfill the promise.”68
But this reading stretches the meaning of the passage considerably.

First, the morphological range of the word bradynō in Classical as well
as Koine Greek does not feature another passage with this relative use.
This would be the only instance.69 Particularly clear passages such as
Sirach 35:19 (kai ho kyrios ou mē bradynō, “the Lord is not delayed”) and
Isaiah 46:13 (kai tēn sōtērian tēn par’ emou ou bradynō, “and my salva-
tion will not delay”) point to an absolute use of bradynō instead. Second,
the parallel structure of the passage and A’ points to an absolute reading.
The dependent participial clause A’ with the mē negation (“not wanting
any to perish”) is undoubtedly absolute in nature. Since the actor, in
this case “the Lord,” is the same for A and A’ it is not clear why the main
clause A should be relative and the dependent clause A’ absolute. Finally,
the context of this statement is the thematic reference to creation, the
flood, and the passages of Psalms and Habakkuk, as noted above. The
development of the argument against the scoffers in chapter 3 is not a
relative argument in which the scoffers are partially right. Peter instead
fully repudiates the scoffers in each of their arguments. Thus it is best
to read Peter’s defense as a full assertion of God’s sovereignty. God has
dramatically altered the history of the earth through creation and the
flood. He is fully in control of time as well. He is not delayed. It is
then best to read the second part of verse 9 not as a defense of slowness,
but an explanation of the interim time: the all-inclusiveness of tinas points
to the fact that even the scoffers have opportunity to repent.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper presents three arguments in favor of reading

the participle speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12 as “eagerly awaiting.” First, the
semantic range of the word allows both “hastening” and “eagerly await-
ing.” The Classical and first-century Greek prefer the sense of “eagerness,
zeal” for the word speudō, while the biblical writings (LXX and Luke-Acts)
68
69
See William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000),
183. s.v. “βραδύνω.”
favor “haste.” In contrast with the biblical texts of Luke-Acts and the
LXX though, speudontas in 2 Peter 3:12 is in a transitive instead of an
intransitive construction and needs to be considered carefully. The
parallel construction to 2 Peter 3:14 and Peter’s use of the word family
(spoudazō/spoudē/speudō) give preference to the reading of “eagerness,
zeal.” Second, the syntactical construction of the clause prosdokōntas kai
speudontas (“waiting for and eagerly desiring”) mirrors Peter’s exten-
sive use of parallelisms in the passage. In light of the close connection to
2 Peter 3:10 and 3:14, and the stylistic feature in the chapter, the word
speudontas should not be taken as a contrastive statement to prosdokōntas
but rather as a complementary parallelism. Finally, the development of
Peter’s argument against the scoffers is a repudiation of their two-
fold accusation that God does not intervene in history and that God is
delayed. Peter argues that the creation and flood demonstrate God’s
powerful intervention and he uses Psalms 90:4 and Habakkuk 2:3 to dem-
onstrate that the parousia and the associated judgment are not delayed.
Contrary to commentators then, Peter builds his argument on the
Old Testament writings of Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk rather
than the apocryphal texts of Second Temple Judaism. The parousia for
Peter is a reflection of God’s sovereignty that is accompanied by a cos-
mic event of destruction (2 Pet 3:10, 12) and the creation of a new heaven
and a new earth (2 Pet 3:13). The interim time between the predeter-
mined events of the first and second coming is an age of human action: all
have the opportunity for repentance (2 Pet 3:9) and the believers are
called to godly living and godliness (2 Pet 3:11). This godly lifestyle is
described at the outset of the letter (2 Pet 1:5–7) and supplemented by
the patient and eager willingness to wait for the parousia (2 Pet 3:12).
CHAPTER 14
Challenges Of Futurism To
The Adventist Prophetic
Interpretation Of Revelation
Ranko Stefanovic
While historicism is the accepted approach to the prophetic inter-

pretation of Revelation by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, there is
an increasing tide of futurism among its members. This study offers
practical suggestions to counter this problem by showing how the mean-
ingful interpretation of some key passages of Revelation provides a
safeguard against the pitfall of futurism. Some attention will be given to
the seven trumpets and the seven last plagues, which futurists consider to
support their position.
Four Approaches to Prophetic Interpretation of Revelation
The prophecies of Revelation have been obscured by biased and sub-

jective interpretative approaches. Traditionally, four distinctive approaches
have been developed in history in regard to the prophetic interpretation
of Revelation.1
The Preterist Approach

Preterism (from Latin preter, “past”) is a method of interpretation
that places the significance of Revelation in the past. According to the
1
See the critical analysis of the four schools of prophetic interpretation by Ranko Stefanovic,
Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 11–17 and G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New
International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 44–49.
preterist perspective, the book deals exclusively with the Christian church
in the Roman province of Asia in the first century AD, during which
time it faced impending persecution by imperial Rome. In this view,
Revelation does not contain predictive prophecies. Therefore, John
the revelator only wrote about events that took place in his time or in
the immediate future. According to this approach, the purpose of the
book was to encourage the Christians of John’s day to persevere in their
faithfulness to God.
The Idealist Approach

The idealist approach is based on preterist ideas. Similar to pret-
erism, idealism holds that Revelation describes the situation of the
Christian church in the first century. Therefore, this approach does not
see any historical significance in John’s visions. However, idealist in-
terpreters contend that the book describes, in vivid symbolism, the
ongoing struggle between good and evil that will result in God’s ulti-
mate triumph. As such, the book does not speak about any specific literal
events that occurred during a specific historical time period or within a
historical place. Idealism is the successor to the allegorical interpretation
of the Bible that characterized medieval biblical interpretation.
The Futurist Approach

In contrast to preterism, the futurist method interprets the prophe-
cies of Revelation exclusively from an end-time perspective. Futurist
interpreters hold that chapters 4–22 will be fulfilled shortly before the
second coming, even from the perspective of the present day. In other
words, the prophecies of Revelation are related to the last generation of
Christians and they are relevant exclusively to them.
Futurism interprets the symbols of Revelation as literally as pos-
sible (for instance, the Euphrates River is literal, the 144,000 are literal
tribes of Israel). Today, this is the preferred method of most Protestant
Evangelicals. (The secret rapture is based on a futuristic interpretation
of the Bible.)2
The Historicist Approach

The historicist approach of prophetic interpretation holds that the
book of Revelation portrays, in symbolic presentations, the course of his-
tory as it unfolds from apostolic times until the end of time. According
2
For the arguments of futurism, see Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Revival of Futurist Interpretation
Following the Reformation,” Journal of Dispensational Theology 13 (2009): 40–56.
Challenges of Futurism to the Adventist Prophetic Interpretation of Revelation 265
to this method, some prophecies of the book were fulfilled in the past,
some are yet to be fulfilled, and some refer to the present time. Historicism
was the method of prophetic interpretation used by Protestants until the
nineteenth century, when many Protestants turned to other interpreta-
tive approaches. A careful analysis shows that Revelation itself points to
historicism as the appropriate and only valid approach to prophetic
interpretation.3
Unfortunately, historicism has often been misused by attempts to fit
every detail of the text into a historical fulfillment. Much preaching of
Revelation’s prophecies by historicist interpreters has been based on
allegorical interpretation of symbols and influenced by headline news of
newspaper articles. A responsible exposition and preaching of Revelation’s
prophecy must be faithful to the text, rather than guided by what the
interpreter wants the text to say.
Responsible interpretation of the book of Revelation precludes any
biased approach to prophetic interpretation. It avoids the pitfall of preter-
ism, which, together with idealism, deprives Revelation of its prophetic
character and limits the relevance of its messages exclusively to the
Christians of John’s day in the Roman Empire. Revelation claims to be
a book of prophecy (Rev 1:3; 22:7, 10), the purpose of which is to show
us what will take place in the future (Rev 1:1; 22:6). Any interpretative
method that denies the predictive nature of the prophecies of Revelation
does not do justice to the obvious claims of the book. Both preterism
and idealism fail on this point. Similarly, futurism limits the prophecies
of Revelation exclusively to the last generation of Christians. These
methods seem to be deficient because they imply that Revelation has
nothing to offer to the generations between John’s time and the time of
the end.
Futurism and the Seventh Day Adventist Interpretation

of Revelation
In the last several decades, some Seventh-day Adventist pastors and
laymen have attempted to reinterpret the prophecies of Revelation—in
3
See William H. Shea, “Making Sense of Bible Prophecy,” Dialogue 5, no. 2 (1993): 5–8; Reimar
Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting Daniel and
Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 1–14; Jon Paulien,
“The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic—Part
One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (2003): 15–43; and Paulien, “The End of
Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic—Part Two,” Journal
of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 180–208.
particular the seven trumpets—along futuristic lines. Two approaches

may be observed among Adventist futuristic interpreters: The first holds
that the trumpets (and the seals) still await their future fulfillment, as
they are to take place shortly before the second coming. The second—a
dual application combining historicism with futurism—sees the historical
application of the trumpets along the historicist lines, while at the same
time arguing that the trumpets will have the second, future end-time
application a short time before the second coming.4 In doing this, the
prophetic period of 1260 days that was interpreted by applying the
year-day principle is replaced with the literal time period in order to fit
into the relatively short future time before the second coming.
Interpretations offered by Adventist futurists are usually characterized
by 1) a combination of literal and symbolic approaches to the text (one or
another is arbitrarily chosen to make the interpretation fit preconceived
ideas) and 2) numerous quotations from Ellen G. White’s writings, taken
out of context and ingeniously combined together to fit a preconceived
interpretation.
The traditional interpretation of the following three passages of
Revelation has particularly contributed to the increasing futuristic trend
observed among Adventist membership today: 1) the messages to the
seven churches (Rev 2‒3), 2) the throne vision of Revelation 4‒5, and
3) the introductory vision to the seven trumpets (Rev 8:3‒5).
4
Erwin R. Gane, Trumpet After Trumpet: Will Revelation’s Seven Trumpets Sound Again (Nampa,
ID: Pacific Press, 2012) is representative of this approach to the seven trumpets of Revelation 8‒11.
Gane argues that “events that have occurred throughout the Christian era…serve as prophetic
types of the destructive operations of Satan and evil people after the eschatological close of pro-
bation” (ibid., 59). He delineates the eschatological fulfillment of the trumpets in the following
way: the first trumpet describes Satan’s attack on the church; the second trumpet is about the
fall of the superpowers; the third trumpet describes how Satan impersonates Christ; the fourth
trumpet describes spiritual darkness, loyalty to Satan; the fifth trumpet points to the time of
Jacob’s trouble; the sixth trumpet applies to the final attack on God’s people; the interlude and
the seventh trumpet describe the wicked being punished, the temple opened, and the law ap-
pearing in the sky (ibid., 312). An extensive critical evaluation of Gane’s position has been done
by Ekkehardt Mueller, “A New Trend in Adventist Eschatology: A Critical Analysis of a Recent
Publication,” Reflections 44 (2013): 1–6. Also, the Daniel and Revelation Committee, “Issues in
Revelation: DARCOM Report,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book 1, ed. Frank B. Holbrook,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992),
177–178, reached the consensus that the prophecies “of the seals and of trumpets have only one
prophetic fulfillment.”
The Messages to the Seven Churches (Rev 2–3)
The futuristic approach to prophetic interpretation of Revelation

by Protestant futurists is based on their interpretation of Revelation 4:1.
In this text, John is invited in vision to see the things that would “take
place after these things”5 (ha dei genesthai meta tauta). “These things”
(meta tauta) refers to the preceding messages to the seven churches in
chapters 2‒3. According to this view, the interpretation of the messages
to the seven churches (Rev 2‒3) determines the historical application
of the seven seals and the seven trumpets (Rev 4‒11), as the following
chart shows:
Revelation
Messages to the Seven Churches (Rev 2-3)
4-22
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th To take place after
Ephesus Smyrna Pergamun Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea these things
Unfortunately, futurism overlooks the fact that the starting point

for reading Revelation 4:1 is set in 1:19: “Write, therefore, the things you
have seen, and the things which are and the things which are about to
take place.” This passage specifies that the things John saw in vision were
made up of three things:
1. “The things which you saw” (eides): the meaning of this phrase
is unclear, but it may refer to the vision of Jesus Christ in Revela-
tion 1:9–17.
2. “The things which are” (ha eisin): the present tense points to the
present time from John’s perspective.
3. “The things which are about to take place after these things” (ha
mellei genesthai meta tauta): this expression points to the events
that will take place after the time of John .
This indicates that “the things which are” refers to the messages to
the seven churches (Rev 2‒3), and “the things which are about to take
place after these things” (Rev 4‒22) refers to the events to take place in the
future from John’s perspective (that is, after the first century).
In order to avoid the pitfall of futurism, this study suggests three
levels of interpretation of the messages to the seven churches that are
supported by the book itself:
5
All biblical quotations are from ESV, unless otherwise indicated.
Historical Application
The seven messages were originally sent as a circular letter to the
Christian congregations in seven cities of the Roman province of Asia at
the end of the first century. Those seven local congregations were located
in major and prosperous city centers in Asia Minor. The Christians in
those churches lived in a pagan environment and experienced various
kinds of pressure and persecution. Emperor worship was compulsory
for all citizens. The citizens in those cities were also expected to be in-
volved in the city’s public events and to participate in pagan religious
ceremonies. Serious consequences awaited those who did not comply.
Commissioned by Christ, John wrote to those Christians as their pas-
tor to help them in their current situation (Rev 1:11). In exploring these
messages, it is of primary importance to discover how they applied to the
historical situations of those seven churches in Asia at the time of John.
Prophetic Application
The situations in the churches in Asia in John’s day serve as a type
or symbol of the Christian church in different periods in history. The
fact that Revelation is a prophetic book (Rev 1:3; 22:10) points to the
prophetic significance of these messages. In addition, that there were more
than seven churches in Asia Minor—including those in Colossae, Troas,
and Hierapolis—and that only these seven churches were chosen points
to their symbolic significance, seven being a number of fullness. In such
a way, these local congregations represented the entire Christian church.
The spiritual conditions of the seven churches correspond remarkably
to the spiritual conditions of Christianity in different historical periods.6
Revelation indicates at least once that the seven messages to the
churches have a deeper intention. Some expositors observe verbal paral-
lels—“clothing,” “nakedness,” and exposing “shame”—in Revelation 16:15
that depict God’s people in the light of the preparation for the battle of
Armageddon and the message to the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:18). This
suggests that Laodicea, the last in the sequence of the seven churches, is
related to the church of the last period of world history.7
6
It is interesting to note how Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 1, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910), 13–20, shows persuasively that the seven messages of Revelation
might apply to the character of the seven periods of the Christian church: 1) the apostolic period;
2) the period of trouble and persecution of the church; 3) the period of compromise and the
union of church and state; 4) the medieval period; 5) the period of the Reformation; 6) the period
of Protestant orthodoxy, when doctrine became more important than practice; and 7) the period
of infidelity and worldwide mission. As Schaff shows, it is quite possible to see a progression from
Ephesus to Laodicea covering the major periods of the Christian church.
7
Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 87–88.
The seven messages were thus intended to provide, from heaven’s per-
spective, a panoramic survey of Christianity from the first century until
the time of the end. However, the seven messages to the churches are “not
a time prophecy in the usual sense of the terms, for no specific chrono-
logical data accompany.”8 So they must not be interpreted as predictive
prophecy—like Daniel 2, for instance—and we must not be dogmatic
in setting the corresponding time periods. “Major ears of history can
hardly be marked off by exact dates. So used, dates are at best convenient
landmarks of a rather general sort, not exact boundary markers. Actual
transition from one period to another is a gradual process.”9
Universal Application
Although these seven messages were originally written to the
Christians in Asia Minor of John’s day, they were not written only for
them. These messages also contain timeless messages for subsequent
generations of Christians. Although each addressed the particular needs
of an individual church, they were sent together as a circular letter, in-
tended to be read by every church (cf. Rev 1:11). For instance, while the
general characteristics of the church in Laodicea were complacency
and self-sufficiency, some individual Christians might have instead had
the characteristics of the church in Ephesus or Smyrna. This is the
reason why each message concludes with an exhortation to heed what the
Spirit says to the churches, rather than to the church. Thus, they speak
to all Christians and can generally represent different types of Christians,
regardless of time or place.
The Throne Vision of Revelation 4‒5
The throne vision of Revelation 4‒5 begins the historical section of

the book (Rev 4‒11). There are two views among Adventists regarding the
meaning of this vision: 1) that chapters 4‒5 describe the pre-advent judg-
ment scene in 184410 and 2) that this vision describes the enthronement
of Christ after His ascension to the heavenly places.
8
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Washing-
ton, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 752–753.
9
Ibid., 7:753.
10
Among the proponents of the view that Revelation 4‒5 describes the pre-advent judgment
scene are Dean R. Davis, The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–5 (Lanham, MD: Uni-
versity Press of America, 1992) and Alberto R. Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly
Judgement (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises, 1992), 474–567.
The pre-advent judgment view is based on alleged parallels between

Revelation 4‒5 and Daniel 7:9–14.11 Some of the parallels identified be-
tween the two texts are the following: God sitting on a flashing throne, the
presence of more than one throne, the presence of innumerable heavenly
beings, the mention of books, the Son of Man receiving dominion, and
the presence of the saints (Dan 7:14; cf. Rev 5:9). Based on these alleged
parallels, proponents of this view hold that the two texts portray the
same scene, and since Daniel 7 involves an investigative judgment, so
Revelation 4‒5 must describe the investigative judgment scene.
The major problems with this view, however, lie in the obvious dif-
ferences between the two visions. For instance, while Daniel 7 mentions
“the books” (plural) that are open at judgment, in Revelation 5 there is
only one book, and it is sealed. Additionally, in Daniel the books are open
first, and then the Son of Man appears on the scene. In Revelation, the
climax of the vision is when the Lamb takes the sealed book but does
not open it. He starts to break the seals one after the other in chapter 6,
and the book is not opened until the eschatological consummation—
namely after the second coming. A third difference is that Daniel clearly
specifies that what he witnessed in the vision was a judgment scene
(cf. Dan 7:10), while John deliberately avoids judgment language while
describing the scene he observed in the vision. One might observe the
extensive use of the Greek terms for judgment (the nouns krisis or krima
or the verb krinō) in the eschatological section of the book (Rev 11:18; 14:7;
16:5; 17:1; 18:10, 20; 19:2; 20:4, 12–13), while those terms are absent from
the first half of the book, including Revelation 4‒5 (with the exception of
Revelation 6:10, suggesting that the judgment has not taken place yet).
When John portrays the judgment scene in the rest of the book, he clearly
specifies it by employing those Greek terms (cf. Rev 17‒19; 20:11–15). On
the other hand, the usage of key terms such as “at the right hand,” “wor-
thy,” “the Lion from the tribe of Judah,” and “the Sprout of David” do not
signify judgment, but rather royal qualities.
A careful study shows that nothing in the text indicates that Revelation
4–5 is a judgment scene:
First of all, the jubilant atmosphere that dominates the scene of
Revelation 4‒5 does not point to a court in session (such as the one por-
trayed in Daniel 7 or Revelation 20) but to a celebration and a special
occasion. The acclamations of glory, honor, power, wealth, wisdom, bless-
ing, and might (cf. Rev 4:11; 5:13–14) do not fit a judgment scene; they
are, in chapter 4, directed toward God who rules on the throne, and,
11
See Treiyer, 491–494.
in chapter 5, to Christ, the Lamb, the Lion from the Tribe of Judah and
the Root of David, indicating His right to rule. Those joyful shouts of
adoration are totally absent from the descriptions of judgment scenes in
the Bible (cf. Dan 7:9–14; Rev 20:11–15). They simply do not correspond
to a judgment scene.
Furthermore, the pre-advent judgment interpretation does not fit
into the overall structure of Revelation. Numerous studies, especially
among Seventh-day Adventist authors, show that the structural com-
position of the first half of the book covers the span of history from
Christ’s ascension until the time of the end, while the second half
focuses primarily on the time of the end and the final events of earth’s
history. Research shows that Revelation 11:19 must be taken as the
dividing line between these historical and eschatological parts. These two
divisions of the book correspond to the two phases of Christ’s ministry
in heaven: 1) the Holy Place, where He entered after His ascension to
heaven; and 2) the Most Holy Place, His pre-advent judgment ministry.12
Thus, the literary arrangement of the book provides further evidence that
since Revelation 4‒5, together with the seals and the trumpets, is set in
the historical part, not the eschatological part, it is not a pre-advent or
investigative judgment scene, but rather depicts the enthronement of
Christ, which took place after His ascension in AD 31.
Finally, the interpretation of Revelation 4‒5 determines the historical
application of the seals and the trumpets because the scene of Revelation 5
is the starting point for the interpretation of the events of Revelation 6.
The breaking of the seals takes place after Christ takes the sealed book in
chapter 5. Thus, if Revelation 4‒5 describes the pre-advent judgment
scene of 1844, then the events on earth triggered by the breaking of the
seals by Christ must take place after the year 1844. For instance, Ronald
Lambert argues,
The implications for our understanding of the seven seals proph-

ecy are profound and startling, for they brace us with present
relevance. We must conclude that since Revelation 4‒5 depicts
the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment, therefore the prophecy of
12
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 415–416, herself
recognizes Revelation 11:19 as the dividing line. In her words, in Revelation 4:5 and 8:3 “the prophet
was permitted to behold the first apartment of the sanctuary in Heaven; . . . Again, ‘the temple of
God was opened,’ [Rev 11:19] and he looked within the inner veil, upon the holy of holies. Here
he beheld ‘the ark of His testament,’ represented by the sacred chest constructed by Moses to
contain the law of God.” See also ibid., 433–434; White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View,
CA: Pacific Press, 1913), 356; and White, “Lessons from the Life of Solomon,” Review and Herald,
November 9, 1905.
the seven seals must apply after the start of this Judgment, since
those seals are opened in a vision of the Judgment. . . . This in
turn leads us to conclude that the prophecy of the seven seals in
Revelation must apply to recent history, beginning in 1844.13
Such an interpretation fits the futurist rather than the historicist in-
terpretation of the seals and the trumpets. Neither the textual nor the
structural analysis of Revelation supports such an idea.
Chapters 4‒5 Chapters 6‒11

Followed by
A.D. 1844 Seals and Trumpets
In the historicist interpretation, the scene of the breaking of the

seals in Revelation 6 covers the entire Christian history from the first
century until the second coming, with particular focus on the gospel
and the experience of the people of God as they carry the gospel to the
world. Such an interpretation is possible only if one sees Revelation 5 as
a description of the inauguration of Christ into His royal/priestly min-
istry, which occurred in AD 31 after His royal/priestly ministry, which
occurred in AD 31 after Christ’s ascension.
Chapters 4‒5 Chapters 6‒11

Followed by
A.D. 31 Seals and Trumpets
The evidence points to the conclusion that Revelation 4‒5 describes

the enthronement of Christ after His ascension to heaven, which took
place at the time of Pentecost in AD 31 (Acts 2:32–36; Rev 5:6).14 Simul-
taneously, Christ was inaugurated into His post-Calvary ministry as
humankind’s King and Priest. At that event, Satan’s definite expulsion
from heaven took place (Rev 12:7–12). The vision of the opening of the
seven seals series builds on this event.
13
R. Lambert, Genuine New Light from Revelation and Daniel (Fort Oglethorpe, GA: Teach Ser-
vices, 2009).
14
See Ranko Stefanovic, The Background and Meaning of the Sealed Book of Revelation 5, Andrews
University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 22 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 1996); Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 163–184; Jon Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew
Cultus, Sanctuary, and Temple in the Plot and Structure of the Book of Revelation,” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 33, no. 2 (1995): 247–264; and Norman R. Gulley, “Revelation 4 and 5:
Judgment or Inauguration?” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 8, nos. 1–2 (1997): 59–81.
The Introductory Vision of the Seven Trumpets (Rev 8:2–6)
Adventist futurists hold that “the seals and trumpets (Rev 4–11) por-
tray events associated with the end–time rather than with the overall
sweep of the Christian Era.”15 Revelation 8:2–6 is viewed by them as a
strong argument for the end-time application of the seven trumpets, which
they regard as taking place after the close of probation, just before the
second coming, as the second fulfillment.
Revelation 8:3–5 forms an interlude between verses 2 and 6. Verse 2
describes seven angels with trumpets standing before God. It is not un-
til verse 6 that the angels are commissioned to blow their trumpets. In
between, verses 3–5 depict a scene in the sanctuary:
2
I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trum-
pets were given to them. 3Another angel came and stood at the
altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to
him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the
golden altar which was before the throne. 4And the smoke of
the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God
out of the angel’s hand. 5Then the angel took the censer and filled
it with the fire of the altar, and threw it to the earth; and there
followed peals of thunder and sounds and flashes of lightning
and an earthquake. 6And the seven angels who had the seven
trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.
Adventists futurists assume that the scene portrayed in Revelation

8:3–5 symbolically depicts Christ’s intercessory ministry in the heaven-
ly sanctuary, which is concluded before the trumpets begin. In such an
understanding, “the throwing down of the censer (the close of human
probation) precedes the events that follow in the chapter. As a result, all
seven trumpets are understood to come after the close of probation.”16
The assumption that the purpose of this introductory interlude is
to show that the trumpets’ judgments occur after the close of probation
is not supported by the context. The sanctuary setting provides the theo-
logical context for the seven trumpets. The interlude replicates the tamid
(daily) services in the Jerusalem temple, as portrayed in the Mishnah
Tamid 5.6. After the sacrificial lamb was placed upon the altar of sacri-
fice, the blood was poured out at the base of the altar. The appointed priest
15
Jon Paulien, “Seals and Trumpets: Some Current Discussions,” in Holbrook, 184.
16
Paulien, “Seals and Trumpets,” 194.
would take a golden censer, fill it with coals from the altar, and offer it
upon the golden altar in the Holy Place. Afterward, he would come out
of the temple and throw the censer down on the pavement between the
altar of sacrifice and the entrance to the temple, producing a very loud
noise. At that point, the priests blew the trumpets, marking the end of
the daily services.17
It seems evident that the scene of Revelation 8:3–5 mirrors the Second
Temple sanctuary services. The Greek text shows that in Revelation 8:3 the
unspecified angel with the golden censer is standing upon the altar, which
is the altar of sacrifice that was located in the outer court of the earthly
sanctuary. Since in biblical typology the outer court stands for the earth
(see Rev 11:2), the scene in Revelation 8:3–5 is related to the earth. The angel
is portrayed as standing at the same altar underneath, which is, in the fifth
seal, the blood of the martyred saints who pray to God for vindication
and justice (Rev 6:10). At the altar of sacrifice, the angel is given incense
symbolizing the prayers of God’s people (Rev 5:8; cf. Ps 141:2), which he
offers on the golden altar of incense in the Holy Place of the heavenly
sanctuary. The vision shows that God hears the prayers of His suffering
people. In response, the angel fills the censer with fire from the altar and
hurls it down to the earth. The throwing down of the censer precipitates
noises, thunder, lightning, and an earthquake, as a signal to the seven
angels to blow their trumpets.18
This introductory vision (Rev 8:3–5) shows that the trumpets of
Revelation 8‒9 symbolically point to the prayers of God’s people. More
specifically, the trumpets are God’s judgments on rebellious humanity in
response to the prayers of His oppressed people, symbolically portrayed
in the scene of the fifth seal (Rev 6:9–11). The primary purpose of the
interlude is to provide firm assurance to God’s people that He has heard
their prayers and will intervene on their behalf. Such an interpreta-
tion is supported by the theological significance of the trumpets in the
Old Testament, where trumpets are associated, among other things,
with the prayers of God’s people for deliverance from their enemies (cf.
Num 10:8–10; 2 Chr 13:14–15).
17
See further Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
2002), 77–79.
18
See further Ranko Stefanovic, “The Angel at the Altar (Revelation 8:3–5): A Case Study on
Intercalations in Revelation,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44, no. 1 (2006): 77–79 and
Doukhan.
The Historical Application of the Trumpets
In the current understanding, the seven trumpets point to God’s

interventions in history as they herald His judgments upon a world hos-
tile to God and His people. They cover, like the seven seals, the course of
history from the cross until the conclusion of earth’s history (Rev 11:15–18).
They are blown while intercession goes on in heaven (Rev 8:3–6) and
the gospel is preached on earth (Rev 10:8–11:14).19
The trumpets are structurally organized into pairs that complement
each other. Their historical fulfillment is best understood in light of this
structural complementary pairing.
The first two trumpets herald God’s judgments on the two nations
involved in the death of Jesus and the subsequent persecution of His
followers, specifically the early church. Thus, the first trumpet (Rev 8:7)
describes the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70‒72, and the second
trumpet (Rev 8:8–9) describes the demise of the Roman Empire.
The next two trumpets describe the situation during the medieval
and post-medieval period. The third trumpet (Rev 8:10–11) refers to the
medieval apostasy and its consequences. The fourth trumpet (Rev 8:12)
describes the situation of the world in the post-medieval period. During
this time, the Age of Reason led to the rise of secularism, which was char-
acterized by rationalism, the denial of supernaturalism, and skepticism
toward religion and faith.
The fifth and sixth trumpets describe the dreadful situation in the
world under the prevailing effects of secularism. Thus, the fifth trumpet
(Rev 9:1–12) depicts the deepening spiritual darkness of the time and its
consequences in the world following the Age of Enlightenment, por-
trayed in the fourth trumpet. The sixth trumpet (Rev 9:13–21) describes
an escalation of demonic activities in the world leading up to the battle of
Armageddon.
Before the seventh angel heralds his trumpet, there is an interlude
(Rev 10:1–11:14). This interlude is related to the one between the sixth and
seventh seal that identifies God’s end-time people who will be alive at
the time of the second coming (Rev 7). The interlude between the fifth
and sixth trumpets describes the role, task, and experience of God’s
people in the world at the time of the end. Finally, the seventh trumpet
(Rev 11:15–18) heralds the second coming and ushers in God’s everlasting
kingdom.
19
For the arguments that the introductory sanctuary scene of Revelation 8:3–5 does not point to
the close of the probationary time and that the trumpets do not occur after the close of the proba-
tion, see John Paulien, “Seals and Trumpets: Some Current Discussions,” in Holbrook, 194–196.
Timing of the Trumpets and the Plagues20
Although there are similarities between the language used in the

sections containing the trumpets and the plagues, the two series are not
the same. There are significant differences between them.
Firstly, during the trumpet plagues, Christ carries out His mediato-
ry ministry in heaven (Rev 8:3–5), and the gospel is preached through-
out the world at the time of the sixth trumpet (Rev 10:8–11:14). “In
Revelation 10:11 the prophet learns that he must prophecy again, some-
thing that would make little sense after the close of the probation.”21
However, the plagues are poured out after the preaching of the gospel is
finished (Rev 14:6–13) and Christ’s mediatory ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary is concluded (Rev 15:5–8).22 This is clearly evident in the book.
Furthermore, the trumpet plagues are restricted in scope and ef-
fect. They affect only a part of Satan’s kingdom—the phrase “one third” is
constantly repeated in the text (Rev 8:7–12; 9:15, 18). No restriction is
linked to the seven plagues. They are evidently global in scope, affect-
ing the whole earth; note the statement: “every living thing in the sea
died” (Rev 16:3).
Lastly, the seven trumpets cover a long span of history from the first
century until the second coming. Relatively long periods are linked to
them (Rev 9:5, 15; 11:2, 11). However, no prophetic time frame is specified
regarding the seven plagues. The plagues affect humanity at the end of
history for a relatively short period of time prior to the second com-
ing. Actually, the seven last plagues occur within the time frame of the
seventh trumpet:
Intercession
Intercession and the preaching of the gospel in progress
no longer
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th Trumpet
Trumpet Trumpet Trumpet Trumpet Trumpet Trumpet Seven Plagues
20
On the current position of Adventists scholars on the historical application of the trumpets, see
Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” Ministry,
January 2012, 6–10.
21
Paulien, “Seals and Trumpets,” 195.
22
See Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 487–488.
Conclusion
This short study has argued that historicism is the only ade-
quate approach for prophetic interpretation. This interpretative method
recognizes that Revelation contains predictive prophecies describing
movements and events in Christian history from the first century up
to and including the end time. Thus, historicism sees the prophecies of
Revelation as applicable to all generations—to the Christians of John’s
day, to those living at the end of the age, and to the generations through-
out Christian history. This method also recognizes the spiritual relevance
of the book to all Christians, regardless of time or place. With this
method, Christians can understand the full spectrum of meaning in
Revelation’s prophecies, as intended by its divine Author.
The book of Revelation concludes with a warning that tampering
with the prophecies of Revelation carries far-reaching consequences,
most notably eternal loss (Rev 22:18–19). To those who add to the pro-
phetic words of the book, God will add to them the plagues described in
therein. This warning does not refer to tampering with the actual words
of Revelation—as if some concept of verbal inspiration were at stake.
Adding to the words of Revelation’s prophecies has to do with distort-
ing and misinterpreting its prophecies to suit one’s own purposes. It also
involves enforcing speculative ideas and views promoted by popu-
lar doomsday expositors. We must hold to what is clearly stated in the
text, shunning any speculations not warranted by the text.
The book of Revelation also warns against taking away from the
words of the book’s prophecies. One may take away from the words of
Revelation by deliberately undermining their divine origin and prophetic
character because they might look unpopular or not be widely accepted.
Such a person is as guilty of tampering with the Revelation’s prophecies
as the one who adds to it.
CHAPTER 15
How Soon Is “Soon”? Reading The

Language Of Eschatological
Imminence In The Book Of
Revelation
Laszlo Gallusz
A peculiar feature of Revelation’s eschatological language is its em-

phasis on the impending end of history, an idea that is not foreign to
other books of the New Testament either.1 The last book of the New
Testament canon is replete with language of imminence, from its first
verse to its very end. This temporal emphasis poses a problem in light
of the nearly two millennia between the composition of Revelation and
our time. As Stefanovic notes, “2,000 years of waiting have taken a toll on
the concept of living in the ‘last days’, putting Christian faith and per-
severance to the acid test.”2 For this reason, the question of interpreting
Revelation’s language of imminence responsibly is of utmost signifi-
cance: How shall we understand the book’s claims for the imminent
parousia? How shall we relate to it intelligently after a two-thousand-year-
long expectation?
This study will identify and analyze the expressions of imminence in
the book of Revelation. It is not the intention of this study to deal with the
problem of the delay of the second coming from a systematic-theological
point of view. It will rather attempt to throw light on the language of
1
See, e.g., Luke 18:8; Romans 16:20; 1 Peter 4:7.
2
Zdravko Stefanovic, “Delay? What Delay? Seeing the Impending Advent through Oriental
Eyes,” Adventist Review, October 29, 1998, 68–70.
Revelation by reading it on its own terms. This means, first of all, paying
attention not only to exegetical details, but also to the matter of genre,
since the character of Revelation’s claims are to be examined in light
of similar precedent texts marked by distinctive, recurring essential
features. Secondly, Revelation’s claims are to be approached salvation-
historically, which means interpreting them within the overarching
story narrated in the Scriptures as a wider conceptual framework, with
the Christ event as its center.3
From time to time, Adventist interpreters have attempted to pro-
vide an answer to the problem of the extension of the interim period
between Jesus’ ascension and His second coming, but their arguments
generally do not spring from in-depth exegetical analysis of the immi-
nence passages. Instead of giving detailed attention to biblical texts, the
works dealing with the problem of delay are most often merely reflec-
tions, intended for a popular audience, trying to provide an explanation
for the long interim period.4 So, this study aims to fill a need through
its exegetical and biblical-theological argument, seeking to contribute to
the larger discussion posed by the problem of delay.
Revelation’s Language of Imminence
This section will identify and investigate six expressions of immi-

nence found in Revelation. While four of these expressions are concen-
trated in the prologue and epilogue, the rest are spread throughout the
book. Not all have the same rhetorical force, but they all contribute to
generating the atmosphere of imminence that is “at the heart of the Book
of Revelation.”5
3
John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological
Method (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 202, advocating a canonical approach to theol-
ogy, rightly notes, “Each part has meaning in light of the whole (and in light of its center, Jesus
Christ).”
4
See, e.g., Jonathan Gallagher, “The Delay of the Advent,” Ministry, June 1981, 4–6; Arnold
Valentin Wallenkampf, The Apparent Delay (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1994);
Mario Veloso, “There is No Delay,” Ministry, December 1996, 6–8; Stefanovic, “Delay”; Richard
P. Lehmann, “‘How Long, O Lord, How Long?’,” in Exploring the Frontiers of Faith: Festschrift
in Honour of Dr. Jan Paulsen, ed. B. Schantz and R. Bruinsma (Lueneburg: Advent-Verlag,
2009), 219–224; and Jo Ann Davidson, “The Second Coming of Christ: Is There a ‘Delay’?” in
God’s Character and the Last Generation, ed. Jiří Moskala and John C. Peckham (Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 2018), 253–270.
5
Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 54.
Reading the Language of Eschatological Imminence in the Book of Revelation 281
“What must soon take place” (Rev 1:1; 22:6)

It stands as a programmatic statement at the beginning of Revelation
that the content of the message disclosed in the book is given by God
with the intention of showing His servants “what must soon take place”
(ha dei genesthai en tachei, Rev 1:1).6 In this text, which introduces the
main idea of the book, the assurance of the realization of God’s plan for
human history (ha dei genesthai) is tied to the idea of imminence (en
tachei): the triumph of God’s intentions, culminating in defeating and
eradicating evil, is expected to take place soon. Since the expression
reoccurs verbatim at the very beginning of the epilogue (Rev 22:6), it
frames the book.7
The phrase is an allusion to Daniel 2:28–29 (LXX), where the proph-
et in conversation with Nebuchadnezzar points to God, who alone is
able to reveal the events of the future communicated to him in a dream.8
There is, however, a significant difference between the two texts in
regard to the timing of the expected events. While in Daniel the em-
phasis is on the necessity of realizing God’s eschatological plan (ha dei
genesthai ep᾽ eschatōn tōn hēmerō, “what must take place at the end
of days”), in Revelation the imminence of its fulfillment is brought to
attention (ha dei genesthai en tachei, “what must soon take place”).
As Beale observes, the change in Revelation “is neither random nor
purposeless, but provides insight into the relation John sees between
Revelation and Daniel.”9 It indicates that Daniel 2 and Revelation 1 are
linked as promise and fulfillment, since John updates Daniel’s pattern
of history with the observation that the prophecies given centuries be-
fore his time have begun to be fulfilled and are coming to their climactic
6
God is referred to as the ultimate source of revelation. Jesus Christ’s function is that of an
agent of revelation who transmits its content to God’s people. He appears in a similar role in the
fourth Gospel, though His role is expressed in different terms (John 1:18; 8:28; 12:49–50;
14:10; 15:15; 17:8, 14; cf. Matt 11:25–27). It should be noted, however, that in Revelation 22:16
Jesus appears as the exclusive revealer.
7
Though Revelation 1:1 and 22:6 are doublets, comparison reveals some minor differences. For
the interpretation of the differences, see David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, Word Biblical Commen-
tary 52A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1997), 14.
8
Revelation alludes more to the book of Daniel than to any other book of the Old Testament.
For Daniel’s influence on the composition of Revelation, see Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel
in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press
of America, 1984).
9
Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International
Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 153; cf. Kurt Erlemann,
Naherwartung und Parusieverzögung im Neuen Testament: Ein Beitrag zur religiöser Zeiterfahu -
rung, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 17 (Tübingen: Francke, 1995), 233.
realization. Thus, John provides in Revelation an update to the Danielic

schema, extending it with additional details for the last days.10 The cer-
tainty of the accomplishment of God’s purposes is indicated by the use
of dei (“it is necessary”), which stresses that history unfolds according
to the plan of God, the sovereign Lord of the created order.11
“The time is near” (Rev 1:3; 22:10)

The reason for paying heed to the prophetic words of Revelation
is stated clearly in the book’s first macarism: “for the time is near” (ho
gar kairos engys, Rev 1:3). The phrase is repeated verbatim in the epi-
logue (Rev 22:10).12 In both contexts it is strongly tied to the exhortatory
purpose of the book, which implies that the apocalyptic view of
reality goes hand in hand with ethical responsibility.13 The proper re-
sponse to the nearness of the time involves active participation on
the part of the recipients of Revelation: keeping what is written in the
prophecies of the book (Rev 1:3; 22:7), worshipping God (Rev 22:9), and
living righteous lives (Rev 22:11, 14).
The phrase ho gar kairos engys is “an exaggerated expression of im-
minence,” since the time is not seen simply as coming soon (Rev 1:1; 22:6),
but as already being “close to” fulfillment.14 For this reason, every minute
of the present and the future is loaded with major significance; “the ‘mo-
ment’ is ‘approaching’”—it is constantly pressing in.15 The use of kairos
highlights a temporal point of particular importance in God’s plan, since
10
The author of this study understands “last days” as the interim period between Jesus’ ascension
and His second coming, in accordance with the New Testament eschatological understanding of
history (e.g., Heb 1:1–3).
11
In the semantic field of this concept, Revelation 1:19 utilizes mellei (“it is about to”). For an
overview of diverse theological expressions implying God’s sovereign kingship as the fundamen-
tal aspect of the book’s theism, see Laszlo Gallusz, The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation,
Library of New Testament Studies 487 (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 301–306.
12
The term engys (“near”) appears only in these two texts in Revelation, both times featuring at
critical locations.
13
Brian K. Blount, Revelation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 30, commenting
about the connection between the language of imminence and the book’s exhortative purpose,
rightly notes, “The expectation of an imminent arrival of God’s judgment fits the exhortative
mood of the book. Since God is on the way, and right soon, one should act in the ethical manner
that the book demands.” The connection between the nearness of the second coming and re-
sponsible living is frequent in the New Testament (e.g., Rom 13:12; Heb 10:25; Jas 5:8; 1 Pet 4:7).
14
Beale, Book of Revelation, 185.
15
Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
(London: SPCK, 2005), 31.
its use is qualitative in nature.16 The term is an important eschatological

technical expression that emanates an end-time atmosphere in a num-
ber of biblical texts. Thus, in Daniel 7:22 (LXX) the expression ho kairos
edothē (“the time is appointed”) refers to the eschatological time when
the saints will receive the kingdom. A much closer parallel is found in
the programmatic statement of Jesus’ preaching in Mark 1:15, in which
the inauguration of God’s kingdom is announced with emphasis on the
qualitative significance of the present time (peplērōtai ho kairos kai
ēngiken hē basileia tou theou, “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom
of God has come near”). The present aspect is also in the forefront in
Revelation 1:3, but with a somewhat different meaning: while the
Markan text emphasizes the dawning of God’s kingdom in Jesus’ minis-
try, the focus in Revelation is on the final triumph of God over the forc-
es of evil, which can be expected to happen in the immediate future.17
“Do not seal!” (Rev 22:10)

The command “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy” of
Revelation,18 linked in 22:10 to the previously discussed expression of
imminence (“the time is near”), stands in deliberate contrast to the
instruction given to Daniel at the end of his book: “Shut up the words,
and seal the book until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4; cf. 8:26; 12:9). The
implications of Daniel’s prophecy regarding the unfolding of human
history and establishment of God’s kingdom (how the prophesied
events will be fulfilled) were not fully understood by the prophet
(Dan 8:28; 12:8–9), but it had been made known to him that the end
time had not yet come (Dan 12:13). The sealing of Daniel’s prophecies
“until the end” indicates that his visions would not be fulfilled, nor ful-
ly understood, until the eschaton.19 In light of the Danielic background,
the prohibition on sealing up Revelation’s prophecies points to the no-
tion of imminence, since not only is the open character of the book
16
On the meaning of kairos, see Gerhard Delling, “καιρός,” in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1966), 455–464.
17
For the significance of the “already-and-not-yet” eschatological schema in New Testament
thought, see Jon Paulien, What the Bible Says About the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 1998), 75–83.
18
The speaker is an angelus interpres, who reappears in Revelation 22:6 and introduces himself to
John as a “fellow servant” (syndoulos) refusing worship directed to him (Rev 22:9).
19
Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise. Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Nampa,
ID: Pacific Press, 2007), 437, points out that “the temporary sealing of the scroll is necessary for
preservation and authenticity because the time of the end is some distance away in the future.”
indicated, but more importantly, the arrival of the time of the end fore-
told in Daniel. Thus, the time of the writing of the book of Revelation is
seen as a time of unveiling the former secrets.
The motif of sealing/unsealing a revelatory book indicating the ar-
rival of the time of the end is characteristic only of Daniel and Revelation,
though the idea of concealed revelation until the eschaton is not unique
to the biblical literature. Aune demonstrates that closely related to
Revelation’s motif are three passages from 4 Ezra, in which the seer is
told to write his visions in a book that is to be disclosed at the end of
the times to those who are wise (4 Ezra 12:37; 14:5–6, 45–46).20 Also,
the idea of a delayed disclosure of the content of a revelatory book is a
known motif appearing in a number of pseudepigraphic apocalyptic works
(Gospel of the Egyptians 68:1–9; Testament of Moses, 1:17–18; 6 Discourse
on the Eighth and Ninth).
“I am coming soon” (Rev 22:7, 12, 20)

In the epilogue of Revelation (22:6–21) is a series of promises regard-
ing Jesus’ imminent return. While Jesus is generally silent throughout
the main part of the book (with the exception of the exhortation in 16:15),
in the epilogue He speaks personally three times. All three speeches
emphasize His soon coming by using the formula erchomai tachy (“I am
coming soon”).21 In the first two references, the formula is preceded by
the demonstrative particle idou (“see!,” Rev 22:7, 12), which underscores
the reliability of the saying, whereas in the third text the promise is an-
chored by the introductory affirmative particle nai (“surely,” Rev 22:20).
The rhetorical purpose of the triple repetition should not be overlooked.
By highlighting emphatically the soon coming of Jesus, a majestic climax
is given to the entire book. Since Revelation is a book in which numerical
patterns are used to convey theological emphases, the fact that erchomai
occurs seven times in the epilogue (Rev 22:7, 12, 17[3x], 20[2x]) cannot
be incidental.22 The term functions as a kind of leitmotif that makes the
20
David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, Word Biblical Commentary 52C (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998),
1216.
21
As Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Uni-
versity Press, 2009), 616, notes, “the use of the futuristic present tense stresses the certainty as
well as the imminence of an event, in this case the Second Coming.” The futuristic present
of erchomai is used fourteen times in Revelation (1:4, 7, 8; 2:5, 16; 3:11; 4:8; 7:14; 9:12; 11:14;
16:16; 22:7, 12, 19) and it does not always refer to the parousia.
22
This is recognized in James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 260. For the most important numerical pat-
terns in Revelation and their theological significance, see Richard Bauckham, The Climax of
Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 1993), 29–37.
main theological concern of the book its focal point.23

The final erchomai tachy reference is followed by a response of
the Christian community (represented by the author), in a liturgical
fashion. The response is introduced by amēn, another well-known par-
ticle of affirmation: Amēn, erchou kyrie Iēsou (“Amen. Come Lord
Jesus!,” Rev 22:20). The phrase appears to be the translation of the Ara-
maic maranatha,24 one of the oldest creedal prayers (see 1 Cor 16:22;
Didache 10:6).25 Aune notes that the second-person singular present
imperative erchou (“Come!”) is an unusual grammatical form, because
imperatives are rare in the prayers of the New Testament and early sec-
ond-century Christian literature. Since in Koine Greek the present
imperative is characteristic in situations of intense emotional stress, the
use of erchou in response to the final affirmation of the soon coming
is “perhaps communicating an affective urgency to the audience.”26
However, urging the coming of the parousia is not the initiative of John,
because the formula of imminence is used by the exalted Jesus first,
revealing His strong desire to come.27
23
Since the theme of “coming” is fundamental not only for the epilogue, but for the prologue as
well (Rev 1:4, 7–8), Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew
Eyes (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 200, is right when arguing that the author
of Revelation “employs inclusion to indicate both in the introduction and in the conclusion the
fundamental truth that has inspired and directed the whole writing.” For the differences between
the prologue’s and the epilogue’s development of the theme of “coming,” see ibid., 200–202.
24
On the meaning of this term and its function in the vocabulary of the early Christian church,
see also Martin Hengel, “Abba, Maranatha, Hosanna und die Anfänge der Christologie,” in
Studien zur Christologie: Kleine Schriften IV, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 201 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 496–534.
25
Some scholars argue that the liturgical phrase in Revelation reflects a eucharistic setting: e.g.,
Jürgen Roloff, Revelation, trans. J. E. Alsup (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 253 and George
R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 349. Other
scholars such as, e.g., Gerhard Krodel, Revelation (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989), 378,
and Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, Sacra Pagina 16 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1993), 226,
have made a case for Jesus’ coming in the eucharistic presence. However, the lack of eucharistic
language in Revelation 22:5–21 and the strong emphasis on the second advent points in the
direction of a passionate desire for Jesus’ eschatological coming.
26
Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1234; cf. Osborne, 797.
27
Apart from the triple reference in the epilogue of Revelation (22:7, 12, 20), the phrase erchomai
tachy occurs in two more texts in the vision of the seven messages (Rev 2:16; 3:11), but with
somewhat different meanings. In Revelation 2:16 a coming in judgment against the false teach-
ers is referred to; whereas in 3:11 Christ’s coming is related to the strengthening of the believers
in the midst of a crisis they are about to pass through (Rev 3:10), though an allusion to the
second coming is probably also included. There are also several texts in the same vision in which
the reference to Jesus’ “coming” is not eschatological in nature but refer primarily to His un-
seen comings in judgment during the Christian era that climaxes in His personal appearance
“A short time” (Rev 6:11; 12:12; 20:3)

In spite of its thoroughly liturgical character, Revelation contains
only a single prayer of supplication,28 the content of which is related to
the matter of time: “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you
judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” (Rev 6:10).
The fact that the petition appears as a cry expressed in a loud voice
(ekkraxan phōnē megalē) makes its content emphatic.29 Tonstad right-
ly notes that the question reflects “a sense of distress in the face of
justice delayed.”30 As a response, the saints are assured that their vindi-
cation is not unheard: they are told to “remain patient a little longer”
(anapausontai eti chronon mikron, Rev 6:11).31 The answer makes it
clear that “suffering is not random, not meaningless. There is a cosmic
plan, there is a divine providence.”32 While God’s vengeance will not be
immediate, it will come soon: just a “short time” (chronon mikron) more
until the moral order of the universe will be restored.
The expression “short time” appears also in reference to Satan’s ac-
tivities after his casting down from heaven (Rev 12:12), but significantly, a
different expression is used here. The fact that God has put a temporal
limitation on his destructive activity calls forth Satan’s anger and since
he “has a short time” (oligon kairon eche), he intensifies his endeavors.
As Stefanovic notes, the expression “has here a qualitative rather than
quantitative significance,” indicating that “Satan’s time is limited and
terminated.”33 This “short time” period, however, spans the period from
the defeat at the cross to the ultimate fate at the end of time (Rev 20:10).
It includes the period of “three and a half times” predicted by Daniel
at the final parousia (Rev 2:5, 16; 3:3). The “coming” of Christ to these churches in judgment
is conditional, depending on the response of the communities to the exhortatory messages.
28
John P. Heil, “The Fifth Seal (Rev 6, 9–11) as a Key to the Book of Revelation,” Biblica 74 (1993):
220–243.
29
Crying with a loud voice is in Revelation characteristic of angels carrying out God’s will
(Rev 7:2; 10:3; 14:15; 18:2; 19:17) and the elect standing in front of the heavenly throne praising
God for the salvation He provided (Rev 7:10).
30
Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic
Narratives of Revelation, Library of New Testament Studies 337 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 134.
31
Although the basic meaning of anapauō is “to rest,” “to relax,” it can be translated here as “to
be patient,” since the resting of the “souls” when waiting for God’s vindication is the demonstra-
tion of their “patience” with God’s plan. Similarly, Robert G. Bratcher and Howard A. Hatton, A
Handbook on the Revelation to John, United Bible Society Handbook Series (New York: United
Bible Societies, 1993), 117, note that “here rest means not only not having to work or strive, but
also to be free of anxiety and distress over the punishment of their killers.”
32
Adela Yarbro Collins, The Apocalypse, New Testament Message 22 (Dublin: Veritas, 1979), 48.
33
Stefanovic, Revelation, 395.
and repeated in Revelation,34 and the extended period given for preaching
(Rev 10:11) when “time will be no more” (chronos ouketi estai, Rev 10:6).35
It is also stated in Revelation that at the end of the millennium
Satan will be given an additional period, likewise qualified as a “short
time” (mikron chronon, Rev 20:3), which he will use for deceiving Gog
and Magog preceding his final destruction (Rev 20:8).36 In all these texts,
as in the case of the promise of Revelation 6:11, the plan of God ap-
pears in the forefront as a defining principle, which assumes that the
sovereign Lord of the universe sets limits to the work of evil and over-
sees the flow of human history, directing it toward the final resolution
of the ethical dissonance brought by sin.
“Five have fallen, one is”: Living in the Time of the

Sixth King (Rev 17:10)
One of Revelation’s clearest answers to the “how long?” question is
given in Revelation 17:9–11. According to this passage, the recipients of
Revelation are living in the time of the sixth king, and only one more
is to come in the sequence of seven kings. Since in apocalyptic symbol-
ism “kings” generally stand for “kingdoms” or “empires,” not isolated
individuals (see Dan 7:17), Seventh-day Adventist interpreters have
traditionally viewed the seven kings as representing “a series of seven
successive world powers or empires that have oppressed God’s people
throughout history from the establishment of God’s church with Israel
34
This time period appears in three forms: “three and a half times” (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 12:14),
“forty-two months” (Rev 11:2; 13:5) and “1260 days” (Rev 11:3; 12:6). As noted by Stefanovic,
Book of Revelation, 347, the designation “forty-two months” is in Revelation always negative,
since it is associated with the oppression of the wicked. On the other hand, “1260 days” is always
associated with God’s people, who, although oppressed, witness in the world.
35
Revelation 10:6 is an allusion to Daniel 12:7, which provides a key for understanding the ex-
pression. John makes it clear that the period of persecution prophesied by Daniel is over, so his
time prophecies are fulfilled and do not apply to the future. The time when “time will be no more”
is not the moment of the second coming, but the short interval between the fulfillment of the
Danielic time prophecy and the days of the sounding of the seventh trumpet when Christ’s kingly
rule is fully established (Rev 10:7; 11:15–17). For an in-depth study of this question, see William
H. Shea, “The Mighty Angel and His Message,” in Symposium on Revelation: Book 1, ed. Frank B.
Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Insti-
tute, 1992), 279–325. The widespread translation of chronos ouketi estai as “there will be no more
delay” is persuasively refuted by David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, Word Biblical Commentary
52B (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998), 568, who demonstrates that “delay” is an inappropriate concept in
this context, since it mistakenly assumes that eschatological events have been postponed.
36
On the intertextual use of the Gog and Magog prophecy in Revelation, see Jiří Moskala, “To-
ward the Fulfillment of the Gog and Magog Prophecy of Ezekiel 38–39,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 18 (2007): 243–273.
down to the Second Coming.”37 Taken from the standpoint of the late
first century, the expression “one is” (ho heis estin, Rev 17:10) seems to
refer to the Roman Empire, the kingdom ruling the world in John’s
days.38 The five kingdoms “that have fallen” are the empires that ruled
the world and oppressed God’s people before the time of John: Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The statement that John and the
primary addressees of Revelation are living in the period of the sixth
king evokes the sense of imminent end, particularly since it is stated
about the rule of the coming seventh king that “when he comes, he must
remain only a little while” (Rev 17:10).
The question is, however, more complex than it seems. While the
rule of the seventh king lasts until the end, he is, surprisingly, also de-
scribed as the “eighth king” (Rev 17:11). This seems a logical paradox,
but a period of absence in the rule of the seventh king, correspond-
ing to the fatal wound of the beast (Rev 13:3), resolves the seeming
confusion. The re-enthronement of the seventh king after a break in his
rule (healing of the fatal wound, Rev 13:3) ushers in a new phase of his
dominion (eighth king), which lasts until the end and is characterized
by intense, global influence (Rev 17:12–14). Regardless of the interpre-
tive complexity of the passage, the statement of Revelation 17:10 clearly
emanates a sense of eschatological imminence, which is not diminished
by the complex history of the “seventh” (or “eighth”) king.
Reading Revelation’s Language of Imminence
As has been demonstrated, Revelation is pervaded with language of

imminence, from its very beginning to its end. The perspective of the
book is that of a soon-coming eschatological end. In light of the nearly
37
Stefanovic, Book of Revelation, 520. Jon Paulien, Armageddon at the Door (Hagerstown,
MD: Autumn House, 2008), 211, rightly concludes, “The beast exists itself in seven (or eight)
consecutive phases, each of which has its own head. When John views the beast in the vi-
sion (Rev. 17:3), it is in its eighth phase. But the seven heads he sees are echoes of the seven
earlier phases.”
38
Kenneth A. Strand, “The Seven Heads: Do They Represent Roman Emperors?” in Sympo-
sium on Revelation: Book 2, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 7
(Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 177–206; Stefanovic, Book of Revelation,
515; Ekkehardt Mueller, “The Beast of Revelation 17: A Suggestion (Part II),” Journal of Asia
Adventist Seminary 10 (2007), 153–176; and Paulien, Armageddon, 218–219. In contrast, the
expression ho heis estin has been interpreted from the perspective of the end time in C.
Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 2, The Message of Revelation for You and Your Family (Boise,
ID: Pacific Press, 1985), 475; Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies
of the Bible: The Biblical-Contextual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 410–413;
and Doukhan, 161–164.
two-millennia-long wait for the second coming, was John wrong con-
cerning the temporal character of post-Easter history? No. How shall we,
then, understand Revelation’s language of imminence? In what follows,
this study suggests paying attention to three considerations that clar-
ify the nature of John’s eschatological language and throw light on his
concept of “nearness.”
Reading Against the Jewish Apocalyptic Background

First of all, Revelation’s language of imminence must be interpret-
ed against its background in Jewish apocalyptic thought.39 The issue of
genre is of profound significance, since misinterpretations are often
the result of misconceiving how the reading process should function.40
While Revelation is distinctive among apocalypses in a number of
ways, both in terms of form and content, the high degree of generic
continuity points toward categorization of the book as an apocalypse.41 It
is well known that the language of imminence is an inherent characteristic
of the works belonging to the apocalyptic genre. Bauckham points out:
It goes only a little beyond the evidence to say that in every

generation between the mid-second century BC and the mid-
second century AD Jewish apocalypticists encouraged their read-
ers to hope for the eschatological redemption in the very near
future. At the same time there is very little evidence to suggest
that during that long period the continued disappointment of
that expectation discredited the apocalyptic hope or even dimin-
ished the sense of imminence in later generations.42
39
This has been called to attention in August Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen
Verzögerungsproblem auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2.2ff.,
Novum Testamentum Supplements 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1961) and Richard Bauckham, The Jewish
World around the New Testament, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 233
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 65–88.
40
For an overview of recent discussions on the genre of Revelation, see John J. Collins, “Rev-
elation as Apocalypse,” in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins,
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 291 (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 33–48.
41
Because of the prominence of prophetic and epistolary elements, it has been demonstrated
that three different genres are fused in Revelation: letter, prophecy, and apocalypse, which are
combined in creative ways. See Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1–17 and Craig R. Koester, Revelation, Anchor
Bible 38A (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 104–112.
42
Bauckham, Jewish World, 66.
The reason for preserving a fervent hope for imminent deliverance

from generation to generation lies in the nature of apocalyptic expectations.
The apocalyptic faith maintains a balance between the concepts of immi-
nence and delay, which makes possible coping with the problem of time.
One of the clearest examples of this tension is found in the
2 Apocalypse of Baruch. While the work is pervaded with the notion of
imminence (2 Bar 20:1, 6; 23:7; 48:39; 54:17; 82:2; 83:1; 85:10), with the
“how long?” question also featuring significantly (81:3; cf. 21:19), at
the same time theological factors are pointed out that account for the
delay. Thus, the sense of urgency because of the imminent expectation
is counterbalanced by an emphasis that the end will come only at the
time that the sovereign God has appointed. This perspective is conveyed
by the repetition of the phrase “in its time” (5:2; 12:4; 13:5; 20:2; 51:7;
54:1; cf. 42:8).
The significance of this characteristic of apocalyptic thought for
the interpretation of Revelation’s temporal perspective is that the book’s
language of imminence should not be read in isolation. Its tension
with the motif of delay must be taken into account, since the book devel-
ops not only a “horizon of imminence,” but also a “not-yet” perspective.43
Revelation’s expressions of imminence are balanced by the heptad series
of seals (Rev 6:1–8:1) and trumpets (Rev 8:6–11:18), which in a schemat-
ic way portray the gradual advancing of the history of salvation toward
the eschaton. Similarly, the narratives delineating end-time scenarios
(Rev 12–19) indicate that the end is not just around the corner. The pro-
phetic time period of 1260 days has a similar function, but it also points
to the fact that God in His sovereignty has limited the dominion of
evil, and He oversees the development of the world’s affairs.
Resseguie notes that tension is even part of one of God’s major titles
in the book: ho ōn kai ho ēn kai ho erchomenos (“the One who was, who is
and who is to come,” Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8). Clearly, the third part of the formula
gives the title an explicit dynamic, since the expected “who will be” is re-
placed with the present participle of “to come” (“the one who is coming”).44
43
Similarly, Hans Werner Günther, Der Nah- und Enderwartungshorizont in der Apokalypse des
heiligen Johannes, Forschung zur Bibel 41 (Würzburg: Echter, 1980), 263–281, argues for a pe-
culiar tension between “Nah- und Enderwartungshorizont” in Revelation, stressing the dialectic
character of the book’s eschatology.
44
In contrast to Resseguie, 63, erchomenos is not to be viewed in terms of inaugurated escha-
tology, as a reference to God’s “breaking into the present time, startling hearers/readers out of
the ordinary and awakening them to new, fresh ways.” It seems more appropriate to interpret
the expression as a reference to the eschatological coming of Christ, who will “come” to the
world at the end of the age in salvation and judgment.
Thus, even in God’s name the present and the future are drawn together
in a tension, in reference to the parousia.
Reading Salvation-Historically
Secondly, Revelation’s expressions of imminence are to be interpret-
ed within the wider framework of the biblical meta-story—particularly
in light of Easter, the great turning point of salvation-history, which
ushered the world into the era of end times.45 As demonstrated by
Cullmann, the Christ event has given time a new salvation-historical
center.46 As the climactic event of human history, it is the anchor of
hope for humanity, which breathed an atmosphere of fresh newness
into the period following the cross. As a new era, this period is qualita-
tively different from the pre-Easter old age, since with Christ’s resurrection
the end-time “new creation” has been inaugurated and it has been
granted to mankind to experience the foretaste and power of the king-
dom of God.
In the new creation brought by the Christ event, not only was
the meaning of human history redefined but also the concept of time
received a new sense. In the victory on the cross, followed by the res-
urrection as its seal and Pentecost as the sign of Christ’s heavenly
enthronement, God’s triumph over the forces of evil was made definite.
Since the outcome of the cosmic conflict is resolved and the next ma-
jor salvation-historical event is the second coming of Christ, the time is
clearly “short.” After the climactic events of Easter and Pentecost, the
parousia is only a step away, so it is appropriately qualified as an event
that is “near.” Beale rightly concludes that “whether this event would
occur in one year or 5,000 years, it could still be referred to as ‘near,’
since it is the major next event to occur in the decretive order of God’s
redemptive plan.”47
45
For an in-depth analysis of the biblical concept of the end times and its inauguration at the
first Easter, see Gregory K. Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,”
in The Reader Must Understand: Eschatology in Bible and Theology, ed. K. E. Brower and M. W.
Elliott (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, 1997), 11–52.
46
Oscar Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit: die urchristliche Zeit- und Geschichtsauffassung (Zol-
likon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1948). Cullmann’s thesis has been sharply criticized by
D. Ernst Fuchs, “Christus das Ende der Geschichte,” in Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus
(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1965), 79–99.
47
Reading in Light of the Function of the Apocalyptic Language

Thirdly, Revelation’s language of imminence is to be understood
in relation to the function of the apocalyptic thought pattern. As an
apocalyptic work, written with the purpose of pastoral encouragement,
Revelation aims to reveal the truth about reality by narrating “a story in
and through which the people of God discover who they are and what
they are to do.”48 The present era of the inaugurated kingdom is portrayed
as a time of watching, repenting, and proclaiming the gospel through
which God’s people are to achieve victory (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12–21).
Apocalyptic language of imminence is employed in Revelation not for
generating immature excitement, but with the purpose of opening the
eyes of God’s people to see clearly the critical significance of the period of
history they are living in (the post-Easter end times in which the cosmic
conflict between God and Satan is intensified), and to sense the urgency
of acting in accordance with God’s plan in carrying out the task com-
mitted to them. Therefore, the expressions of imminence are not to be
seen primarily as temporal statements to be evaluated by human mea-
sures of time. They are rather to be taken as messages of warning given to
“express confidence in the fulfilment of God’s promises, the call for
alertness and sobriety, the call for a decision and encouragement in
view of suffering” and persecution.49 So, language of imminence has an
expressive and pragmatic function, which goes beyond conveying in-
formation about the temporal dimensions of reality. It seeks to prompt
God’s people to faithfulness and dedication in the face of a crisis, and
by generating a sense of urgency it aims to focus their attention on the
fulfillment of the task God has allotted to them.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that the book of Revelation, in the

fashion of ancient apocalyptic works, is permeated with language of
imminence. However, conclusions cannot be drawn that the author of
Revelation was advocating the idea of Christ’s return in his own gen-
eration or soon after his death. An argument presented in this study
demonstrated that Revelation’s language of imminence is not employed
48
Adela Yarbro Collins, “Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century,” Interpreta-
tion 40 (1986): 229–242.
49
Jörg Frey, “New Testament Eschatology—an Introduction: Classical Issues, Disputed Themes,
and Current Perspectives,” in Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents, ed.
Jan G. van der Watt, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/315 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 3–32.
with the goal of providing temporal statements measurable by human

categories of time. Rather, this language is to be interpreted against
its background in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and within the salvation-
historical frame of thought, which defined the thinking of the biblical
authors. It has been demonstrated that the purpose of employing lan-
guage of imminence is exhortative, to express a sense of urgency.
Also, living between the cross and the second advent means living in the
end times, which are short because the climactic event of history—the
victory of Jesus on the cross, followed by His resurrection and the
Pentecost—has already occurred, and the next major salvation-history
event expected to take place is Christ’s return in glory.
CHAPTER 16
The 1260 Days In The Book

Of Revelation
Jon Paulien
From the very beginning of the movement, Seventh-day Adventists

have grounded their identity in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation. Central to their interpretation has been the year-day principle,
in which the unusual time periods of Daniel and Revelation1 are treated
in terms of a day for a year.2 One of those time periods in Daniel and
Revelation is the “1260 days,” a concept that occurs seven times in three
different forms.3
In recent years significant objections have been raised to the tradi-
tional Adventist understanding of apocalyptic time prophecies in gener-
al and the 1260-day texts in particular.4 The purpose of this study is to
1
1260 days; 42 months; time, times, and half a time; 2300 evenings and mornings; and 70 weeks
are all atypical ways of expressing the passage of time, signaling a symbolic usage of some sort.
The typical way in which one would express such periods can be found in the “three and a half
years” of Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 (both references to the length of the drought in Elijah’s day).
2
A summary of the year-day principle, with significant arguments in its favor, can be found in
William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series 1 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1982), 56–93. See also Gerhard Pfandl, “In
Defense of the Year-Day Principle,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 23, no. 1 (2012):
3–17 and Alberto Timm, “Miniature Symbolization and the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic In-
terpretation,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42, no. 1 (2004): 149–167.
3
The phrase “1260 days” appears in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6. The parallel phrase “42 months”
occurs in Revelation 11:2 and 13:5. “Time, times, and half a time” (generally thought of as three
and a half years (roughly equivalent to the first two periods) is found in Daniel 7:25, 12:7, and
Revelation 12:14.
4
While Desmond Ford did not focus on the 1260-day texts, he hinted in his Glacier View manu-
script that there were problems with the traditional view, citing at length discussions among
church leaders at the 1919 Bible Conference (Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement,
explore the exegetical significance of the 1260-day texts in Revelation.

This exegesis of the five Revelation texts will be exploratory rather than
definitive or apologetic. It is the author’s hope that this study will stimu-
late discussions that strengthen the base of evidence for Adventist identity
and belief.
The 1260 Days and the Foreknowledge of God
The Traditional Position

The traditional Adventist position on the 1260-day time prophecies
of Daniel and Revelation is expressed in works by Uriah Smith and C.
Mervyn Maxwell.5 According to Smith, the seven 1260-day passages in
the Bible all refer to the same period and should be calculated symboli-
cally in terms of a year for a day.6 That period began in the year AD 538
when the Arian Ostrogoths were driven away from Rome, allowing the
bishop of Rome to assert control of the Christian churches according to
the decree of Justinian in AD 533. The period ended in AD 1798 when
the French general Berthier entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, and
took the pope prisoner.7 The interpretation is largely asserted. Smith
offers little in the way of exegetical argument and the accuracy of his
historical account is assumed rather than argued.
Maxwell seeks to strengthen the traditional position on both counts.
He notes that the 1260-day period began to be seen as years around AD
1200.8 While a variety of dates were suggested for this period by prominent
and the Investigative Judgment [Casselberry, FL: Euangelion, 1980], 209–215). Subsequently,
Samuele Bacchiocchi raised issues with the 1260-day texts in more detail; see Samuele Bacchi-
occhi, “Islam and the Papacy in Prophecy,” Endtime Issues, July 6, 2002; Bacchiocchi, “A Reply
to Criticism: Part I,” Endtime Issues, August 1, 2002; and Bacchiocchi, “September 11 and God’s
Mysterious Mercy,” Endtime Issues, October 17, 2002. Bacchiocchi also shared with the author of
this study and at least seven others a piece he chose not to publish. He suggested that the persecu-
tions of the 1260-day texts should not be limited to the papacy in the Middle Ages, but could also
apply to Islam and pagan Rome. This perspective is quite appealing on the face of it. Suffering is
suffering. But it overlooks that the papal interpretation is of a different nature than the others. It
is persecution from inside the house. As such it has a deceptive element that is lacking in external
persecution. The persecutions of Revelation 12 and 13 in particular highlight deception as much
as they do force and intimidation. So broadening the focus of the 1260-day texts is not helpful.
5
Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Southern
Publishing, 1944) and C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, 2 vols. (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1981–1985).
The author of this study feels that Ellen G. White’s work on the 1260-day texts is not original to
her, but is largely based on the work of Uriah Smith and John Nevins Andrews.
6
Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, 533, 144–145.
7
Ibid., 145.
8
Maxwell, God Cares, 2:276 (Joachim of Floris).
writers from Martin Luther to Jonathan Edwards, a consensus regarding

the dates AD 538 and 1798 began to develop in the wake of the French
Revolution in the 1790s.9 Maxwell argued that the massive importance of
the French Revolution in European history made it the fitting conclusion
to the period.10
In his Daniel commentary Maxwell further notes that the 1260 days
do not represent a period of total papal dominance in Europe. Instead the
period from AD 538–1798 is characterized by a “rising and then declining
influence of Roman Catholicism over the minds of men.”11 It was a peri-
od of great persecution for the people of God.12 In spite of the great size
of Smith and Maxwell’s works, the history is more asserted than argued
and the exegetical base in Daniel and Revelation is hardly touched at all.
Nevertheless, the traditional position is very attractive in its assertion of a
divine order and meaning to history, as noted by mainstream scholarship.13
The work of the Daniel and Revelation Committee was intended to
remedy the perceived defects in the Adventist prophetic positions, how-
ever, the committee was disbanded for financial reasons before it could
examine Revelation 11 in any detail. Thus, there is no exegetical or his-
torical insight on the references in Revelation 11:2–3 to be found in the
committee’s published works.14
Several chapters in the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series do
address Revelation 12 and 13.15 William Shea asserts that the time periods
9
Maxwell, God Cares, 2:277.
10
Ibid., 281–292.
11
12
Ibid., 304.
13
According to Adela Yarbro Collins, ordering history along numerical lines satisfies a basic hu-
man need for security; see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early
Christian Apocalyptic Literature,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, ed. Hildegaard
Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, division 2 (Principat), vol. 21 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984),
1224. The same article is also published in Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian
Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 55–138.
14
In 1988, in a meeting at Newbold College, the committee heard a paper on Revelation 11 but
concluded that it was not a helpful starting point on the subject. The committee was disbanded
before another paper on the subject could be presented.
15
William H. Shea, “Time Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12–13,” in Symposium on Revela-
tion—Book I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 329–360; William G. Johnsson, “The Saints’ End-Time
Victory Over the Forces of Evil,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book II, ed. Frank B. Holbrook,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 7 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992),
4–40; and C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The Mark of the Beast,” in Holbrook, Symposium on Revela-
tion—Book II, 42–132.
of Revelation 12:6, 14 are the same as that of Daniel 12:7, offering the lan-
guage of Revelation 12:14 as evidence.16 Literarily, Shea divides chapter 12
into three consecutive periods, with the two 1260-day texts both fitting
into the middle period, which favors a historicist interpretation over the
preterist or futurist options.17
For chapter 13 Shea argues that the 42 months of verse 5 is the same
period as Revelation 12:6, 14 on account of their identical length.18 Since
the beast from the sea is the successor of the dragon, the 42 months must
come after the first period of Revelation 12.19 Thus the time periods of
Revelation 12 and 13 refer to the same period of history.
In the following volume of the Daniel and Revelation Committee Se-
ries, William Johnsson notes that Revelation 12:6, 14 describes the 1260
days from the perspective of the people of God, portrayed as a woman
in the wilderness. Revelation 13:5, on the other hand, portrays the same
period from the perspective of the sea beast, who embodies the drag-
on’s persecution of the church.20 He also notes that the double usage of
Revelation 12:6, 14 makes clear that three and a half times are the same
as 1260 days.21 Maxwell’s chapter in the same volume expands on the his-
tory behind the dates for AD 538 and 1798 as the commencement and the
termination of the 1260-day prophecies.22 He also addresses a number of
popular objections to the traditional interpretation.23
The best attempt to provide an exegetical approach to the five 1260-
day texts in Revelation comes more recently from Hans LaRondelle.24 He
argues that the three and a half times of Daniel and Revelation all refer
to the same period and are to be understood in terms of years, not literal
days. In contrast to Maxwell and Smith, however, he suggests that it would
be unwise to be overly dogmatic regarding the beginning and ending
points of the period.25
16
Shea, 342–343, 345.
17
Ibid., 347–350.
18
Ibid., 351.
19
Ibid., 352–353.
20
Johnsson, 12.
21
Ibid., 18.
22
Maxwell, “The Mark of the Beast,” 72–77.
23
Ibid., 121–132.
24
Hans LaRondelle, How to Understand The End-Time Prophecies of the Bible: The Biblical-Con-
textual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 262.
25
Ibid., 258.
Objections to the Traditional Position

Objections to the traditional position were raised more recent-
ly by Samuele Bacchiocchi.26 He began a study of Islam in the wake of
the September 11 terrorist attacks. Coming to the conclusion that Islam
bears many of the marks of the antichrist, he discovered that there was
great resistance to that possibility among Adventists for two reasons:
1) the difficulty of fitting Islam into the interpretation of the 1260 days,
and 2) explicit identifications of the papacy as the antichrist by Ellen
G. White.
In response, Bacchiocchi sought to demonstrate that the papacy
fits the traditional dates of the 1260 days no better than Islam does. And
while White does explicitly follow the traditional interpretation, he noted
that she was quite willing to update and correct her historical statements
during her lifetime (and, in his opinion, wasn’t able to finish the job)
and that she is not, in any case, to be the church’s final word on bibli-
cal issues. Although raising questions about the traditional position,
Bacchiocchi remained committed to seeking the most biblical approach
to the exegesis of the 1260-day texts and an appropriate use of history in
relation to the period.27
Bacchiocchi was not alone in his concerns. Many Adventist scholars
note that the historicist approach to apocalyptic has been increasingly
marginalized in the scholarly world.28 In response to the dominance of
preterism in secular scholarship, many Adventist scholars either avoid the
study of Revelation or take up literary or sociological approaches to the
book.29 Such approaches either ignore the 1260-day texts or treat them as
somehow symbolic of the gospel and its opponents.30
26
See the sources listed in n. 4. Recognizing the traumatic nature of his observations, Bacchiocchi
eventually chose to suspend his efforts in the hope that the church’s subsequent explorations
of prophecy would be open and rigorous.
27
Personal conversation with author on July 17, 2003 in Berrien Springs, MI.
28
Well documented by Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophe-
cies in the Old Testament (Sigtuna: Datem, 1990). See also Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism?
Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adven-
tist Theological Society 33, no. 2 (2003): 15–43.
29
Some examples from one Adventist source: Kendra Haloviak, “Singing New Songs: Traditions
in Conflict,” Spectrum, Winter 2003, 5–12; Douglas Morgan, “Fear Not: Apocalypse Now Means
Something Very Different,” Spectrum, Winter 2000, 24–27; and Charles Scriven, “Freedom
Songs: The Apocalypse of John the Revelator and the Atonement of Christ,” Spectrum, Winter
2000, 28–33.
30
A scholarly example of such an interpretation is that of Collins, 1233, who argues that “the
problems which arise when one tries to coordinate these periods of time and to relate them
to an absolute chronology show that they were not intended to be interpreted in a literal,
A more widespread alternative to the traditional position sees most of

Revelation as concerned primarily with a short period of time still future
from our own day. While rejecting the dispensational form of futurism
popularized by the Left Behind series, such Seventh-day Adventist stu-
dents of the Bible nevertheless see the 1260-day texts as referring to literal
periods of time in the last few years of earth’s history.
Perhaps of even graver concern for those who hold to the traditional
view of the 1260-day texts is the philosophical shift in our younger gen-
eration of Adventists toward postmodernism.31 Postmodern youth ques-
tion both the exegetical certainties and the historical confidence of their
elders. The apocalyptic idea that there could be a detailed and orderly
sweep to history seems hard to grasp and even more difficult to believe.
While postmodernists are more likely to believe in God than their baby
boomer elders, they tend to view God, and therefore prophecy, as open-
ended with regard to the future. The confidence Adventist pioneers had
about their place in history seems to put them out of step with the times.
It seems to the author of this study that these challenges to Adventist
belief about the 1260 days of Daniel and Revelation have enough substance
to warrant a fresh exegetical approach to the issue. Each of the seven
1260-day texts needs to be carefully assessed in its context and the tradi-
tional referents in history need critical reassessment.
We need to recognize, however, that elements of mainstream bibli-
cal scholarship operate within a worldview that is diametrically opposed
to the way Adventists have traditionally read Daniel and Revelation. We
should not expect to encounter evidence that will convince all comers.
Having said this, there is much in recent scholarship that can be helpful
to us. And our arguments should be grounded in sufficient evidence so
as to have reasonable credibility with those who are not hostile to an
Adventist view of the world.
The author of this study believes that neither the critics of the Ad-
ventist position nor its proponents have yet done comprehensive and
serious exegesis on the 1260-day texts. Neither has the history been fully
chronological way. They do not indicate an interest in precise calculation on the part of the au-
thor of Revelation.”
31
Some outstanding analyses of postmodernism from a Christian perspective include Bruce
McLaren, The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2000); McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual
Journey (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001); and J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh,
Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1995). See also Jon Paulien, Everlasting Gospel Everchanging World: Introducing Jesus
to a Skeptical Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2008).
and critically reassessed in light of today’s explosion of knowledge in

all fields. The initial assessment of this author is that the Adventist po-
sition has not been ruled out in scholarly terms, but new directions are
necessary if such a position is to carry weight in today’s world.
In response to these challenges, therefore, this author will attempt
to do the following: 1) perform an exegesis of the five 1260-day texts in
Revelation with an eye to various objections and 2) review the arguments
for the year-day principle in light of its widespread rejection among both
preterists and futurists. Issues that will not be addressed in this study
include exegesis of the relevant texts in Daniel and a careful examina-
tion of the history of the papacy with particular attention to the events
surrounding its rise and apparent fall during the Christian era.
Exegesis of the Five 1260-day Texts in Revelation
As mentioned earlier, there are five 1260-day texts in the book of

Revelation. Two of them—Revelation 11:3 and 12:6—utilize the phrase
“1260 days.” Another two—Revelation 11:2 and 13:5—utilize the phrase
“42 months.” One, Revelation 12:14, takes up the enigmatic “time, times
and half a time” of Daniel. Both of the “1260-day” passages occur in con-
texts where positive images of God’s people are found: the two witness-
es of Revelation 11:3–6 and the woman in the desert in Revelation 12:6.
Conversely, both of the “42 months” passages occur in the context of
powers in opposition to the work of God: the Gentiles who trample the
outer court of God’s temple (Rev 11:2) and the sea beast who looks like
the dragon, blasphemes God, and makes war against the saints (Rev 13:5).
The “time, times and half a time” allusion to Daniel (Rev 12:14) comes in
the context of a series of Old Testament allusions, including references
to the exodus32 and the garden of Eden.33
Since there are strong allusions to Daniel 7 in both Revelation 12:14
and 13:5, it seems clear that the origin of the time period in Revelation is
Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 rather than Elijah’s drought34 or the length of Jesus’
32
Escape into the desert on wings of eagles (Exod 19:4).
33
“The mouth of the serpent” (Gen 3:1–7).
34
There is a strong allusion to Elijah’s drought in Revelation 11:6, but this single allusion cannot
be as central to the author’s purpose as the three major allusions to Daniel 7 and 12 referenced
in the main text. A drought of three and a half years is not found in the Old Testament context
anyway; it is a New Testament concept (cf. Luke 4:25; Jas 5:17). In any case, the book of Daniel
is much more central for the whole book of Revelation than is 1 Kings. Cf. Gregory K. Beale,
The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 1984) and Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International
ministry.35 The extremely strong allusions to Daniel 12 in Revelation 10

also provide a context for understanding John’s intention for the time pe-
riod.36 The Adventist tendency, therefore, to lump the 1260-day periods
of Daniel and Revelation together has a strong foundation in the exegesis
of Revelation.37
Revelation 11
The first two occurrences of the 1260 days are found in Revelation 11.
Along with chapter 10, Revelation 11:1–14 is part of an “interlude” between
the sixth and seventh trumpets. The association of the sixth trumpet
with the second woe makes it clear that this “interlude” is an integral
part of the sixth trumpet (Rev 9:12; 11:14). The understanding of this
study’s author regarding the trumpets38 is that they portray a series of
judgments against the enemies of God’s people running from the time
of John39 to the second coming of Jesus.40 Revelation 10:1–11:14, however,
focuses on the people of God, although the actions of the wicked are
also in view (Rev 11:2, 7–13). The sixth trumpet is the period of earth’s
history that comes just before the close of human probation, as a careful
study of Revelation 10:7 indicates.41
Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 76–99, 152–161.
35
LaRondelle, 239. Other possibilities for the origin of the time period include the forty-two
encampments of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (Num 33:5–49) and the possible reading
of the exodus as forty-two years (two years of progress toward Canaan before the forty-year
punishment for disobedience). Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 565, who suggests that the
1260-day periods recall the exodus and Elijah backgrounds of Revelation, seen through the lens
of Daniel.
36
Cf. Revelation 10:5–6 with Daniel 12:4–7.
37
Collins, 1232, also considers all five 1260-day texts in Revelation “variants of Daniel’s time, times
and half a time.”
38
Jon Paulien, “Interpreting the Seven Trumpets” (unpublished manuscript, 1986), a paper deliv-
ered to the Daniel and Revelation Committee in Berrien Springs, MI, argues and details a view
of the trumpets that the author of this study still holds in essence.
39
The first trumpet (Rev 8:7) is widely understood by Adventist scholars as a reference to the
destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. See Edwin R. Thiele, “Outline Studies in Revelation,” (syl-
labus, Pacific Union College, Angwin, CA, n.d.), 163–165; Maxwell, God Cares, 2:237–238; and
Paulien, “Interpreting the Seven Trumpets.”
40
The seventh trumpet (Rev 11:15–18) encapsulates events after the close of probation (Rev 10:7),
including the seven bowls of Revelation 16.
41
In Revelation 10:7 the blowing of the seventh trumpet immediately follows the completion
of God’s mystery (hotan mellē salpizein kai etelesthē to mystērion tou theou), which is defined
as the preaching of the gospel through God’s servants the prophets (euēggelisen tous heautou
doulous tous profētas). So the event on earth that signals the opening of the seventh trumpet is
the close of human probation just before the end of history.
Since the vision of Revelation 10:1–7 focuses on the time of the

sixth trumpet, some might be inclined to locate the 1260-day periods of
Revelation 11:2–3 in the last stages of Christian history (futurist view).
These periods, however, occur in the immediate context of Revelation
10:8–11 rather than 10:1–7. A voice out of heaven and the angel of the pre-
vious vision (Rev 10:1–7) engage John in an interactive explanation of
the vision (Rev 10:8–11:13ff.).42 Explanations come to a prophet in terms
of his own time and place.43 While John’s actions are mentioned in
Revelation 10:10 and 11:1, the bulk of the passage is the scroll angel’s di-
rect explanation of certain events in John’s future, building on the vision
of Revelation 10:1–7 (Rev 10:9, 11; 11:1–13). The entire passage of the two
witnesses seems to be an elaboration of the angel’s prediction, “You
must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings”
(Rev 10:11).44
Since John continues to be engaged (Rev 11:1–2) and addressed
(Rev 11:3–19) in Revelation 11, the standpoint from which John expe-
riences chapter 11 is his own.45 Since the 42 months and 1260 days are
expressed in the future tense,46 these periods of time were future from
John’s perspective.
The two witnesses themselves are introduced with a description of
their appearance and an overall description of their characteristics and ac-
tions in the present (Rev 11:4–6)47 and in the future tense (Rev 11:3). The
42
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 556.
43
Jon Paulien, “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic,” in Understanding Scripture: An Ad-
ventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid, Biblical Research Institute Studies 1 (Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 2006), 251–252.
44
Dei se palin profēteusai epi laois kai ethnesin kai glōssais kai basileusin pollois. The present tense
of dei indicates a standpoint in John’s day looking forward to a time when John (or his writ-
ings) would “prophesy again.” The aorist infinite profēteusai suggests a point in time when John,
presumably through his writings, would fulfill the purpose of the revelations he had received.
The infinitive is often used to express purpose or result, something not yet carried out. So
John’s sour stomach in Revelation 10:10 may well illustrate his personal disappointment at
not seeing the end of all that has been revealed to him. Like Daniel, the final conclusion of all
things lay in John’s future, as expressed in Revelation 11. Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 556–557.
45
It should be noted that in one place Aune treats Revelation 10 and 11 as if they were dis-
tinct and separate visions with little or no relationship with each other. But in another place
he suggests that the abrupt beginning of 11:1 implies a connection to 10:8–11. See David Aune,
Revelation 6–16, Word Biblical Commentary 52B (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 585, 603.
46
Revelation 11:2: tēn polin tēn hagian patērousin mēnas tesserakonta [kai] duo; Revelation 11:3:
dōsō tois dysin martysin mou kai profēteusousin hēmeras chilias diakosias hexēkonta.
47
Note the present indicative tenses in Revelation 11:4-6 houtoi eisin hai dyo elaiai kai hai dyo
luchniai hai enōpion tou kyriou tēs gēs hestōtes. 5 kai ei tis autous thelei adikēsai pyr ekporeuetai ek
tou stomatos autōn kai katesthiei tous echthrous autōn: kai ei tis thelēsē autous adikēsai, houtōs dei
description of the two witnesses (Rev 11:3–6) is based on the lampstand

passage of Zechariah (Zech 4:2–3, 11–14), and also the exploits of Moses and
Elijah in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 7:17–21; 1 Kgs 17:1; 2 Kgs 1:10–12).48
The present and future tenses of the passage are to be understood from
the perspective of an explanation to John in terms of his own time and
place. Whatever interpretation we place on the two witnesses, they had
some role already in the first-century context. At some later point in his-
tory, they would “prophesy” for 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth. But that
would not be the end of their experience. The entire character introduction
passage (Rev 11:3–6), including the elements in future tense (v. 3) as well
as those in present tense (vs. 4–6), occurs prior to the visionary descrip-
tion of their death, resurrection, and ascension that follows (Rev 11:7–13).49
The following time sequence, therefore, is evident in Revelation
10:8–11:12. John is addressed by a voice from heaven and a visionary an-
gel in his time and place. He then measures the temple, which is to be
trampled for 42 months in John’s future, presumably the same period as
the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3.50 Then the two witnesses are introduced.
Whoever they are, they clearly exist in John’s day (present tense) and
have an ongoing existence. At some future point from John’s perspec-
tive, the two witnesses pass through a 1260-day period of testimony. It is
only after that period of testimony that the martyrdom of these witness-
es and their resurrection is to occur.51 So the three-step time sequence of
this passage is as follows:
auton apoktanthēnai. 6 houtoi echousin tēn exousian kleisai ton ouranon, hina mē huetos brechē
tas hēmeras tēs profēteias autōn, kai exousian echousin epi tōn hydatōn strefein auta eis haima kai
pataxai tēn gēn en pasē plēgē hosakis ean thelēsōsin.
48
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 572, 577 and Aune, 585.
49
This is clear from Revelation 11:7: kai hotan telesōsin tēn martyrian autōn. The testimony of the
two witnesses (also referred to as “prophesying” or “prophecy” in verses 3 and 6) is to occur for
a period of 1260 days in John’s future. That is all part of the introduction to the actions in verses
7–12. When the two witnesses have finished their testimony (the 1260 days are closed), the ac-
tions of verses 7ff. begin (cf. Aune, 616).
50
Aune, 586. Collins, 1232, believes that if one takes the position that John intended the two wit-
nesses as literal future individuals, the two time periods would probably be different.
51
Both the period of testimony and the ascension of these two witnesses seem to carry out the
statement of the angel in Revelation 10:11 that John is to “prophesy again.”
1) The Time of John (Rev 10:8–11)

• John looks forward to a second “prophesying” (Rev 10:11)
• John measures the temple (Rev 11:1–2)
• Witnesses have ongoing existence (Rev 11:4–6)
2) The 1260 Days (Rev 11:2–3)

• The Gentiles trample the temple (Rev 11:2)
• The two witnesses prophesy (Rev 11:3)
3) The Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Two Witnesses

(Rev 11:7–12)
• At the same time an earthquake destroys a tenth of “The
City” (Rev 1:13)
• As a result of both events a remnant glorifies God (Rev 11:13;
cf. 14:7)
The two 1260-day passages in Revelation 11, therefore, occur sand-

wiched between descriptions related to John’s day and descriptions more
appropriate to the last days of earth’s history. The time periods seem,
therefore, to be part of a great central period in the events running
from the time of John to the end. This conclusion is compatible with the
traditional perspective of the Adventist pioneers.
Revelation 12
Adventists have traditionally understood Revelation 12 to offer an
apocalyptic prophecy of three sequential stages of Christian history. The
first stage is the Christ event back in the first century (Rev 12:1–5). The
third is the final battle between the dragon and the remnant (Rev 12:17).
The second is the vast middle period of 1260 years (Rev 12:6, 14) of papal
supremacy in the Middle Ages and beyond (Rev 12:6, 13–16).52
A major structural parallel in chapter 12 involves repeated reference
to Daniel 7. The cryptic phrase “a time, times, and half a time” (Rev 12:14)
occurs only once in the entire New Testament and is unquestionably based
on a couple of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel (Dan 7:25; 12:7).53
The dragon of Revelation 12:3–4 has a number of the characteristics of
52
See, e.g., Roy Allan Anderson, Unfolding the Revelation: Evangelistic Studies for Public Presen-
tation (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1953), 118–120; Mark A. Finley, Predictions for a New
Millennium (Fallbrook, CA: HART Books, 2000), 398–400; Stephen N. Haskell, The Story of the
Seer of Patmos (South Lancaster, MA: Central New England Tract Society, 1906), 221–222; Naden,
190; and Smith, 517–519.
53
Aune, 706 and Beale, The Book of Revelation, 669.
the beasts of Daniel 7 (Dan 7:7, 24).54 The war in heaven (Rev 12:7–9)
makes several allusions to Daniel in general (Dan 2:35; 10:13, 20–21; 12:1).
This broad utilization of Daniel’s apocalyptic prophecies suggests that
Revelation 12 should be interpreted along similar lines.
But the strongest evidence for an apocalyptic reading of Revelation 12
lies in the way various characters in the narrative go through successive
experiences over time. First of all, a woman appears in heaven, clothed
with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars
on her head (Rev 12:1). The woman of Revelation 12 has a “pedigree”
that carries back well into Old Testament prophecy.55 But in verse 5 she
acts in the context of the vision, giving birth to a male child, who is gen-
erally recognized to be a symbol of Jesus.56 After she gives birth to the
child (Rev 12:5) she is seen fleeing into the desert for “1260 days” (Rev 12:6).
So the experience of the woman in Revelation 12:1–6 is actually depicted
in three stages: 1) the time of her appearance and pregnancy, 2) the time
of giving birth, and 3) the time of fleeing into the desert.
The second character introduced in this chapter is the dragon
(Rev 12:3–4), who represents the devil, or Satan (Rev 12:9). Scholars wide-
ly recognize that the dragon’s attack on the male child in Revelation 12:5
represents Herod’s attempt to destroy the Christ child by killing all
the babies in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1–18).57 And prior to his attack on the
woman, his tail swept58 a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them
to earth (Rev 12:4).59 But the dragon is not finished when the male child
54
Among other things, if you total up the initial number of heads and horns among the four
beasts of Daniel 7 you get seven heads and ten horns. This suggests that the heads of the dragon
represent civil powers that Satan has used to oppress God’s people throughout history.
55
Revelation 12:1–2 is based on the Old Testament image of a virtuous woman as a symbol of faith-
ful Israel (Isa 26:16–27; 54:5; 66:7–14; Hos 2:14–20), anticipating the arrival of the messianic age. See
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, Proclamation Commentaries (Min-
neapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), 80–81; Aune, 682, 687; and Beale, The Book of Revelation, 640–641.
56
Fiorenza, 81, considers this identification “without question.” See also Aune, 687–689 and
57
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 639; J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation, The IVP New Testament
Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 147; James Moffat, The Revelation
of St. John the Divine, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1956), 425; and J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation, Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia, PA:
Westminster, 1979), 196–197.
58
The word for “swept” (syrei) is, shockingly, in the present tense, which makes the casting down
prior to the sweeping if one takes the tenses at face value. Since this is part of the dragon’s intro-
duction, “sweeps” is most likely a historical present, as Aune, 652, suggests.
59
An allusion to Daniel 8:10, according to Beale, The Book of Revelation, 635–636. In an interesting
anomaly, the dragon actually “sweeps” (present tense) and “flung” (aorist) them to earth. The
shift in tense makes no sense in Greek, but appears in all manuscripts. In terms of Greek, the
gets away in verse 5. The dragon pursues the woman into the desert
(Rev 12:13–16) and eventually makes war with the remnant of her seed.
So the dragon in chapter 12 is actually described in terms of four succes-
sive stages:60 1) his attack on a third of the stars (Rev 12:4), 2) his attack
on the male child (Rev 12:4–5, 7–9), 3) his attack on the woman herself
(Rev 12:13–16), and finally 4) his war against the remnant (Rev 12:17).
The Dragon’s Wars in Revelation 12

1. Attack on the stars before the birth of the male child (Rev 12:3–4)
2. Attack on the male child and war in heaven (Rev 12:5, 7–10)
3. Attack on the woman in the desert (Rev 12:6, 13–16)
4. Attack on the remnant (Rev 12:17)
The third character introduced in this chapter is the male child,

the woman’s son. After his birth the male child is described as the one
who “will rule [mellei poimainein] all the nations with an iron scepter”
(Rev 12:5). This allusion to Psalm 2:9 describes Jesus’ judgment role at
the end of time.61 The very next phrase—“her child was snatched up to
God and to his throne”—reverts to the visionary past. In Revelation 12:5
reference is made, then, to the birth, the ascension, and the ultimate
victory of Jesus Christ. The death of Christ on the cross is only brought
into play in verses 10–12.
The Time of the First Advent

The first phase of the visionary sequence of Revelation 12 focuses on
the dragon’s attack against the male child in verse 5. When the male child
reaches heaven war breaks out there, resulting in the dragon and his an-
gels losing their place in heaven and being hurled down (eblēthē) to earth
(Rev 12:7–9). When did this casting out take place? Verse 10 clearly ad-
dresses the same point in time as the war of 7–9.62 So the first phase of
obvious explanation is that “sweeping” is a historical present and should be read as “swept,” but
see ibid., 639, 608. It is also likely that this is an example of Revelation’s Semitisms. In Hebrew
there is no grammatical tense, as we understand it, but two aspects indicating whether the action
is finished or not. As a result John often seems to confuse present, imperfect, and future in many
places in Revelation. It may be that the present tense here represents the imperfect (continuous
action in the past), while he uses the aorist for more punctiliar action in the past. To “sweep” the
stars is a longer action, needing diplomacy and time, while “flung” is a momentary, violent act.
60
Aune, 603–604.
61
See ibid., 688.
62
Aune, 699–700 and Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Future Glory: The 8 Greatest End-time Prophecies
in the Bible (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 95.
the visionary sequence runs from the incarnation of Jesus through the
expulsion of Satan’s influence in heaven.63
The Broad Sweep of Christian History

Revelation 12, verses 6 and 14, both seem to mark a transition between
the experience of Jesus—on earth in verse 5 and in heaven in verse 10—and
the woman’s exile into the desert. At first glance, one might get the im-
pression that the parallel texts in verses 6 (1260 days) and 14 (time, times,
and half a time) represent two different time periods. But if the events
of verse 5 are closely related to the events of verses 7 through 10, the two
time periods both follow the description of Jesus’ earthly ministry and
ascension to heaven. So it is likely that they refer to the same period
in history.
The language of Revelation 12:13–16 is reminiscent of several accounts
in the Old Testament: the vision of Daniel 7, the exodus from Egypt, and
the temptation and fall in the garden of Eden. The language of “a time,
times and half a time” recalls Daniel 7:25,64 as do the seven heads and
the ten horns of the dragon who pursues the woman. In Daniel 7 the
breakup of Rome into ten parts was followed by a little horn power, which
was to persecute and “oppress God’s saints for a time, times and half a
time” (Dan 7:25).
“The mouth of the serpent” (Rev 12:15) reminds the reader of the de-
ceptive words of the serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen 3). The flood-
ing waters that attack the woman in the desert, therefore, imply deceptive
and persuasive words as much as persecuting force. In Revelation 12:16
the “earth” helps the woman. This is a further allusion to the exodus
and Israel’s experience in the desert.65 The desert protected Israel from
the “flooding waters” of both the Red Sea and the Egyptian army. If
63
The time of the war in heaven is the time when the kingdom of God and the authority of
Christ were clearly established (Rev 12:10). In the book of Revelation, this took place at the
enthronement of the Lamb as a result of His overcoming at the cross (Rev 5:5–6, cf. 3:21). See
also Johnsson, 19 and Rodriguez, 95. Throughout the New Testament the kingdom of God
was seen as a present reality in the person of Jesus (Matt 12:28; Luke 17:20–21, etc.) and was
established in force at His ascension when He joined His Father on the heavenly throne (cf.
Eph 1:20–23; Heb 8:1–2; etc.; see the author’s elaboration on these issues with regard to
Revelation 5 in Jon Paulien, “The Seven Seals,” in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and
Exegetical Studies, Book 1, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,
vol. 6 [Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists, 1992], 200–221).
64
Aune, 706.
65
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 675–676.
“sea” also represents the settled populations of the earth,66 “earth” here
may represent more desolate places where the true people of God obtain
refuge from deceptive and persecuting opponents.67 During this period
of calm, the dragon prepares for his final attack (Rev 12:17).
The Final Attack on the Remnant

Revelation 12:17 is not only the conclusion to chapter 12; it serves as
a summary introduction to Revelation’s portrayal of a great final crisis at
the end of earth’s history.68 It indicates that there are two sides in the final
conflict, represented by the dragon on one hand, and the remnant on the
other. Revelation 13 outlines in more detail the dragon’s final war against
the remnant of the woman’s seed (Rev 12:17).69
In Revelation 12, therefore, one can detect three stages of Christian
history running from the time of Jesus and John to the end of all things.
When we note that at least two of the main characters in the chapter were
active in the time before the birth of Jesus (called Stage Zero here), there
are a total of four successive stages of apocalyptic history70 that can be
summarized as follows:
1) Stage Zero: Before the Time of the Vision (12:1–4)

The original war in heaven (v. 4)
The dragon embodies the kingdoms of the earth (v. 3)
The woman represents God’s true people (vs. 1–2)
66
As Revelation 17:15 may suggest.
67
There is perhaps another way to see this. In this text the earth helps the woman by opening
its mouth and swallowing the dragon’s flooding river. The flood reminds us of the classic Old
Testament references to invaders of Israel (cf. Isa 8:5–8). Further, it is interesting that the
earth opened its mouth to swallow rebels like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:32; 26:10).
The earth opens its mouth during earthquakes, so there may be a link to the earthquake of
Revelation 11:13, which is a foretaste of the last earthquake (Rev 11:19; 16:18). So the earth
opening its mouth could represent the Revolutionary (French, American, Russian) forces that
put an end to papal persecution at the end of the 1260 years and beyond. This obviously in-
cludes the American Revolution, but does not focus so much on the uninhabited areas that took
in refugees.
68
In Revelation 13 and 14.
69
70
It is most interesting that Aune, 603–604, also identifies four total stages in Revelation 12,
with the first being an “introduction of the dramatis personae (Rev 12:1–4a).” After the introduc-
tion, Stage One is the birth and escape of the child (vs. 4–6), Stage Two is the expulsion of the
dragon from heaven (vs. 7–12), and Stage Three is the pursuit of the woman and her offspring
(vs. 13–17).
2) Stage One: The Time of Jesus and John (12:5, 7–12)

The woman gives birth to the male child (v. 5)
He is snatched up to heaven (v. 5)
War in heaven (vs. 7–9)
Enthronement and victory (vs. 10–11)
Transition (v. 12)
3) Stage Two: The Serpent Attacks the Woman (12:6, 13–16)
The dragon pursues the woman (v. 13)
She flees into the desert and is protected 1260 days (vs. 6, 14)
The serpent spews water to sweep her away (v. 15)
The earth helps the woman (v. 16)
4) Stage Three: The Dragon and the Remnant (12:17, etc.)
The dragon is angry and goes away to make war (12:17)
He calls up allies for the conflict (13:1–7, 11)
The unholy trinity deceives and persecutes (13:8–10, 12–18)
The remnant responds (14:1–13)
The return of Jesus (14:14–20)
The two 1260-day texts of Revelation 12, then, both occur in Stage
Two, the central period of Christian history. They characterize something
important about the history between the time of Jesus and His disciples
at the beginning and the final battle at the end. This median location
in time after the writing of Revelation parallels the situation of the two
occurrences in chapter 11. This makes it exegetically likely that all four
occurrences of “1260 days” examined so far are a reference to the same
period of history.
Revelation 13
We noticed in the earlier section that Revelation 12:17 summarizes
the final stage of earth’s history in a nutshell. Revelation 13 then outlines
in more detail the dragon’s final war against the remnant of the wom-
an’s seed (Rev 12:17). Revelation 13, therefore, expands on the final battle
and fleshes out the opposition to God that will occur then. Does this
mean that the reference to “42 months” in Revelation 13:5 belongs to the
final battle and is, therefore, not to be equated with the earlier references?
Could the historical 1260-day periods of Revelation 11 and/or 12 be types
of an end-time period in literal days? Let us look more carefully at the
evidence of chapter 13.
A little-noticed feature of chapter 13 is the way the tenses of the main
verbs shift at significant points throughout the chapter.71
71
For more details, see Jon Paulien, Lutherans and Adventists in Conversation, ed. B. B. Beach and
These tenses need to be read in the context of the final attack of

Revelation 12:17. The setting of chapter 13 is the final battle of earth’s histo-
ry, in which the dragon utilizes a pair of allies. In the context of that final
battle, two beasts (from the sea and the earth) are each given “character in-
troductions” in the past tense (Rev 13:1–7, 11).72 These past-tense portions
begin with a visual description of each character that precedes an account
of that character’s subsequent actions. These actions, therefore, are under-
stood to have occurred prior to the dragon’s final war against the remnant
(Rev 12:17; 13:8–10, 12–18).
In each of the two scenes (Rev 13:1–10, 11–18) the Greek moves from
past tense to a mixture of present and future tenses (Rev 13:8–10, 12–18),
describing the actions of these two beasts in the context of the final attack.73
So two stages of history are clearly marked off by the Greek tenses sig-
naling events prior to the dragon’s war (past tense) and an elaboration
of the events of the war itself (present and future tense).74 Beale notes
that Revelation 13 is parallel in time with 12:13–17, which coheres with the
Adventist position described earlier.75
Revelation 13 does not contain all four stages of the dragon’s war as
described in Revelation 12. It offers information related to the last two
stages of his activity, listed as Stage Two and Stage Three in the chart for
Sven G. Oppegaard (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2000),
243–248.
72
The account of the beast coming up out of the sea involves a creative reworking of Daniel 7 (see
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 683). The past tense of the main verbs of Revelation 13:1–7, 11 are as
follows: “saw” (Gk. eidon—aorist indicative), “was” (Gk. ēn—imperfect indicative), “was given”
(Gk. edōken—aorist indicative), “was healed” (Gk. etherapeuthē—aorist indicative), “was amazed”
(Gk. ethaumasthē—aorist indicative), “worshiped” (Gk. prosekunēsan—aorist indicative, 2x), “was
given” (Gk. edothē—aorist indicative, 2x), “opened” (Gk. ēnoixen—aorist indicative), “was given”
(Gk. edothē—aorist indicative, 2x), “saw” (Gk. eidon—aorist indicative), “had” (Gk. eichen—im-
perfect indicative), and “spoke” (Gk. elalei—imperfect indicative).
73
The present and future tenses of the main verbs of Revelation 13:8–10, 12–18 are as follows:
“will worship” (Gk. proskunēsousin—future indicative), “has” (Gk. echei—present indicative),
“goes” (Gk. hypagei—present indicative), “is” (Gk. estin—present indicative), “exercises” (Gk.
poiei—present indicative, 2x), “performs” (Gk. poiei—present indicative), and “deceives”
(Gk. plana), etc. There is an aorist imperative in verse 9 (“let him hear,” Gk. akousatō), but
imperatives are future by default. They command an action that has not yet taken place. A
reference to the future is also implied by the subjunctive of verse 12 (Gk. proskynēsōsin, which
is a necessary feature of the subordinate purpose clause introduced by hina). Note a similar
construction in verse 13.
74
Revelation 13:1–7 = past tense; Revelation 13:8–10 = present and future tenses; Revelation 13:11 =
past tense; Revelation 13:12–18 = present and future tenses.
75
Revelation 12. The past-tense portions of Revelation 13 correspond to

Stage Two, the events preceding the final battle. The present and future
tenses of the main verbs in chapter 13 correspond to the final attack on
the remnant, first mentioned in Revelation 12:17. Note the relationship
between Revelation 12 and 13 in the following chart:
The Progressive Parallelism of Revelation 12-13

Rev 12 Rev 13
The dragon with crowned
heads wars against the
Stage One
woman and her child
(vs. 1–5)
Celebration of Christ’s
enthronement, dragon
hurled down (vs. 7–12)
The dragon uses the sea
The woman in the
beast with crowned horns
Stage Two wilderness for 1260 days
to wage war against the
(vs. 6, 13–15)
saints (vs. 1–7)
The land beast with two
The woman helped in the
lamb-like horns arises
wilderness (v. 16)
from the earth (v. 11)
The dragon wars against
The land beast uses both
the remnant of the
deception and force to
woman’s seed, who keep
Stage Three cause worldwide worship
the commandments and
of the sea beast (vs. 8–10,
have the testimony of
12–18)
Jesus (v. 17)
The 42-month period of Revelation 13:5 is not part of the final bat-
tle (Stage Three) of Christian history. The beast from the sea “was given”
(Gk. edothē—aorist indicative) authority to rule for 42 months. The beast’s
activity does not move into the present or future tense until verse 8. As
part of Stage Two, then, the 42 months of Revelation 13:5 belong to the
middle period of church history, between the events of the first advent of
Jesus and the events leading up to His second coming. Note a comparison
of all three chapters in Revelation where 1260-day passages occur. They
are firmly entrenched at the heart of the Christian era, not at its edges.76
76
Note this fascinating statement by Aune, 743: “It is clear that the author intends the reader
to understand that the period during which the first beast is active (Rev 13:5) coincides with
the period during which the holy city will be trampled on by the nations (11:2) and the period
Revelation 11 Revelation 12 Revelation 13

10:8–11:1 12:1–5, 7–12
---
Time of John Time of Jesus
11:1–13 12:6, 13–16 13:1–7, 11
42 months 1260 days 42 months
1260 days Time, times and half a time Past tense
13:8–10, 12–18
11:15–18 12:17 Final events:
Final events: Final events: Image and mark of the
Wrath and judgment Remnant beast
Present and future tenses
A Theology of the 1260 Days
Given the general overview of the previous section, a few remarks

regarding the function of the 1260-day period within each of the five con-
texts may be helpful.
Revelation 11:2
After being told he must “prophesy again” (Rev 10:11), John is given
a measuring stick and told to “measure the temple of God, and the altar,
and count the worshippers there. But exclude the outer court, do not mea-
sure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on
the holy city for 42 months” (Rev 11:1–2). Ranko Stefanovic points out that
measuring in a figurative sense has to do with evaluating or judging, often
in the context of God’s final judgment at the end of the world (Matt 7:2;
Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38).77 But in this context the measuring seems to also
have a protecting or preserving feature, as in the measuring of the temple
in Ezekiel 40.78 The parts of the temple that are not measured are tram-
pled by the Gentiles for 42 months. There may also be overtones of the
Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16, the only other place in the Bible where
during which the two witnesses will prophesy (11:3). Their death must therefore coincide with
the end of this predestined period of time.”
77
Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
2002), 335. Cf. Kurt Deissner, “metron, ametros, metreō,” in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1967), 633. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 556, agrees that the judgment is in view here and consid-
ers it part of the message that must be “prophesied again.”
78
Deissner, 634 and Aune, 604.
sanctuary, altar, and people are mentioned together.79

John’s “prophesying again” (Rev 10:11), therefore, seems to have some-
thing to do with the “temple [naos] of God.” While scholars are divided on
which temple is in view here, naos is clearly associated with the heavenly
temple elsewhere in Revelation (Rev 11:19; 14:15, 17; 15:5–8; 16:1, 17).80 If
that perspective is followed here, the naos itself is the place where the
people of God are protected, figuratively secure in heavenly places. As
worshippers in the heavenly temple they are in “heavenly places in Christ
Jesus” (Eph 2:6).81 The outer court, then, would represent the earth,
where in the literal sense the people of God are in genuine peril from
their enemies. God is in full control of the situation of His people,
even when they suffer.82
Does the outer court represent the faithful people of God or a pro-
fessing but apostate church? Beale offers a strong case for both conclu-
sions.83 1) Since Revelation acknowledges that apostate believers exist in
the church (Rev 2:4, 14–16, 20–23; 3:1–3, 16), the “casting out” (ekbale) of
the outer court could represent exclusion from the true community of
faith (cf. Matt 5:13; Luke 13:28; 14:35; John 6:37; 12:31; 15:6).84 2) But if the
“casting out” refers to what happens to God’s true people as they are re-
jected and persecuted by the unbelieving world (Matt 21:39; Mark 12:8;
Luke 4:29; 20:15; John 9:34–35; Acts 7:58), the “measuring” implies that
God’s faithful people are spiritually secure, despite the physical harm
79
Kenneth Strand, “An Overlooked Old-Testament Background to Revelation 11:1,” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 22 (1984): 317–325. Stefanovic, 339, points out that the measuring of
Ezekiel’s temple occurred on the Day of Atonement (Ezek 40:1–5, etc.). Aune, 604, on the other
hand, considers an allusion to Leviticus 16 “impossibly subtle.”
80
Beale, Book of Revelation, 562. See discussion of this and other options in Aune, 596–597.
81
On the concept that the people of God in Revelation are always depicted as being in heav-
enly places while the wicked are “those who live on the earth” (cf. Rev 6:10; 8:13; 13:8; etc.), see
Beatrice Neall, “Sealed Saints and the Tribulation,” in Holbrook, Symposium on Revelation—Book
I, 270–272.
82
It is valuable to note that the earthly ministry of Jesus is symbolized by the furniture of the outer
court, the altar of burnt offering representing His death on the cross, and the laver representing
His baptism and, perhaps, resurrection. The heavenly ministry of Jesus is represented by the
temple structure and its furnishings.
83
84
Cf. R. H. Charles, Revelation, International Critical Commentary, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1920), 274–278; William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1962), 155; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, The An-
chor Bible 38 (New York: Doubleday, 1975) 176–177; and numerous others listed in Beale, The
Book of Revelation, 558 n. 242.
they suffer.85 Either view is compatible with traditional Adventist un-

derstanding of the 1260 days. If the “holy city” of Revelation 11:2 (same
as the “outer court”) is to be understood as God’s faithful people, then
persecution is the theme of all five 1260-day texts.86
The 42-month period had not yet begun in John’s time, but would
begin at some time in the future, as indicated by the future tense of “will
trample” (Rev 11:2). During this period the measuring divides the true
worshippers of God from the “nations” that may profess allegiance to God
yet are found in opposition to His true worshippers.87 The “trampling on
the holy city for 42 months” (Rev 11:2) is paralleled by texts in Daniel and
Luke that bear further investigation in relation to this verse.88
Commentators often suggest that the 42 months and related periods
in Revelation are more qualitative than quantitative in their significance.89
They point to the three and a half years of the drought in Elijah’s day
(1 Kgs 17:1; Luke 4:25; Jas 5:17), when the “sky was shut” (Rev 11:6). This
certainly lies in the background of Revelation 11:1–6, but not of Revela-
tion 12 or 13. The time period is also associated with the presumed length
of Jesus’ ministry. But since both of those periods refer to the measure-
ment of time, a qualitative significance does not exclude a chronological
meaning.
Revelation 11:3
Revelation 11:3 continues the scene that began in 10:8. It is, therefore,
closely related to 11:2. Since both the “1260 days” of Revelation 11:3 and
the “42 months” of 11:2 are in the future tense, and occur side by side
85
Cf. G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York: Harper and
Row, 1966), 131–132; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1979), 183–184; Pierre Prigent,
L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean (Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1981), 160–163; and numerous others listed
in Beale, The Book of Revelation, 558 n. 243, who himself holds to this view. Cf. Beale, The Book
of Revelation, 560.
86
87
Stefanovic, 341.
88
Daniel 7:7, 19, 23 portrays the Roman Empire trampling underfoot conquered nations. In
Daniel 8:9–13 the little horn tramples the place of God’s sanctuary and the host of the saints,
throwing truth to the ground in the process. Luke 21:24 speaks of Jerusalem being trampled
until the “times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled.
89
Stefanovic, 338, 384. In saying this, Stefanovic is not ruling out a quantitative interpretation.
“The most plausible interpretation understands these time designations (repeated in one way or
another in chapters 11 and 12–13) not as a literal time period of forty-two months, but as refer-
ring to the prophetic period of more than twelve centuries, known as the Middle Ages, during
which the church, like Israel at the Exodus, suffered the hardship of its ‘wilderness’ pilgrimage
(cf. Rev 12:6, 14)” (ibid., 338; cf., 411–412).
in the text, they must refer to the same period of time. Unlike the 42
months, which represent a time of Gentile “trampling,” the 1260 days of
Revelation 11:3 portray the time when the “two witnesses” prophesy in
sackcloth. They will be given (Gk. dōsō) power to prophesy, presumably
by God. Their prophesying is related to Revelation 10:11, where John is
told he must prophesy again.90 John does not do this personally; the
two witnesses carry out this work on John’s behalf.91 The sackcloth with
which they are dressed is related to the bitterness of Revelation 10:10
and the trampling of 11:2.92 While dressed in sackcloth, however, the
witnesses are not powerless. They can destroy enemies with fire (Rev 11:5;
cf. 2 Kgs 1:9–14) and manipulate the weather (Rev 11:6, cf. 1 Kgs 17:1).
There are three main views regarding the identity of the two wit-
nesses.93 They are thought to be two eschatological individuals (modeled
on Moses and Elijah) who function as divine agents,94 symbolic of the
people of God,95 or symbolic of the Bible as Old and New Testaments.96
Stefanovic thinks the evidence warrants a double identification that is
not mutually exclusive: “It is through the preaching and teaching of
the church that the Word of God is manifested.”97 The author of this
study would agree, but the exegetical evidence seems a bit stronger for
the two witnesses representing God’s faithful, witnessing church.98
90
91
A hint that the nearness of the time in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 is not to be taken in an absolute
and immediate sense.
92
Stefanovic, 347–348.
The Greek word for “witness” is martys, which can mean “one who testifies” or a “martyr.” Both
93
meanings seem relevant to Revelation 11.

94
Joseph A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ,
with Revised Text, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1865), 174–224;
Charles, 280–282; and Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1967), 585–587.
95
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 573–575; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation,
The New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1974), 183–184; and Robert H. Mounce, The Book
of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1977), 223.
96
Kenneth Strand, “The Two Witnesses of Rev. 11:3–12,” Andrews University Seminary Studies
19 (1981): 127–135; George Croly, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Rivington, 1838), 164; and
Smith, 534ff.
97
Stefanovic, 345.
98
For the author of the study, the decisive point here is that crucial to the Adventist position is
the assumption that all five time periods (not to mention the two in Daniel) refer to the same
period of time. In all other places persecution of the church is central to the theme and nowhere
else is Scripture clearly in view. The two witnesses as Scripture needs to be read as completely out
Revelation 12:6, 14
In Revelation 12, verses 6 and 14 seem clearly parallel. In both cas-
es “the” woman99 “fled” (Rev 12:6, Gk. ephygen) or “flies” (Rev 12:14,
Gk. petētai) into the desert for protection. In both cases there is a divine
provision made for her safety.100 In both texts the time period is specifi-
cally designated as a time of “nourishment” (“taken care of,” NIV). While
separated by the passage about the war in heaven (Rev 12:7–13), the two
verses clearly refer to the same woman and the same event. The 1260 days
of verse 6, therefore, make it clear that the “time, times and half a time”
of verse 14 (and Daniel) are a symbolic way of referring to three and a
half years.101
Revelation 12:6
The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might
be taken care of for 1,260 days.
Revelation 12:14
The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the
place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time,
times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach.
As with the parallel time designations of Revelation 11, the time pe-
riods of chapter 12 reflect a period after the time of Jesus and before the
final events at the end. There is no compelling reason to consider the
time periods of Revelation 12 to be different from each other or from the
parallel designations of Revelation 11.
In these passages the author of Revelation takes up the new exo-
dus theme so common in the Old Testament prophets.102 The desert
was the place to which the children of Israel escaped after leaving Egypt
of character with the other 1260-day texts. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 574, makes this point
strongly in his commentary.
99
In Revelation 12:1 the woman is introduced without an article since she has not appeared in the
book before this. All other uses of the term in the chapter (Rev 12:4, 6, 13–17) are with the article,
referring back to verse 1 where the woman is introduced. So all references to “woman” in this
chapter are to the same character. As Aune, 691, acknowledges, the woman is a personification of
the Christian community after the ascension of Jesus.
100
The divine passive (“was given”) here is a very common usage in Revelation. The reference to
eagles’ wings is one of several allusions to the exodus in this chapter (cf. Exod 19:4; Deut 32:8–12).
101
102
Isaiah 4:2–6; 11:10–16; 43:16–19; Hosea 2:8–15; Micah 7:15–20; etc.
(Exod 13:18, 20; 14:11–12; 15:22; 16:1–3). They did not choose to go there;
rather it was God who led them there (Exod 13:21–22; 14:15–18). In the
desert God took care of Israel’s needs for food and water by miraculous
means (Exod 16:4–36; 17:1–7). In the Prophets the exodus experience be-
comes the model for God’s future acts of deliverance.103 In early Judaism,
as well as in the Old Testament Prophets, the exodus becomes the mod-
el for God’s mighty act in the messianic age.104 In the New Testament,
Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is also modeled on the exodus (Matt 2:15;
Luke 9:31; John 1:17–18; Acts 3:22–24; 1 Cor 5:7; 10:1–10; etc.).105
Likewise, in Revelation the experience of the church is modeled on
the experiences of Israel. In Jewish writings, the desert is the place where
the Messiah would gather the eschatological people and God would
miraculously “prepare a table for them” in the presence of their en-
emies.106 It would also, therefore, be the place of eschatological trial (cf.
Deut 8:14–16). So the woman is also modeled on the saints of Daniel 7,
who are persecuted by the little horn for a time, times, and half a time
(Rev 12:14; cf. Dan 7:25), and Eve in the garden, threatened by what comes
out of the mouth of the serpent (Rev 12:15; cf. Gen 3:1–7).107 John’s first
readers would certainly have applied these texts to their own experience.
Revelation 13:5
In Revelation 13 the 42 months are associated with the beast from
the sea who utters blasphemies against God, His dwelling place (tēn skēnēn
autou, literally “God’s tabernacle”), and those who live in heaven. He makes
war against the saints and has authority over the whole earth (Rev 13:5–7).
The war against the saints in the context of blasphemy against the heav-
enly tabernacle seems an equivalent of the trampling of the outer court
in Revelation 11:2, although the persecuting nature of this activity is
much clearer in chapter 13.108
Stefanovic points out that blasphemy in the New Testament refers
to the act of claiming equality with God (Matt 26:63–66; John 10:33).109
103
Jon Paulien, Meet God Again For the First Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2003),
45–54.
104
105
Paulien, Meet God Again, 60–65.
106
Based on texts like Psalm 23:5 and 78:19–20. See the literature cited in Beale, The Book of
Revelation, 644.
107
Ibid., 648–650, also sees sanctuary imagery in the wilderness texts of Revelation 12.
108
Beale, The Book of Revelation, 566, acknowledges that Revelation 11:2 and 13:5 refer to the same
period.
109
Stefanovic, 403.
The sea beast functions as part of the “demonic trinity” that seeks to
counterfeit the work of God among the people living on the earth. The
42 months come in the part of Revelation 13 which sets the stage for the
final battle, it is not part of the battle itself. Like the other four occur-
rences of the 1260 days, this too falls into the central period of Christian
history, between the time of Jesus and His disciples and the final battle
portrayed in Revelation 13:8–10, 12–18. As is clearly the case with 12:14,
there is a strong allusion in Revelation 13 to the vision of Daniel 7. The
activities of the sea beast mirror the activities of the little horn after the
fall of the ten horns of the fourth beast.
Although the “fatal wound” of Revelation 13:3 is mentioned before the
42 months, it is more likely at the conclusion of the 42 months (Rev 13:5)
than at the beginning. Verse 5 is actually an elaboration of verse 2, where
the sea beast receives authority (Gk. exousia) from the dragon. The length
of the “authority” given by the dragon is 42 months (Rev 13:5). Since
the sea beast offers a parody of Jesus Christ, it stands to reason that
the beast’s death and resurrection would follow rather than precede a
“ministry” of three and a half years.110 The mix-up in order is consis-
tent with the character of this section (Rev 13:1–7) as an introduction in
past tense, giving a “pedigree” of the sea beast in preparation for its
actions in the final crisis (Rev 13:8–10, 12–18). The events of the past-tense
introduction are clearly not in chronological order.111
Final Reflections
Dealing with the interpretation of the 1260-day period has been a

most interesting process for the author of this study. His findings are
written from the perspective of preserving the best of Adventist heritage
in the context of a new generation. All of the following is subject to dis-
cussion and further refinement, and are designed to provoke and guide
discussion rather than to be prescriptive.
The Traditional Position Is Exegetically Defensible

In this study are a number of elements that support the general valid-
ity of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist understanding:
1) None of the five occurrences of the 1260-day period in Revelation
On the triple parody of dragon, beast, and false prophet, see Jon Paulien, What the Bible Says
110
About the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1994), 109–119.
111
E.g., the “coming out of the sea” (Rev 13:1) is in the context of the dragon’s war of Revelation
12:17 and is, therefore, later than most of what follows. The leopard, bear, and lion (Rev 13:2) are
mentioned in reverse order to their chronological appearance in Daniel 7.
are associated with either the time of Jesus and His disciples or the final
events of earth’s history. All five texts seem to fall into the central part
of the Christian age: the time of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and
the centuries that followed them.
2) All five occurrences of the 1260-day period seem to point to the
same period of time, a period in which key opponents of God attack
His people, and His people are correspondingly protected by God from
total destruction. This position is supported by the best non-Adventist
scholarship.112
3) The fact that the various forms of this time period occur a total
of five times in Revelation and two times in Daniel suggests that this pe-
riod was of pivotal importance to the authors of Daniel and Revelation.
Interpretation of this period is, therefore, not a minor matter in the
exegesis of Revelation.113 Historic Adventist interest in this time period
is not, therefore, misplaced and continued study is appropriate.
4) Given the two-thousand-year length of the Christian era as we
currently know it, understanding these periods in terms of a year-day
principle seems reasonable from the perspective of a belief in predictive
prophecy that includes either complete foreknowledge on God’s part or
at least a limited determinism.
5) At least two of the 1260-day texts (Rev 12:14; 13:5) offer strong allu-
sions to Daniel 7. So Adventist interpretations that rely heavily on Daniel 7
for identifying the enemy actions of the 1260 days have a solid basis for
doing so in the exegesis of Revelation.114 Daniel’s picture of four succes-
sive empires followed by a breakup into ten parts, the destruction of three
of those parts, and the rise of the little horn that oppresses the saints for
a time, times, and half a time is a relevant backdrop to the 1260-day texts
of Revelation.
Areas for Further Research

1) This study has not addressed the biblical, historical, or theologi-
cal validity of the year-day principle, as Seventh-day Adventists have
112
Aune, 609, considers all five 1260-day texts to refer to the same period of time. Beale, The Book
of Revelation, 566, agrees that they are probably the same and reflect attacks on the community
of faith in the course of the “church age.” Beale argues, however, that the period covers the entire
Christian age from the resurrection of Christ to the second coming (Beale, The Book of Revela-
tion, 567).
113
LaRondelle, 238.
114
The author of this study offers some exegetical reflections on Daniel 7 in upcoming publica-
tions based on a lengthy paper entitled “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Prophecy” (presentation,
Biblical Research Institute Committee, Loma Linda University, February 2001).
come to call it, except to note (in number 4 in the previous section) that
the two-thousand-year length of the Christian era is supportive of such
a reading. When the Adventist pioneers first applied the year-day prin-
ciple to Revelation, there was a great deal of social support for them to
do so. This stance was inherited from Protestant forebears like William
Miller. But in the aftermath of the Millerite movement and the Great
Disappointment, scholarship in general discarded both historicism and
the year-day principle.115 So a fresh investigation into the biblical basis for
the year-day principle is needed, and would make an excellent prequel
or sequel to this study.
Such a study should begin with an examination of everything
LeRoy Edwin Froom says about the year-day principle. In his nearly
four thousand pages on the development of prophetic interpretation, there
are hundreds of observations that set a basic outline of how the year-day
principle was discovered and developed. A review of the primary sourc-
es can sharpen one’s understanding of the arguments that convinced the
advocates of the year-day principle to adopt that position. A review of
the current literature, both positive and negative, could set the context
for a fresh look at the biblical evidence.
2) The history related to the rise and fall of the medieval papacy is
less and less understood in the current generation. A fresh look at the
historical context for the beginning and ending of the 1260 years should
be undertaken by experts in the history of the early medieval period
of Europe and the Europe of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
A brief work by Heinz Scheidinger and the massive work of lay scholar
Edwin de Kock would be two starting points in the direction of this
proposal.
3) While biblical and historical work is needed in regard to the year-
day principle, it is important to remember that the Adventist pioneers
did not approach this topic primarily from an exegesis of the biblical
texts, but rather from a broad-based systematic approach that embedded
the biblical evidence in an overarching philosophy of history, grounded
in God’s foreknowledge, His workings, and His predictive capability.
The biblical and historical evidence were only a part of that approach.
Gaps in one place are filled with information from other places. While
such an approach may need tweaking in light of the limitations of a
postmodern audience, it should not be lightly discarded. The evidence
of Scripture and history was filtered through a grand, comprehensive
115
Arasola, End of Historicism.
scheme that transcended the parts. Theology is not limited to the evidence
of Scripture but seeks to understand God’s hand in history and in later
revelation.
Conclusion
This study contains an exegetical overview of the 1260-day texts in

the book of Revelation. The exegesis concludes that basic aspects of tra-
ditional Adventist interpretation of these texts can be defended from the
text. In recent years, Seventh-day Adventist scholarship on prophetic
texts has been largely ignored by mainstream scholarship. But Adventist
positions are not as weak as scholarship has sometimes assumed. It may
be time for a paradigm shift in the study of Revelation, from a schol-
arly focus on preterist or futurist views to a fresh exploration of what
Revelation might have to say to Christian history as a whole.
Adventists themselves also have much they can learn in this area. The
exegetical and theological perspectives of mainstream scholarship can
provide fresh windows into aspects of Scripture, which we may have
overlooked in the past.116 A fresh look at history, the Scriptures, and theol-
ogy can reinvigorate a historicist approach with its focus on the year-day
principle. The author of this study intends to follow up this biblical
study with a historical review of the grounds upon which the year-day
principle was developed and promoted in the course of Christian history,
with particular focus from the eighteenth century through today. Truth
has no fear of investigation; it can afford to be fair.
116
Acts 15 is a good example of how experience and the guidance of the Spirit can lead the church
to see Scripture in a fresh way.
CHAPTER 17
The Apocalypse And Ethics:

Eschatology And Moral
Imagination In the Book
Of Revelation
Larry L. Lichtenwalter
Few texts excite the moral imagination like Revelation. Its reading is
never ethically neutral;1 in fact, the book’s ultimate aim is ethical.2 It leav-
ens political, moral, religious, and ethical vision and action, inspiring and
urging personal moral response. Its ethic comes as an imperative. Es-
chatology and ethics interweave throughout Revelation—an organic and
dynamic link that informs Scripture’s ultimate moral and spiritual vision,
as well as its urgent appeal. Together they offer a worldview that serves
as a backdrop against which various moral themes unfold. The image
of the future brings value to the present.3
To date, however, there has been no developed “ethic” per se of the
book of Revelation—that is, nothing comprehensive, and no extended
discussion.4 Rather, one finds brief summaries in surveys of biblical or
New Testament ethics; a smattering of journal articles, scholarly papers,
1
The history of ethical reflection on the implications of Revelation’s eschatology reflects how
powerfully dangerous its words and imagery can be.
2
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall
and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 184.
3
Carl E. Braaten, Eschatology and Ethics: Essays on the Theology and Ethics of the Kingdom of God
(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1974), 52.
4
Beate Kowalski, “Trade and Economy: Reflections on Social Ethics in the Revelation of John,” in
New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 421.
and essays published in studies dealing with given moral issues; and a
few books focusing on specific ethical themes and/or approaches. But
there is no consistent method that yields a comprehensive ethic.
This study offers a hermeneutic through which one can identify
and explore Revelation’s moral themes. It provides a methodology and
reading complementary to the theological, ideological, evangelistic, and
sometimes doctrinal/social themes of other literature. It opens a way
for fresh dialogue on Revelation’s moral vision. It contributes to the dis-
cussion of the organic link between biblical eschatology and ethics.
This study is divided into two parts: hermeneutics and moral themes.
The hermeneutical questions include: How does Revelation cast moral
vision? How can its moral themes be measured? What methodology
facilitates reliable evaluation of those themes? This study looks for an
evident internal framework—a context for ethical reflection that the
book’s worldview might provide—as well as broad interpretive keys
to which the book itself might give clue. This study suggests a method-
ology as well as an integrating context in which moral imagery unfolds
within the book’s narrative. These hermeneutical concerns are then
followed by the contours of the book’s moral content, themes, and
ethic—both tacit and explicit: What are they? How are they nuanced?
How do they integrate and cohere toward an overarching eschatological
moral vision?
This approach draws the varied aspects of Revelation’s moral vision
into a coherent whole, such that universal, unchanging, and timeless
moral principles might be traced. The task of this study will largely be
descriptive ethics (tracing what Revelation’s ethic is), but will also be
normative ethics, in that it comes from the eternal Christ who still
challenges us ethically today (Rev 1:17; 2:23; 22:11–14).
Approaching Revelation’s Moral Vision
Revelation uses neither the word “ethics” nor “moral.” These are
philosophical rather than biblical categories of expression. Nor does
Revelation explicitly link eschatology with its moral themes. And yet,
the book is interested in moral life in light of eternity and uses a rich
vocabulary and imagery that convey these crucial concepts (“deeds,”
“keep,” “hear,” “holy,” “true,” “faithful,” “pure,” “white,” “just,” “judg-
ment,” “righteous,” “unclean,” “liars,” “immoral,” “murderers,” “adul-
tery,” “books,” etc.).5 Additionally, it unfolds relevant principles as well as
5
For the list of ethical vocabulary of Revelation, see Kowalski, 421–425.
Eschatology and Moral Imagination in the Book of Revelation 325
values and commands, which reflect authentic human realities of being

and action in regard to key areas of moral life. Many of these, however, are
assumed, indirect, and tacit. The varied nature of Revelation’s literature—
its form and content, subtle allusions and rhetoric, narrative and com-
mentary, appeal and warning—challenges our understanding of its real
meanings regarding the human phenomenon and moral vision. For the
attentive reader, however, it opens windows into multifaceted realities
of human nature and moral being, which in turn cast an eschatological
moral vision. Revelation simply does not employ our modern ethical
terms to convey such.
Likewise, there is no textbook system of ethics—no organized pre-
sentation of either ethical issues or moral practice. There is a system,
however, to the book’s moral vision and the way its moral vision is con-
veyed. This study explores Revelation’s moral vision by following its
own frame of moral thought and terminology, so that any systematic
way of tackling these issues flows from within the book’s own patterns
and themes, rather than being unnaturally imposed on it. The aim is for
Revelation to not only reveal which of its themes invite ethical reflec-
tion, but to hint at which passages purposefully yield the best content for
such reflection (and their degree of importance). The purpose of this
study is to have a clear sense that what we identify, explore, nuance, group,
and organize indeed reflects Revelation’s eschatologically framed moral
vision and ethic.
Interpretive Keys: The Beginning and the End

The proposed ethical method of this study follows the implications
of Revelation’s most basic literary structure and narrative character—
a story (comprised of three interrelated stories) with an introduction
and conclusion.6 The threefold narrative unfolds with an intriguing cast
of characters, an engaging plot, and a defining Christocentric world-
view—that is, a philosophy of history.7 Like any well-written narrative,
Revelation’s introduction (1:1–8) and conclusion (22:6–21) are instruc-
tive. John constructs his conclusion as a deliberate parallel to his intro-
duction, to summarize the key themes of the whole book.8 These allusive
6
See Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed.
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 40.
7
David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Santa Rosa,
CA: Polebridge, 1998), 1–24 and Barr, “The Story John Told: Reading Revelation for its Plot,” in
Reading the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students, ed. David L. Barr (Atlanta, GA: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2003), 11–23.
8
Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 778.
verses offer a tacit ethical agenda for the whole book, which facilitates
both its theological and ethical intent.9 If we would connect with the
book’s moral vision, we must be attentive to how it begins and ends.
In addition, two evocative transitional passages, Revelation 3:2110
and 11:15–19,11 thread12 Revelation’s three narratives together into an in-
terconnected whole. These connective passages not only encapsulate the
theological/moral heart of each narrative as it concludes, but signal
important theological/moral themes to be developed more fully in the
next. They look both forward and backward: one of Revelation’s recur-
ring literary patterns is an introduction to a passage that is embedded
in a conclusion of the preceding one. To notice this is to find the
author’s own explanation of what follows hidden in what precedes.13 This
hermeneutic identifies Revelation’s moral themes from within its own
structure and unfolding narrative(s).
9
Osborne, Revelation, 57 and Beale, Book of Revelation, 184.
10
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame
and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev 3:21). Overcoming is a major theme, as per the
promises in John’s letters to the seven churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). It is also a theme in
each one of Revelation’s story sections—2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 6:2; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7—and
developed ethically in chapter 5 (Rev 5:5). See Beale, Book of Revelation, 312; Richard Bauckham,
The Theology of the Book of Revelation, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999), 77; and Stefanovic, 164–165.
11
Revelation 11:15–19 provides an interpretive outline of moral and theological issues for the en-
tire second half of the book (third narrative). The five assertions of verse 18 each find a crucial
turning point in the last half of the book: “the nations were angry” (Rev 12:17; cf. 13, 14), “your
wrath came (Rev 15:1; cf. 15–18), “the time to judge the dead” (Rev 20:12; cf. 20), “the time for
rewarding” (Rev 22:12; cf. 21–22), and “destroying those who destroy” (Rev 19:2; cf. 19:19). See Jon
Paulien, What the Bible Says About the End Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1994),
106. Three additional moral images are nuanced: Revelation 11:19 introduces the covenant motif
(“the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple”); Revelation 11:16–17 returns to the subject of
worship begun in chapter 4 and which sits at the heart of chapters 12–15. The moral right of God’s
sovereign reign is also announced (Rev 11:15, 17; cf. 15:3–4; 19:1–5). Each of these eight concepts
encapsulates the heart of important moral themes found in the second story as it draws to a
close and signals similar upcoming issues in the third and final half of the book: anger of na-
tions, wrath of God, judgment, justice, reward, covenant (commands and faithfulness), worship,
and reign of God. The symbolic imagery of 11:15–19 unquestionably elicits a particular evocative
impact. See Craig S. Keener, Revelation, NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 306–307 and Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, ed. F. F.
Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 233.
12
While researchers identify several of the book’s transitional passages (Rev 1:9; 3:21; 6:9–10;
11:15–19; 12:17; 15:1–4; 17:1–6; 21:1–8), our focus is on the two transitions that thread our three
stories together.
Jon Paulien, The Deep Things of God (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2004), 115; Paulien,
13
What the Bible Says, 105–106; and Stefanovic, 27.

The methodological importance of this simple narrative structure is

that we find several of Revelation’s moral themes introduced and or re-
iterated primarily in the introduction, conclusion, and key transitional
passages between the book’s three narratives. In other words, the intro-
duction, conclusion, and transitional passages posit the moral purpose
and ethical content of the narrative(s).
The moral imagery of Revelation’s narrative character is further nu-
anced through its hymns and sanctuary visions. It is hermeneutically
significant that doxology is a prevailing context for unfolding Revelation’s
theological and moral themes.14 Doxology nuances questions related to
divine character, being, and justice—theodicy.15 Likewise, the book’s
sanctuary motif typologically nuances moral themes through its intro-
ductory sanctuary scenes. The heavenly temple is seen as the center of all
divine activities, including assertions of divine character, moral com-
mentary on Babylon, the final judgment, and Jerusalem’s insiders and
outsiders. Complementary to its redemptive framework, the sanctu-
ary “has cosmic implications and the work performed therein affects the
entire cosmos in the context of the controversy between good and
evil.”16 John’s own encounter with sanctuary realities leaves him lifeless
before the book’s High Priest (Rev 1:9–20).
Finally, Revelation is unique for its incredibly interwoven structure.
The key to moral material at one end of the book may often be found at
the opposite end, or at its “seams,” or even in the narratives themselves.
The immediate context and moral significance of any passage may be as
broad as the entire book.17
Casting Moral Vision

In addition to the foregoing, Revelation communicates moral vision
across varying modes of conceptual imagery.18
14
Revelation 1:5–6; 4:8, 11; 5:9–10, 12, 13–14; 7:9–12; 11:17; 12:10–12; 15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–7. See David
E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, Word Biblical Commentary 52A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1997), 315 and Mark
Krause, “The Seven Hymns of Revelation 4, 5 and 7,” Leaven 17, no. 4 (2009): 177–183.
15
Doxology and theodicy are organically linked in Revelation. Doxology is the context or frame-
work in which theodicy issues are voiced.
16
Elias Brasil de Souza, “Sanctuary: Cosmos, Covenant, Creation,” Journal of the Adventist Theo-
logical Society 24, no. 1 (2013): 41. See also Ikechukwu Michael Oluikpe, “The Heavenly Sanctuary
in the Book of Revelation,” Perspective Digest 17, no. 1 (2017).
17
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R, 2001), 3 and John Paulien, “Interpreting Revelation’s Symbolism,” in Symposium on Rev-
elation—Book I, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Re-
search Institute 1992), 83.
18
Miroslav Kiš, “Biblical Narrative and Christian Decision,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
1. Worldview: as reflected in Revelation’s confession of God as Cre-

ator and the cosmic war that impacts the human condition and
choice (Rev 4:11; 5:13; 10:5–6; 14:7; 12:1–22:5).
2. Principles: universal, unchanging, and timeless, as exemplified in
themes of holiness, righteousness, justice, judgment, truthfulness,
and covenant faithfulness (Rev 4:8; 5:3–4; 21:27; 22:11, 15; 11:18–19.
3. Rules of action: as per the covenant commandments of God
(Rev 12:17; 14:12; cf. 9:20–21), moral action in messages to the
churches, the book’s worship motif, and appeal to keep the words
of the prophecy (Rev 2:14, 20–21, 26; 9:20–21; 21:8, 27; 22:15;
cf. 22:11; 2:23; 1:3; 22:9).
4. Normative narratives: as per Revelation’s narrative character,
sub-narratives, and embedded interpretive narratives (inter-
ludes of seals, trumpets, plagues, and cosmic war). Characters,
plot, and caricature of characters within narratives inform mor-
al imagination, in keeping with its biblical worldview’s timeless,
unchanging, universal values and principles.19
Divine character and action: as reflected in who God is in His per-

son and character, along with how God acts within the cosmic conflict
(Rev 4:8, 11; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:4–7; 19:1–6). God’s character and action
are morally paradigmatic. There are no independent ethical universals.
God is the referent. Theodicy unfolds moral issues in relation to God.
Values: as per a world absorbed with buying and selling (Rev 18:1–24),
critical choices between alternatives (beast/Lamb, true/false wor-
ship, Babylon/Holy City, seal of God/ Mark of beast, insiders/outsid-
ers of new Jerusalem), and an invitation for those who so desire to come
(Rev 13:1–14:20; 17:1–18:21; 21:1–22:5; 11, 17; 21:8, 21; 22:14–15).
Trajectory: as presaged in Babylon’s fall, the final judgment of evil pow-
ers and sinners, redemptive re-creation, access to the tree of life and the
Holy City with its “insiders and outsiders” (Rev 14:8; 16:1–20:15; 21:1–8,
27; 22:14–15). Its moral vision pushes in a particular direction through
history and eternity. Eschatology informs moral imagination.
Society 9, nos. 1–2 (1998): 24–31; James M. Gustafson, “The Place of Scripture in Christian Eth-
ics: A Methodological Study,” Interpretation (1970): 431; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of
the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco, CA:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 208–209; and Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Living Under the Word: The
Pragmatic Task of Moral Vision, Formation, and Action,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 9, nos. 1–2 (1998): 96–113.
19
See Kiš, 27–28.
Hymns/doxology: as per its introductory doxology (Rev 1:5–6), paeans

of praiseful worship in heaven (Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9–10, 12–13), the anguished
cry of theodicy by souls under the altar (Rev 6:10), the redeemed and
angels ascribing salvation to God alone (Rev 7:9–12), and celebrations
of God’s righteous acts of judgment/redemption in history (Rev 15:3, 4;
16:4–7; 19:1–7). Doxological hymns bring moral commentary on real-
ity, engage the heart and imagination, and have a constitutive nature—
effecting moral alignment with God’s character and purposes.20
Rhetoric: as evidenced in the book’s evocative use of language that
elicits moral perception and response. Rhetoric is its powerful instru-
ment of persuasion. The combination of bizarre symbols, familiar words
arranged in unexpected rhythms, images juxtaposed unexpectedly and
artistically, and artful narrative plot is the key to the moral power of
its rhetoric.21 The book unabashedly expresses a moral stance.
Referential language: as per its multiple Old Testament allusions.
Words, images, phrases, stories, events, history, and patterns from
Scriptural past are used as a language arsenal to express theological and
moral vision.22 Various kinds of referents have been observed and ex-
plored for their theological and interpretive import—citations, quotations,
allusions, echoes, verbal parallels, thematic parallels, structural paral-
lels, etc.23 This assumes recognizable realities (entities, events, values,
ethics). It asserts that the moral issues we face today have not changed
because human nature and God’s character have remained constant.24
20
For a discussion of Revelation’s hymns, see Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Worship, Eschatology,
and Ethics: The Revelation of John and the Worshiping Imagination,” in Meeting With God On
The Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI:
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Society, 2016), 465–501.
21
This study does not adopt rhetorical theory/criticism as its mode of moral analysis, but rec-
ognizes its interpretive import for ethics as one of the modes of moral discourse the book uses.
See David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009); Edith M. Humphrey, “In Search of a Voice: Rhetoric
Through Sight and Sound in Revelation 11:15–12:17,” in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Di-
mensions of Apocalyptic Discourse, ed. Greg Carey (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 1999), 141–160; and
Greg Carey, “Introduction: Apocalyptic Discourse, Apocalyptic Rhetoric,” in Carey, Vision and
Persuasion, 1–17.
22
According to Kendell H. Easley, Revelation, ed. Max Anders (Nashville, TN: Broadman and
Holman, 1998), 2, images from Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah
dominate, but parallels or allusions to most other Old Testament books are likewise observable.
23
Beale, Book of Revelation, 76–99; Osborne, Revelation, 25–27; Jon Paulien, “Criteria and the
Assessment of Allusions to the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,” in Studies in the Book of
Revelation, ed. Steven Moyise (New York: T&T Clark, 2001), 113–129; and Steve Moyise, The Old
Testament in the New: An Introduction, ed. Steve Moyise (New York: Continuum, 2001), 117–127.
24
Keener, Revelation, 40.
A future unfolds that very much resembles the past. One may observe
the same relationships of cause and consequences that have been at
work throughout God’s dealings with humanity.25 Moral truths and val-
ues links ethics to history and to the concrete acts, incidences, and ex-
periences that have taken place within history. The moral issues raised
are true to life and concrete in their import, even when used illustra-
tively or typologically within an eschatological paradigm. The artful use
of Old Testament allusions is integral to the larger scheme of evocative
rhetoric that gives voice to Revelation’s theological and moral vision.26
This diversity of conceptual imagery reflects the comprehensive
way in which Revelation communicates moral vision. The question of
wending our way through this differing conceptual imagery is impor-
tant.27 We must respect the particularity of the forms through which
Revelation lays claim upon us and stirs our moral imagination. We need
to accept each of these modes and develop skills necessary to respond
to Revelation’s ethical voice in each.28
Integrative Macro-Hermeneutical Realities
The foregoing ways in which Revelation communicates moral vi-

sion enables us to trace the metaphysical context in which Revelation
frames human existence, in which moral issues arise and are reflect-
ed upon, and in which action takes place. Ethics needs a worldview
context. And so, we ask macro-hermeneutical questions regarding
Revelation’s worldview—about the conceptual canvas on which
Revelation’s moral vision is painted, the perspective through which
we interpret the book’s moral vision and frame ethical discussion, the
moral context in which ethical discussion can rightly take place,
and the ethical bases or presuppositions that nuance how we handle
Revelation’s moral themes.
Revelation’s Worldview
Worldviews comprise three essential and interrelated character-
istics: narrative, rational (theology, philosophy), and ritual (symbolic,
25
David A. deSilva, “Final Topics: The Rhetorical Functions of Intertexture in Revelation 14:14–
16:21,” in The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson
(Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 240.
26
Ibid.
27
Lichtenwalter, “Living Under the Word,” 108–110.
28
Hays, 294.
cultural) components.29 Each component affects moral formation. Each

is observable in the book of Revelation.30 Additionally, the book’s apoc-
alyptic imagery is critical to the understanding of its worldview.31 Its
apocalyptic narrative, logic, and ritual take the reader out of the world
in order to see it differently—behind the scenes of history to see what
is really going on in the events of time and place, and into the final future
to see the present from the perspective of its final outcome in God’s
ultimate purpose for human history. It portrays earthly events as only
part of a cosmic drama. It wrestles with theodicy.
Furthermore, Revelation narrates a warfare worldview (Rev 4:1–5:13;
14:6–7; 18:1–5). It reveals that everyone’s worldview is questioned or at
stake—either shifted, abandoned, or held on to firmly. The worldview
of every human being is to be challenged and/or transformed via the
proclamation of the eternal gospel (Rev 14:6–13). Worldview shift with-
in Revelation via the three angels’ messages is significant as it integrates
identity, theology, ethics, purpose (service/mission), and everyday life.32
Revelation invites the reader to enter its world, assuring us that
what it says about God, human beings, the world, and ethics is in fact
both true and God given (Rev 1:1; 21:5; 22:6, 18–19). We are to enter
this narrative vision to reimagine our world, thus finding a context for
renewed moral reflection and action.33 Narrative, logic, ritual, and apoca-
lyptic together finesse a vision of reality.
Revelation’s Worldview Themes

While various worldview themes of Revelation are identifiable, they
can be pared down to core narrative truths that address the reader ratio-
nally, existentially, culturally, and ethically.
The Triune God

Revelation’s worldview implies the objective existence of the tri-
une God (a personal and profoundly unified threesome), whose essen-
tial character establishes the moral order of the universe and whose
Dennis P. Hollinger, Choosing The Good: Christian Ethics in a Complex World (Grand Rapids,
29
MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 63–64.

30
See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Worldview Transformation and Mission: Narrative, Theology,
and Ritual in John’s Apocalypse,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 21, nos. 1–2 (2010):
223–229.
31
Bauckham, Theology, 7.
32
See Lichtenwalter, “Worldview Transformation and Mission,” 211–244.
33
See Hays, 181–185.
character, word, and commands define and govern all aspects of created
existence (Rev 1:4–6; 4:1–5:14; 14:6–13; 22:1–17).34 Theology, Christology,
and pneumatology converge, yielding powerful worldview implications.
Christology is central to this triune vision. Therein Christ dominates
reality.35 The book’s throne room vision (Rev 4–5) points to the eternal
relations and mutuality between the Father, Son, and Spirit.36 It asserts
that God is sovereign King, holy Creator, righteous, just, and gracious;
He is the one who assures and brings hope.37 Ultimate values, power, and
trajectory unfold. It is a distinctive New Testament contribution to the
doctrine of God.38
Divine Creation/Redemptive Re-Creation

Revelation reveals a vibrant and sustained confession of God as
Creator (Rev 4:11; cf. 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5; 21:6). It presupposes the
Genesis creation narrative and posits the overarching worldview that
“the whole of finite reality exists by God the Creator’s gift of existence.”39
The Creator God is personal. His creation reflects moral realities: it is
good; it is a moral act.40 As Creator, God is the sovereign Lord of his-
tory.41 As such, God is anticipated as the source of new possibilities for
His creation and the future of humanity (Rev 21:1–5).42 There is es-
chatological renewal of creation—not its replacement by another. The
connection between creation and redemptive re-creation highlights
the cosmic scope of Revelation’s eschatological horizon, within which
its primary concern with the human world is set.43 There is a basis for
34
Edwin Reynolds, “The Trinity in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 17, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 55–72.
35
Stefanovic, 56; Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John & the Praying
Imagination (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 26–28; and John R. Stott, The In-
comparable Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 173.
36
Malcolm B. Yarnell, God the Trinity: Biblical Portraits (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman,
2016), 217.
37
See Laszlo Gallusz, The Throne Motif in the Book of Revelation, ed. Mark Goodacre (New York:
Bloomsbury, 2014), 301–315.
38
39
Ibid., 50.
40
Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Creation and Apocalypse,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
15, no. 1 (2004): 131–134.
41
42
Revelation 20:1–21:5. Ibid., 49.
43
Ibid., 50.
worship and the foundation for moral life,44 and motivation for people
to worship the Creator instead of creation.45
Human Nature
Revelation’s creation motif inevitably touches human reality.46 Human
living is not meaningless. Human beings have a certain future because
God is the one who created them, who will make all things new again
(Rev 4:11; 21:1–7). Additionally, the book’s cosmic conflict narrative
enables a view of human beings and human nature from several unique
vantage points.47 This includes anthropology, which touches the hu-
man phenomenon in its entirety: the physical, personal, social, spiritual,
moral, psychological, emotional, cultural, historical consciousness,
worldviews, and matters of the body/soul. Man’s fallen nature and its im-
plications for human experience and existence likewise come into view.
Human equality is assumed and an essential part of human creation
(Rev 7:9; 11:18; 13:16; 14:6; 19:5, 18; 20:12). Slavery and human traffick-
ing are reasons for divine judgment (Rev 18:13). The cosmic conflict
reaches beyond global dimensions with its burdened question of theodicy
and into the individual human heart and condition itself.48
Ethics True to Life

Through its redemptive re-creation, “tree of life,” and Holy City “insider
and outsider” imagery, Revelation asserts an ethic that is consistent with
human existence and life as created by God (Rev 22:2, 14–15; 21:8, 25, 27).
The allusion to Eden in the original creation is intentional.49 The para-
dise home is paradigmatic, as is its ethos and ethic.50 That there are those
who have authority to enter the city and those who will forever be out-
side reveals tacit moral values and an ethical trajectory. The moral vision,
which the tree of life casts, is not mere physical existence, but life in the
Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown,
44
MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 126.

45
46
Lichtenwalter, “Creation and Apocalypse,” 134–136.
47
48
See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “‘Souls Under the Altar’: The ‘Soul’ and Related Anthropological
Imagery in John’s Apocalypse,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 26, no. 1 (2015): 57–93.
49
J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 171–172.
50
William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 219–228.
true sense (Prov 8:35–36; cf. 11:30; 15:4; 3:18).51 The metaphors of the tree
of life and entering the city emerge as an icon not only of blessing, but
also of moral orientation and choice.
Sin and Fallen Human Nature

Revelation’s worldview asserts that the catastrophic effects of sin on
the human heart and mind result in the fabrication of opposing world-
views and idolatrous belief systems to replace God.52 The personal and
societal extent of this “fallenness” unfold in the book’s allusion to the
Genesis flood story (Rev 11:18, a transitional passage).53 The moral
world of the flood is paradigmatic. Every aspect of humanity has been
affected by sin.54 The book’s creation/redemptive re-creation theme
affirms that God did not intend the world to be as we find it. This
worldview reality compromises the underlying spiritual/moral context
within which ethical thought, choice, and action take place. As a con-
sequence, ethical reflection will always have to ask, to what extent can
the ultimate intention of God for creation be realized under the present
conditions?55
Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil

Revelation narrates the engagement of the human race in cosmic spiri-
tual warfare in which the truth about reality and the meaning of life is at
stake (Rev 12:1–17). This warfare worldview comprises the book’s under-
current. The geography of this cosmic conflict includes the human heart.
The major significance of this cosmic conflict theme in the structure and
theology of Revelation is well attested.56 Chapter 12 provides the book’s
literary center, explaining how this horrendous war came about.57 It both
Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 21:1–8, 27; 22:14–15; cf. 9:20–21. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta,
51
GA: John Knox, 1982), 45.

52
Revelation 1:5; 2:13; 3:21; 9:20–21; 11:18–19; 16:9, 11; 18:4–5; 21:15; 22:8, 11; cf. Gen 6:11–17; 19:1–29.
53
54
Revelation characterizes the essential nature of human “fallenness” as sin. See Mal Couch, ed., A
Bible Handbook to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001), 142; and Aune, Revelation 1–5, 47.
55
Miroslav Volf, “Eschaton, Creation, and Social Ethics,” Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 1
(1995): 138.
56
See Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula, MT: Scholars,
1976), 231; Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in
the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation (New York: T&T Clark, 2006); Richard Bauckham, The Cli-
max of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993); and Gallusz,
319–324.
57
According to Revelation’s chiastic structure, chapter 12 is the center of the book. See Stefanovic,
opens the last major section of the book and establishes Revelation’s
core theme: the war between God/His people and the dragon/his people,
and between the Lamb and the beast/dragon, or false prophet.58 It indi-
cates that what takes place on earth is just a part of what transpires on a
cosmic scale. This cosmic conflict is the backdrop for the existence and
nature of evil, human choice, and moral accountability, as well as di-
vine character and action (Rev 12–14). It is the major dimension of the
ultimate canvas against which everything within Revelation’s narrative
is to be painted and understood.59 This warfare worldview informs the
moral quest in profound ways. It tells us that human beings live at the in-
tersection of two opposing moral/spiritual realms and there is no neutral
ground.60 There is no need to locate a good, loving purpose behind
evil events.61 God does not micromanage His creation with its mor-
al creatures. In no sense does He will evil. God works with and battles
against intelligent beings and the decisions they make.62 This cos-
mic conflict provides the context for one of the book’s prevailing moral
themes: overcoming, which is seen as a victory of one’s whole life.63
Temporal Reality
A compelling philosophy of history unfolds in Revelation, with past,
present, and future aspects of history intertwined throughout its mes-
sage.64 It encompasses the entire scope of human time and history. It
locates the fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy within the flow of human
history.65 Time and history are the sphere in which human beings live.
385 and David M. May, Revelation: Weaving a Tapestry of Hope (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys,
2001), 81, 92.
58
Osborne, Revelation, 454 and Stefanovic, 404–406. As Easley, 216; and Joseph R. Jeter, “Revela-
tion-Based Preaching: Homiletical Approaches,” in Preaching Through The Apocalypse: Sermons
from Revelation, ed. Cornish R. Rogers and Joseph R. Jetter (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 1992), 27,
indicate, no chapter of the Bible has a broader or more timeless, yet grounded in history, sweep
than this one.
59
Gallusz, 321. See also Tonstad, xv, xvi, 159–193.
60
Osborne, Revelation, 265.
61
Gregory A. Boyd, God At War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
sity, 1997), 20.
62
Ibid.
63
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 5:5; 11:7; 12:11; 13:7; 21:7. Beale, Book of Revelation, 271.
64
Osborne, Revelation, 97; Stefanovic, 98, 103; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, ed. Kenneth
Barker (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1992), 115; and Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1952), 173.
65
See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, Revelation’s Great Love Story: More Than I Ever Imagined (Hager-
stown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), 65–70.
History is the arena of God’s activity in human affairs. We are assured

that earth matters,66 that time matters,67 and that history matters (the
chronicle/story of what happens, the when, and the why).68 Thus, the
book’s concern with human history is central to its moral vision.69 Here,
the temporal dimension of Revelation’s worldview nuances human
historical consciousness—that is, that human beings cannot define the
meaning of existence, except in terms of the past, present, and future.70
Moral and spiritual realities of human beings have to do with both what
we do in time as well as whom we choose to be in time. For better or
worse, our own actions have historical consequences for which we are
morally accountable. This temporal nature of reality provides the con-
text for moral accountability and ultimate judgment according to one’s
character and works.71 Furthermore, there is sacred time (the Lord’s Day/
Sabbath)72 and prophetic time.73 Christ’s substitutionary death is the
turning point of salvation history74—an urgent appeal in light of the
eschaton.75 Ultimately, the book asserts that God is eternal rather than
timeless,76 nuancing the moral implications of the book’s ontology, epis-
temology, and metaphysics.
Spatial Reality
Through its heavenly sanctuary imagery, Revelation highlights the
link between heaven and earth, providing perceptions of spatial reality,
history, and proximity of the divine, demonic, and human interaction.
It nuances an incredible interplay of spatial and temporal dimensions
66
Revelation 1:4; 2:1–3:22; 2:13; 14:6.
67
Revelation 1:1, 3, 19; 4:1; 12:1–17.
68
Lichtenwalter, Revelation’s Great Love Story, 65–70.
69
Gallusz, 315. See Gallusz’s discussion of Revelation’s throne motif and the question of history
in ibid., 15–27.
70
V. Norskov Olsen, Man, The Image of God: The Divine Design—The Human Distortion (Hag-
erstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988), 123. See Lichtenwalter, “Souls Under the Altar,” 87–90.
71
Revelation 14:6, 7; 20:11–15; 22:10–12.
72
Revelation 1:10; 12:17; 14:12. See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “The Seventh-day Sabbath and Sabbath
Theology in the Book of Revelation: Creation, Covenant, Sign,” Andrews University Seminary
Studies 49, no. 2 (2011): 285–320.
73
Revelation 10:6–7; 11:2–3; 12:6, 14.
74
Revelation 12:10–13. Gallusz, 313, writes, “The significance of the book’s theology of cross is
highlighted by the fact that death is the only act of the earthly Jesus mentioned in the book.”
75
Revelation 16:15; 18:4; 22:7, 10–12, 17, 20.
76
Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 22:13.
of transcendent reality. It assures us that there is no radical discontinu-

ity between God and our world (spatial transcendence) or this age and
the age to come (temporal transcendence).77 Another supernatural world
exists—a reality in which God and heavenly beings are present and
active in both the cosmic and terrestrial spheres. There, too, the demonic
exists and engages humanity. Profound moral realities unfold. There is
sacred space (Rev 4:1–5:13; 11:19; 14:1–5; 15:1–8; 22:1–5).
Atoning and Empowering Grace

Revelation begins and ends with grace (Rev 1:4; 22:21). While grace
appears only twice in the book, it forms a literary inclusio, which nu-
ances the book’s interpretation.78 Divine grace provides an “already
and not yet” scope to human life, as well as the ground of moral action
and victory.79 Here eschatology and ethics interlink and forcefully nu-
ance an eschatological ethic. A vision unfolds of God’s character of love
and saving power in the Lamb’s decisive victory.80 It narrates the gracious
in-breaking of the kingdom of God into human history in the person
and work of the resurrected, exalted, glorified Jesus Christ, who atones
for sin through His own blood, defeats the powers of darkness, and en-
ables those who believe in Him to experience redemption in the pres-
ent age and in the redemptive re-creation. Divine grace thus provides
atoning help and moral empowerment.81 Substitutionary atonement
factors largely in the picture of redemption and release from sin and
the fallen world.82 It is a worldview that affirms that Jesus loves us,83 that
Jesus has adequately cared for the sin problem through His substitu-
tionary death,84 that Jesus has set us in a new position in the world as
77
Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990), 63–64. Spatial include a linked universe of heaven, earth, sea, and abyss
(Rev 5:13; 9:11; 10:6; 11:7; 12:12; 17:8; 20:1, 3).
78
Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Grace to You,” Adventist Review, April 30, 2017, 19–22 and Gallusz, 312.
See Lichtenwalter, Revelation’s Great Love Story, 9–17.
79
Revelation 1:4–5; 7:14; 12:10–11; 19:7–8; 22:21. See Lichtenwalter, “Worship, Eschatology, and
Ethics,” 476–478.
80
Gallusz, 313.
81
Revelation 1:5–6; 5:9–10; 6:9–11; 8:3–4; 12:17; 14:12; cf. 7:9–15; 14:1–5. Lichtenwalter, “Grace To
You,” 19–22.
82
Revelation 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:10–11; 17:14; 22:14.
83
Revelation 1:5; cf. 3:9, 19.
84
The Lamb’s blood releases us from the bondage of sin (Rev 1:5). It pays the debt of sin before
God with merits beyond which we could ever imagine (Rev 5:9; 8:2–3). It cleanses us deep within
from moral/spiritual defilement so as to stand before the throne of a holy God (Rev 7:9–10,
kings and priests who have spiritual power and influence (Rev 1:6; 5:10),
that Jesus is victor over all and determines the final outcome of human
history (Rev 5:1–8:1), and that Jesus will come again.85 While divine grace
inspires and empowers human moral agency, it is the work of God to
which human beings as free moral agents respond (Rev 7:10, 15; 12:11;
14:1–5; 15:1–4).
Final Consummation
Revelation’s vision of a new heaven and new earth, with evil finally
vanquished, celebrates the victory of God in covenant faithfulness to His
creation (Rev 20:1–22:5). Resurrection life. Satan destroyed. Sin and the
sin-hardened removed. Moral accountability and justice of final judg-
ment. A new heaven and a new earth. Face to face communion with God.
City insiders and outsiders. Eternal peace. No more sea, tears, death,
morning, crying or pain. But yet now opportunity to experience it all
still open.86 No other passage in Scripture depicts a greater statement
about the end of one kind of moral existence and the beginning of a
new one.87 This consummation vision casts an enduring and compelling
moral horizon. Here, eschatology emboldens moral imagination. This
“moral horizon” provides a conceptual canvas on which tacit and ex-
plicit moral themes and values are painted. It unfolds a moral/spiritual
metaphysical context that frames human existence, being/doing, and
moral responsibility. It highlights the book’s agenda in our query after
its ethics.
The foregoing integrative worldview themes are the principal con-
text for moral imagination in the book of Revelation. They provide a
philosophical framework for ethical reflection and responsibility. They
invite priority in our thinking and ethical method. They do so on the
macro-hermeneutical level, reflecting the book’s metaphysics, ontology,
and epistemology. Through them, Revelation demonstrates an incredible
diversity and comprehensiveness, which enables it to cast its moral vision
across the spectrum of human life, thought, and experience. Through this
method, connecting with it will be a challenge, but not an impossibility.
14–15). It justifies and releases us from all shame, guilt, and condemnation before God and the
accusing voice of Satan and/or conscience (Rev 12:10–11; cf. Rom 8:1, 31–34).
85
Revelation 1:7; 22:7, 12, 20.
86
Revelation 20:15; 21:7, 27; 22:17.
87
Easley, 395.
Contours of Ethics: Themes and Nuances
What, then, are Revelation’s moral themes? What contours of ethics

can we identify and explore by following the micro- and macro-herme-
neutical insights outlined above? How are they nuanced within the book’s
text in light of its interpretive keys, spectrum of conceptual imagery, and
worldview themes? What does Revelation’s eschatological ethic look like?
There are certainly several possibilities. This study selects key meso-
level themes that reflect both Revelation’s moral vision and its enduring
ethical concerns. They are linked with a representative text together with
the text’s tacit moral nuance.
Character: “Let the One Who Is . . .” (Rev 22:11)

Revelation’s conclusion turns intensely personal.88 Its word to “the one”
is direct, explicit, and urgent (Rev 22:11–12; cf. 17–19). The Semitic-poetic
structure and appeal highlights moral character:89 “Let the one who does
wrong, still do wrong: and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let
the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who
is holy, still keep himself holy” (Rev 22:11).90 The twin-paired declara-
tions reveal moral orientation, character, actions, and destiny. Each links
deeds with character. Character is mentioned first, and then deeds—thus
emphasizing that the unchangeable destiny of all persons is determined
by their character as demonstrated by their deeds.91 The moral bent of
one’s choices (actions) forms an unchangeable character, so that the im-
peratives have the sense of “be what you always have been as you face
judgment.”92 Being and doing are linked.93 Being is ontological; doing is
existential. Both relate to moral orientation and action. The most straight-
forward reading of the imperatives is that both will continue in their
present condition, unless there is a radical decision to reorient oneself
to be (and do) otherwise.94
88
Doukhan, 201.
89
David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, Word Biblical Commentary 52C (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998),
1217.
90
All biblical quotations are from NASB (1995), unless otherwise indicated.
91
Easley, 419.
92
Edward A. McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation (Nashville, TN:
Broadman, 1951), 220 and Beale, Book of Revelation, 1132.
93
Beatrice S. Neall, The Concept of Character in the Apocalypse with Implications for Character
Education (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983), 87.
94
While Revelation does not use the word “character,” character is nev-
ertheless integral to its moral vision.95 Being and doing connect within
the warfare worldview. Even God’s being and doing matter (Rev 15:3–4;
19:1–6; 4:8). The characters of God, the Lamb, the powers of evil, and
of human beings are all in question. As the book concludes, character
has been questioned, revealed, tested, proven, and closed for all eterni-
ty. Revelation’s focus on character is expressed in varied imagery: mark/
seal/name on forehead or hand,96 garments and robes,97 characterization
and caricature,98 record books and judgment, and mind and heart.99
Choice and Values: “He Who Has An Ear” (Rev 2:7)

Revelation assumes moral choices.100 Each imperative to hear what
the Spirit says to the churches affirms human choice.101 So also the
moral boundaries implied in the tree of life and the holy city.102 Free
choice and moral accountability are at the heart of the cosmic con-
flict. The book points to what kinds of things one must choose and/or
choose against. It asserts the results of one’s choices (Rev 12:9–11; 16:1–21;
20:11–15; 21:8; 22:11, 14–15). The book’s judgment motif assures that God
takes seriously human freedom and choice by holding individuals
accountable for those choices, experiencing the full consequence in their
95
See Neall.
96
Revelation 14:1, 9–11; 13:1, 16–17; cf. 7:1–8; 3:12; 22:4; 16:2; 20:4. See Beale, Book of Revelation,
734. As Neall, 150, points out, in antiquity a name represented character. See also William
Hendriksen, More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1982), 182.
97
As noted by Klaus Berger, Identity and Experience in the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 2003), 40–41, Revelation employs “garments” or “robes” as metaphors for an individu-
al’s moral and spiritual condition and character (Rev 3:5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13–14; 16:15; 17:4; 19:8;
22:14). Walter Brueggeman, The Covenanted Self: Explorations in Law and Covenant (Minne-
apolis, MN: Fortress, 1999), 15, observes that Scripture uses clothing imagery in a context of de-
selfing and re-selfing human persons (Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:9–10).
98
Revelation’s characterization and caricature reveals how the characters of its major actors are
open for question by intelligent beings. See Barr, Tales of the End, 17–19, 105–115 and Harry O.
Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation After Christendom (Minneapolis, MN: For-
tress, 2002), 85.
99
Revelation 2:23; 20:11–13.
100
Revelation 1:3; 2:7, 11, 17, 26–29; 3:5–6, 12–13, 21–22; 13:9; 22:10–15, 17.
101
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26–29; 3:5–6, 12–13, 21–22
102
Revelation 21:27; 22:14–15. To return to the Genesis garden—to the land before shame and
suffering and alienation and death—involves moral boundaries and choice, not relativity or in-
difference. See Eugene F. Roop, Genesis (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1987), 48 and Brown, 219.
lives.103 Eternal destiny is not a matter of fate or chance, but choice. There
are passages where choice is explicit (Rev 16:16; 18:4; 22:17). But more
often than not, the reality of moral choice is implicit, tacit. Varied facets
of choice are evident: alternatives, valuation, self-definition, will, and
consequences. Evident also is the very personal nature of choice. We are
persons who choose. Ultimately, choice is made not of rules or princi-
ples, but of a person—Revelation’s celebrated conquering Lamb.104 It does
indeed bring with it all the moral principles that can be explored
within the book, but it makes us something more than mere machines
applying principles: it makes us persons.
Ethical Norms: “As I Also Overcame” (Rev 3:21)

The transition that threads Revelation’s story of the seven church-
es (Rev 1:9–3:21) together with that of the sealed scroll (Rev 4:1–11:19)
asserts the believer’s moral affinity with the person and work of Jesus:
“To him who overcomes, I will grant to sit with me on my throne, as I
also overcame and sat with my Father on his throne” (Rev 3:21). The phrase
“as I also overcame” is morally instructive.105 It is the first time in the
book where the believer’s overcoming is compared to Christ’s overcom-
ing.106 This overcoming and the rights that come with it represent an
explicit linking of Christology and ethics in the Apocalypse.107 Overcom-
ing is one of Revelation’s major moral themes, as per the promises in
John’s letters to the seven churches108 and the subsequent unfolding of the
experience of both Christ and His people in the conflict between good
and evil.109 This close relationship between Christology and ethics in
the book of Revelation suggests Jesus’ own suffering-reigning-resisting
victory as a way of being in the world.110 It becomes a model for believ-
ers who, within the book’s narrative, are likewise marginalized and
killed. Their sacrificial lives in following the Lamb in service to a lost
103
Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19. We are to fear God and give Him glory, because
the hour of His judgment has come (Rev 14:7; cf. Eccl 12:13–14).
104
E. H. Peterson, 27–28 and Stott, 167–176, 229–233.
105
The concept of conquering is applied to both Jesus (Rev 3:21; 5:5; 17:14) and His people (Rev 2:7,
11, 17, 28; 3:5, 12, 21; 12:11; 15:2; 21:7).
106
107
Loren L. Johns, “The Origins and Rhetorical Force of the Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse
of John” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1998), 221. See also Bauckham, Theology, 69.
108
Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21.
109
Revelation 5:5; 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7.
110
Johns, “Origins and Rhetorical Force,” 211, 213.
world unfold profound moral authority, influence, and power of witness

as instrumental in saving others within the cosmic conflict (Rev 11:1–13;
12:11, 17; 14:1–13).111 As the faithful witness who conquers through self-
sacrifice, Jesus stands as a paradigm for the action of the faithful com-
munity who also conquer through self-sacrifice.112
Ultimately, God’s character and action resound through the book,
informing moral reflection on key ethical issues like holiness, justice,
covenant faithfulness, truthfulness, righteousness, and violence.113 God
is faithful, holy, true, just.114 His love is extended to both His people
and toward the hostile world.115 He desires (requires) the moral support
of the universe for His actions.116 Ultimately, the cross establishes moral
authority of the Lamb’s victory over all evil (Rev 12:7–12). The character
of God is integral to the book’s moral vision. God is the norm by which
humanity is to live and ultimately be judged.117 Everyone eventually be-
holds the unveiled face of God. All stand before His throne and see
His face.118 But not all will think the same thoughts or feel the same feel-
ings as they meet the undimmed reality of God’s character. Everyone
will be conscious of themselves in relation to God’s holy character.119 The
book’s “face” (conscience) motif is an incredible honor/shame moral
reality.120 Thus, eschatological ethics is viewed from the standpoint of
God—who God is in His holiness, and how God acts within history
and the final judgment. Eschatologically, Revelation’s ethical verities are
placed within the overarching reality of what God is doing in history.
111
The imagery of the slain Lamb, the souls under the altar, the two witnesses, the patient endur-
ance of God’s people, the threat of death, etc. illustrate the underlying moral theme of the Apoca-
lypse—the power of self-sacrifice, the power of good over evil, and the power of love. There is
moral power in suffering for what is right (Rev 2:10; 6:9–11; 12:10). There is moral power in the
simple voicing of one’s own testimony about Jesus (Rev 12:11). There is moral power in steadfast
nonviolent resistance (Rev 2:2; 12:17; 20:4). There is moral power in words of truth (Rev 1:2, 9, 16;
2:12, 16; 3:8, 10; 6:9, 11; 19:13, 15, 21; 20:4; 21:5; 22:6).
112
Hays, 175.
113
Revelation 1:6; 4:11; 15:3–4; 16:7; 18:4–8, 20; 19:1–7.
114
Revelation 1:5; 3:7, 14; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5; 19:2, 11; 21:5; 22:6.
115
Revelation 1:4–5; 5:9–10; 14:6–7; 18:4; 22:17.
116
Revelation 12:10; 15:3–4; 19:1–2. See Neall, 59.
117
Ibid.
118
Revelation 6:10; 14:6–7; 20:11–12.
119
Revelation 6:16–17; 20:11–12; 22:4; cf. 1:17; 16:15.
120
Revelation 6:15–17; 20:11; 22:4; cf. 1:17; 2:18, 23.
Honor/Shame: “One Who Stays Awake and Keeps His Clothes . . .

and Men Will Not See His Shame” (Rev 16:15)
Revelation’s tacit “shame/honor” and “honor/shame” paradigm opens
a unique window into areas of moral reflection not often considered
by Western readers (Rev 3:18; 16:15). Honor is redefined, as is shame. God
is working to exalt humanity from shame to honor (Rev 21:1–22:5).121
Divine judgment is the restoration of honor—both God’s own honor and
that of the redeemed.122 God’s vindication of the honor of the oppressed,
marginalized, and martyred is assured (Rev 6:9–11; 7:9–10; 11:3–18; 20:4).123
The powerless are enthroned (Rev 2:26–27). There are white robes, palm
branches of victory, and the status of not just being able to stand with
honor but stand before the throne and the Lamb (Rev 7:9; 14:1; cf. 6:17).124
The everlasting gospel urges readers to honor God: “fear God and give
glory to Him” (Rev 14:6–7). As holy Creator, Sustainer, and first giver, God
has indebted all living creatures in a profound patronage relationship
(Rev 4:9–11).125 Salvation brings change of status (Rev 1:5; cf. 5:10). That
God dwells among His people speaks of an honored and favored status
(Rev 21:3).126 People bring into the new Jerusalem the glory and honor
of the nations, but nothing unclean will enter it (Rev 21:23–27; 22:15).
This “shame/honor” and “honor/shame” paradigm reveals an under-
lying ethics of honor/shame.127 There is a moral value system (including
norms and behaviors) in which the highest good is honor (respect) and the
greatest evil is shame and humiliation. But Revelation’s honor is no mere
social or cultural convention. The universal standard and highest em-
bodiment of honor is God Himself,128 as well as morally acceptable
behavior in keeping with the person and character of God.129 God’s cov-
enant commands nuance moral values and action in relation to what
Jayson Georges and Mark D. Baker, Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures: Biblical Foundations
121
and Practical Essentials (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 82.
122
Ibid., 89. See Revelation 1:5; 5:9–10; 15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–6; 21:1–7.
David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
123
2000), 70 n. 39.
Joseph L. Trafton, Reading Revelation: A Literary and Theological Commentary, ed. Charles H.
124
Talbert (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2005), 69–70.

125
DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 127.
126
Ibid., 73.
127
See Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “Toward the Moral Vision of Honor and Shame in Biblical Perspec-
tive: Worldview, Identity, Character,” in Shame and Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes in Shame
and Honor, ed. Bruce Bauer (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2014), 111–149.
128
Revelation 4:8; 14:6–7; 15:3–4; 19:1–7.
129
Revelation 14:6–12; 15:1–18:24; cf. Ezekiel 36:19–23.
God considers honorable.130 Human beings intuit their existence in a

moral universe and do so in relation to a personal God.131 Conscience is
expressed in images of innocence, integrity, and hope (Rev 6:9) as well
as that of guilt, shame, and fear (Rev 6:17; 20:11).132 Both guilt and shame
are in view.133
Covenant (Faithfulness): “The Ark of His Covenant

Appeared” (Rev 11:19)
Revelation’s sealed scroll narrative (Rev 4:1–11:19) concludes with
the most specific covenant language found anywhere in the book: “And
the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His
covenant appeared in His temple” (Rev 11:19). This transition motif en-
capsulates the heart of what has gone before (Rev 4:1–11:18);134 it signals
what lies behind every issue, which unfolds through to the end of the
book (Rev 12:1–22:21)—covenant.135 Most immediately, the appearance
of the ark of God’s covenant sets the stage for the appearance of a faith-
ful covenant community136 who appear as the book’s first great sign in
heaven (Rev 12:1–2). While Revelation 12 covers the entire covenant
history of the Christian church,137 it begins with the church’s essential
identity and continuity with God’s covenant people of the past. There
is only one woman, one dragon. Multiple attacks, yes, but one essential
worldview and covenant identity in relation to the Creator-Redeemer.
The remnant against whom the dragon vents his frustrated wrath is the
covenant community of earth’s final crisis (Rev 12:17). The explicit refer-
ence to the “ark of the covenant” highlight the covenant commands—the
Ten Commandments, which were located in the ark of the covenant.138
130
Revelation 11:19; 12:17; 14:12.
131
Revelation 6:9–10; cf. 15:3–4; 19:1–2.
132
Barr, Tales of the End, 83.
133
The sharp analytical distinction between shame and guilt, which many try to make, cannot
be maintained from a biblical perspective. See Lewis B. Smedes, Shame and Grace: Healing the
Shame We Don’t Deserve (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 11.
134
See Stefanovic, 219–231; Jon Paulien, “The Seven Seals,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book
1, ed. Frank Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992), 222–224; Beale, Book of Revelation, 372–374; David E. Aune, Revelation
6–16, Word Biblical Commentary 52B (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998), 661.
135
Stefanovic, 369–370 and Aune, Revelation 6–16, 661.
136
Revelation 12:1–2, 5–6, 13–17; 13:7–8, 10; 14:1–5.
137
Hans K. LaRondelle, How To Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible: The Biblical-
Contextual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 265.
138
Exodus 26:15; 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:1–5; Hebrews 9:4. See Beale, Book of Revelation, 342;
The descent of the new Jerusalem at the close of the millennium, sym-
bolizing God’s everlasting presence, marks the consummation of an
intimate covenant commitment, a connection rendered unmistakable
by the use of Leviticus 26:11–12 in Revelation 21:3.139 The language is un-
ambiguous in its echo of the pervading biblical concept of covenant and
holiness (Rev 21:3, 7).140 No greater statement of a promise kept can be
found in Scripture affirming the holy Creator’s covenant faithfulness to
His creation (Rev 21:5).141
Revelation’s covenant theme nuances the essential relational and holy
nature of ethics. Covenant is the social location of revelation, redemp-
tion, and ethics.142 It says something about God’s character and the way in
which He acts in the world. It is the context in which both moral
choice and accountability are envisioned. God is a promise-making and
promise-keeping God. So also should His people be, who are called
to model His holy faithfulness in a world of broken promises.
Truthfulness: “No Lie Was Found in Their Mouth” (Rev 14:5)

Revelation posits a relentless, encapsulating force, which nearly
overwhelms moral reality and truth with its deceptions (Rev 16:13–17).
Those who dwell on the earth encounter powerful spiritual, sociopoliti-
cal, cultural, and even demonic forces that fundamentally alter their sense
of what is true and false, right and wrong. While the devil (Rev 12:9;
cf. 20:3, 8, 10), the beast (Rev 13:5–6), and the false prophet reign
(Rev 13:14; 19:20), the earth is the sphere of deceit and illusion. Seduc-
tive Babylon’s intoxicating wine includes false teachings, blasphemy, and
sorceries (Rev 17:1–5; 18:23).143 Within its worldview, there are those
who not only lie, but love to lie (Rev 22:15).
Naturally, Revelation is concerned with what is true and what is not.144
Stefanovic, 367–368.
Johnson, 304–305; T. M. Moore, I Will Be Your God: How God’s Covenant Enriches Our Lives
139
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002), 183–190; William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation
21–22 and the Old Testament (Homebush West: Lancer Books, 1985), 78–79.
140
Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1123.
141
Bauckham, Theology, 50–53. See also Gerhard F. Hasel and Michael G. Hasel, The Promise:
God’s Everlasting Covenant (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2002), 14.
142
Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 2002), 16.
143
The “prostitute” imagery highlights Babylon’s seductive and deceptive nature as an object of
desire that in reality kills. See Proverbs 2:16–19; 6:24–32; 7:9–23.
144
Edwin Reynolds, “The True and the False in the Ecclesiology of Revelation,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (2006): 34.
Truth about God and the truth of God matter.145 So also, truth in prin-
ciple and truthfulness as a way of being. God would liberate people
from both untruth (fact) and untruthfulness (being and action). The
book asserts that God and Jesus are true and holy, true and righteous
(Rev 3:7, 14; 6:10; 15:3; 16:7; 19:2; cf. 1:5; 19:9, 11; 21:5; 22:6). Readers are as-
sured that the book’s words are true and trustworthy (Rev 19:9; 21:5; 22:6).
All liars will be forever outside the eternal city (Rev 21:8; 22:15). Those
who stand with the Lamb before the throne of God will have no lie in
their mouths (Rev 14:5). While this first appears as doctrinally, theo-
logically, or ecclesiologically focused,146 on its deepest level Revelation’s
focus on truthfulness relates to moral being and ethics.
Several aspects of truth unfold: First, truth exists; it is knowable,
a sphere of reality. Appearing as it does in the book’s conclusion, the
simple yet profound reference to those “who love and practice lying”
presses the question of being and doing in regard to truth and truth-
fulness.147 Second, truth is inherently personal,148 as exemplified in the
person of Jesus (Rev 3:7, 14; 6:10; 19:11). Thus, truth is centered in a
person, rather than mere teaching or proposition. It is not abstract.
Jesus is more than His words: there is His state of being, first a matter
of inner character.149 Third, truth is doctrinal, dealing with propositions
and ideas that can be spoken, heard, written down, read, and kept
(Rev 1:3, 11; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6, 9, 18–19). Fourth, truth is behavioral in
terms of moral and spiritual action; what one does matters (Rev 15:3–4;
16:7; 19:1–2), as seen in God’s judicial action in history. Truthfulness en-
compasses right action and ethically correct behavior. Fifth, truth relates
to one’s moral orientation. When Revelation refers to “those who love
and practice lying” (Rev 22:15), it asserts that truth is not simply some-
thing believed or spoken or lived—it is a way of being. “Loving . . . a lie” is
deeper than “doing” a lie. One’s commitment to truth is verified by
deeds.150 Finally, truth has power over falsehood. Heaven ultimately wins
because it wins the victory of truth over deceit.151 Throughout Revelation,
it is the heavenly perspective that has the power of truth. God exerts the
145
146
See Reynolds, “True and the False,” 18–35.
147
Revelation 22:15; cf. 21:8, 27; 22:11.
148
See Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983), 34.
149
Paul Tillich, “What Is Truth,” Canadian Journal of Theology 1, no. 2 (1955): 120. See Holmes, 34.
150
Glen H. Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 379.
151
Bauckham, Theology, 91. See Revelation 15:3; 16:7; 19:2, 11.
power of truth.152 Christ exerts the power of truth.153 In their own sphere
the people of God manifest the power of truth.154
Confession, Character, Conduct: “Worship Him Who

Made . . .” (Rev 14:7)
There is no other book in the New Testament in which worship
figures so prominently, provides so much worship language and imag-
ery, and is so fundamental to its purpose and message as Revelation.155
Both cosmic and existential dimensions of worship are in view.156 Moral
matters converge with those of worship. Worship and ethics become in-
escapably related—inseparable. They are entwined in the apocalyptic
vision as confession, character, and conduct—where authentic worship
both expresses and shapes one’s moral identity and action in response
to God.157 These three realities profoundly interconnect,158 making it
obvious that “worship is a constitutive act”159 forming character and
guiding conduct. Worship frames moral being, identity, and action. Char-
acter and conduct are correlative to confession, and are both shaped by
it.160 But character also shapes conduct and nuances confession. Conduct
likewise impacts character and confession. Each is a facet of the worship
found in Revelation and together express the book’s worship/ethics link.161
Confession brings to focus questions of who is to be worshipped,
how one worships, and what one says and does in worship. It highlights
how we become what we worship (Rev 9:20–21; cf. Ps 115:1–8; 135:15–18).162
152
Revelation 19:9; 21:5; 22:6.
153
Revelation 1:16; 2:12, 16; 3:7, 14; 6:10; 19:15, 21; 22:20.
154
Revelation 6:9, 11:1–13; 12:17; 14:5, 6–20; 20:4.
155
Marianne Meye Thompson, “Worship in the Book of Revelation,” Ex Auditiu 8 (1992): 45.
156
Lichtenwalter, “Worship, Eschatology, and Ethics,” 468–482.
157
Michael R. Weed, “Worship and Ethics: Confession, Character, and Conduct,” Christian Stud-
ies 13 (1993): 47.
158
Miroslav Volf, “Worship as Adoration and Action: Reflections on a Christian Way of Being-in-
the World,” in Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D. A Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993),
203–252 and Weed, 47–53.
159
Weed, 53.
160
Ibid., 47.
161
Lichtenwalter, “Worship, Eschatology, and Ethics,” 482–501; Lichtenwalter, “Worship in the
Book of Revelation: Worship as Confession and Moral Identity—Part 1 of 2,” Ministry, September
2016, 13–15; and Lichtenwalter, “Worship in the Book of Revelation: How True Worship Aligns Us
With God—Part 2 of 2,” Ministry, November 2016, 19–21.
162
See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 518–519; Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: Com-
mentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 242–243;
It unfolds the ethical consequences of false worship163 and the transforming

moral power of true worship.164
Character is expressed in the imagery of those who have divine names
written in their forehead and live blamelessly in the world (Rev 14:1–5).
The primary meaning of the seal of God and the mark of the beast (con-
sisting of the names of God and the beast respectively) stamped upon
every individual is that “everyone is conformed to either the image of
God or the image of Satan. Everyone bears the character of the divine
or the demonic.”165 Seal and mark imagery appear within the unfold-
ing conflict regarding true and false worship.166 It suggests how true
worship brings “reverent alignment with God’s character from which
God’s actions spring forth.”167 Character affirms that whom and how one
worships is inseparably linked to one’s own being.168 While worship can
never be reduced to mere action, it is nevertheless embodied in conduct
—tangible moral action.169 Moral action is nuanced through the book’s
repeated focus on “keeping,”170 “doing,”171 and “deeds.”172 When the mat-
ter of worship comes to a head with the demand to worship the beast in
chapters 12‒14, observable moral action and ethical practice are likewise
at the heart of the conflict (Rev 12:17; 14:12; cf. 14:4–5). Here worship is
characterized by obedience to God in keeping His covenant command-
ments. Direct or indirect allusions to nearly every commandment of the
Decalogue can be found.173 Ultimately confession and character shape
Gordon D. Fee, Revelation: A New Covenant Commentary (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 136–137;
and G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2008), 36–49.
163
Lichtenwalter, “Worship as Confession and Moral Identity,” 13–15 and Lichtenwalter, “Worship,
Eschatology, and Ethics,” 483–487.
164
Lichtenwalter, “Worship as Confession and Moral Identity,” 15 and Lichtenwalter, “Worship,
Eschatology, and Ethics,” 487–488.
165
Neall, 150.
166
Revelation 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; cf. 16:2; 20:4; 22:9.
167
David Peterson, Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, IL: In-
terVarsity, 1992), 270.
168
For a detailed discussion, see Lichtenwalter, “Worship, Eschatology, and Ethics,” 489–490 and
Lichtenwalter, “How True Worship Aligns Us With God,” 19–21.
169
Volf, “Worship as Adoration,” 206.
170
Gk. tereo: Revelation 1:3; 3:3, 10; 12:17; 14:12; 22:9.
171
Gk. poieo: Revelation 2:5; 21:27; 22:11, 15.
172
Gk. erga: Revelation 2:2, 5–6, 19, 22–23, 26; 3:1–2, 8, 15; 9:20; 14:13, 16:11; 18:6; 20:12–13.
173
See Lichtenwalter, “The Seventh-day Sabbath and Sabbath Theology,” 306–313 and Skip Mac-
Carty, In Granite or Ingrained: What the Old and New Covenants Reveal About the Gospel, the
conduct. But conduct likewise ultimately brings shape to character and

confession.
Reconciliation: “The Healing of the Nations” (Rev 22:2)

In a world of conflict and differences—nations, tribes, languages,
and people; rich and poor, slave and free, small and great174—God seeks
healing and reconciliation between alienated hearts and hurting memo-
ries. The redeemed of all nations stand together before God (Rev 7:9–10).
The literary placement and moral themes of Revelation’s millennial
years—bound by a resurrection on both sides and followed by moral
realities of the new heaven and new earth—unfolds an ethic of rec-
onciliation. This reconciliation is nuanced profoundly with tree of life
imagery, where it is stated that “the leaves of the tree are for the healing
of the nations” (Rev 22:2, NIV). The context suggests that God “accounts
for the wounds of the past.” “The curing quality of the leaves of the tree
will heal all wounds—racial, ethnic, tribal, or linguistic—that have torn
and divided humanity for ages.”175 In so doing, God will wipe away every
tear from the eyes of hurting human hearts. This healing is both individ-
ual and relational. The human family—and all the families of the earth—
finds blessing and final reconciliation. Through the millennium, God
honors the human moral-psychological-emotional makeup by not tran-
sitioning too quickly and artificially from the old to the new. Judgment
both during and following the millennium assures understanding and
justice (Rev 20:4; 11–15). The final doom of the beast, false prophet, death,
the grave, Satan, and anyone not identifying with the righteousness
and peace of the eternal city bring assurance that God’s final reconciliation
will be enduring (Rev 21:1–8). The eschatological transition has a social
dimension to it.
This reconciliation between people cannot be arbitrarily effected on
the part of God without overriding essential humanness. Judgment is a
social act, redefining relationships. As a time of transition, the millen-
nium holds open the hope that: 1) the redeemed will be able to review
how God has judged human beings and affirm that His judgments are
true and righteous (Rev 20:4; 15:3–4); 2) they will have the time to deal
with their personal feelings in response to God’s decisions about others
whom they know and love or have been alienated from; 3) they will have
time to deal with their personal feelings about others who, like them, are
Law, and the Sabbath (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2007), 199–200.
174
Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 11:18; 13:7, 16; 14:6; 17:15; 19:5, 18; cf. Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11.
175
Stefanovic, 605.
redeemed, or who, unlike them, are lost; 4) they will experience healing
of mind for their painful memories as God accounts for the wounds of
the past; and 5) they will experience final reconciliation in those painful
broken relationships that separate human hearts, nations, peoples, and
tongues.
The millennium unfolds incredible truths about the character of God
and calls us to be people of reconciliation in anticipation of His final
reconciliation of people in the transition from the painful realities of
life as we know it now and the shalom of eternity with Him. Revelation’s
vision of this reconciliation invites every follower of the Lamb to give
both witness to and proclamation of God’s redemptive purpose for risen
humanity (Rev 14:6–13; cf: 5:9–10; 7:9–10).
Revelation’s ethic of reconciliation is nuanced largely through the
book’s trajectory, and divine character and action, and referential modes
of conceptual imagery, as previously discussed. It is tacit, yet neverthe-
less integral to the book’s theodicy and redemptive re-creation. The
horizon of the future, together with God’s own action within history,
affirm its implications for the people of God.
Ethical Dilemmas: “How Long, O Lord?” (Rev 6:10)

The cry of the “souls under the altar” in Revelation 6:9–10 is momen-
tous: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging
and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The reality
that gives rise to this question echoes Scripture’s quintessential theodicy
plea.176 Against the background of human history marked by death, war,
and injustice, which the riders of the first seals illustrate (Rev 6:1–8),177
“there emerges at the opening of the fifth seal a well-defined existen-
tial situation.”178 Those on God’s side of Revelation’s cosmic conflict are
the slaughtered and those being slaughtered; their numbers continue
to grow (Rev 6:10–11).179 They are vexed by the discrepancy between
expectations and reality. They have died for God who is sovereign,
holy, and true (Rev 6:10; cf. 12:11). There is angst that salvation will be
176
Psalm 6:3; 74:9–10; 79:5; 80:4; 90:13; 94:3–7; Isaiah 6:11; Jeremiah 4:21; 23:26; 47:5–6; Daniel 8:13;
12:6; Habakkuk 1:2–4; Zechariah 1:12.
See Stott, 188; Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation, 59; and Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ,
177
226–228.
Giancarlo Biguzzi, “John on Patmos and the ‘Persecution’ in the Apocalypse,” Estudios Bíblicos
178
56, no. 2 (1998): 212.

179
See Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, Exegesis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 82 and Barr, Tales of the End, 73–74. See also
Johnson, 290.
further postponed. Their prayer for judgment and vindication rever-

berates through the ensuing narrative.180
This impassioned cry becomes the “genetic nucleus” of the whole nar-
rative of the sealed scroll181 and “the crux of interpretation of the whole
book.”182 At this point, the question of theodicy rises in the context of
anthropology: it is human beings who ask such urgent questions of
theodicy. This impassioned existential cry of the “souls under the al-
tar” opens up for the attentive reader a window into Revelation’s ethical
dilemmas.183 As a whole, the book’s vision of the fifth seal not only gives
voice to the problems of justice and the character of God confronting
heaven—that is, theodicy;184 it also yields tacit insights into human na-
ture and being. It opens to view the human dimensions of the cosmic
conflict, and in doing so enables us to see human beings and human
nature from several unique vantage points.185 The reality of evil, the bro-
kenness of our fallen world, and our own fallen human nature bring a
complexity to the moral choices and responses we face. This illustrates
how messy the question of ethics can become.
Revelation candidly and unabashedly unfolds profound moral issues
that we struggle with and which affect our own moral decisions and re-
sponses—even our view of God. Examples of its tacit ethical dilemmas
include: 1) the struggle for power and whether or not power is the ulti-
mate value and source of victory in the cosmic conflict,186 2) the staggering
violence throughout the book and whether or not God’s actions can be
termed violent (is there an ethic of violence in the book, and is Revelation
a violent text?),187 3) whether there is a tacit misogamy because of the
180
Revelation 8:3–4; cf. 19:1–6
181
Revelation 4:1–8:1. Biguzzi, 212.
182
George Bradford Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1966), 82.
183
See Lichtenwalter, “Souls Under the Altar.”
184
Revelation 5:1–5; cf. 15:3–4; 16:5–7; 19:1–5.
185
186
David L. Barr, “Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use
of Power, Violence, and Mysogyny,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1997
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997).
187
Loren L. Johns, “The Violence of Revelation as a Theological Problem: Must an Ethical
Reading Be Against the Grain?” Apocalypse Section, Society of Biblical Literature, November
22, 2003, 509–522; Johns, “Conceiving Violence: The Apocalypse of John and the Left Behind
Series,” Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum 34, no. 2 (2005): 194–214; David L. Barr,
“Doing Violence: Moral Issues in Reading John’s Apocalypse,” in Reading the Book of Revelation:
A Resource for Students, ed. David L. Barr (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003),
97–108; Barr, “Towards an Ethical Reading”; Jan Willem van Henten, “Violence in Revelation,”
way women are characterized and how they are oppressed,188 4) the un-
imaginable human collateral damage in the warfare between good and
evil, 5) the phenomenon of war in heaven in relation to the problem
of evil and questions of theodicy,189 6) an ethic of resistance and/or libera-
tion because of oppression,190 7) an ethic of critical political engagement,191
8) tormenting the lost in the presence of holy angels and the Lamb (is
it closure or revenge? [Rev 14:10]), 9) ecological disaster and renewal
(Rev 11:18; 21:1–2),192 10) the book’s evocative and seemingly abusive
rhetoric,193 and 11) divine wrath, justice, and judgment.194 While the reli-
gio-political-social-moral critique of Rome (both pagan and spiritual) and
the moral force of Christ’s witness as nonviolent resistance of evil are
tacit in Revelation’s moral vision, the book’s moral dilemmas are not
political or ideological, nor do they reflect social causes, as often nuanced
in contemporary commentaries. Rather, they are spiritual/moral, relat-
ing to questions of theodicy and personal moral realities and decisions
within its cosmic conflict narrative.
Moral Agency: “They Overcame Him Because of the Blood

of the Lamb” (Rev 12:11)
From where do moral impulse and the capacity to act morally come?
in Collins, New Perspectives, 49–77; and Olivia Stewart Lester, “Jezebel: A Study in Prophecy,
Divine Violence, and Gender,” in Collins, New Perspectives.
188
Barr, “Towards an Ethical Reading”; Tina Pippin, Death and Desire: The Rhetoric of Gender
in the Apocalypse of John (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1992); Lester, “Jezebel,” 509–522; Eliza
Rosenberg, “‘As She Herself Has Rendered’: Resituating Gender Perspectives on Revelation’s
‘Babylon’,” in Collins, New Perspectives, 545–560.
189
Grant R. Osborne, “Theodicy in the Apocalypse,” Trinity Journal 14 (1993): 63–77. See a
survey of issues in Gallusz, 316–327.
190
Hays; Johns, “Origins and Rhetorical Force,” 211–217; Allan A. Boesak, Comfort and Protest:
The Apocalypse of John from a South African Perspective (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,
1987); Fiorenza; Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Phila-
delphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1984); and Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling
Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005).
191
See Gwyther.
192
Maricel S. Ibita, “New Heaven, New Earth and the skhnh of God (Rev 21, 1–8): Making Sense
of God’s Presence During and in the Aftermath of Ecological Disasters,” in Collins, New Per-
spectives, 561–578 and Carmelo B. Sorita, “‘A New Heaven and a New Earth . . . and the Sea Is
No More’: An Eschato-Ecological Reading of Revelation 21, 1–8,” in Collins, New Perspectives,
579–593.
193
Alexander E. Stewart, “Argumentum ad baculum in the Apocalypse of John: Toward an Evalu-
ation of John’s Use of Threat,” in Collins, New Perspectives, 461–472.
194
Richard Bauckham, “Judgment in the Book of Revelation,” Ex Auditiu 20 (2004): 1–24;
Fiorenza; and Gallusz, 306–312.
Why be moral? Why should one choose Revelation’s ethic? How can
one stand before God? (Rev 16:17; cf. 7:9; 14:1; 22:4).
Revelation links personal moral agency with the experience of salva-
tion.195 It sets the question of moral impulse and potency in the context of
divine grace (Rev 1:4; 22:21), God’s sovereign kingship (Rev 1:8; 4:1–5:14),196
and Christ’s substitutionary death (Rev 12:11; 7:14–15). Divine grace pro-
vides an “already and not yet” scope to human life, as well as the ground
of moral action and victory. It both assures and provides atoning help
and moral empowerment.197 This grace bestows what it proclaims.198 It
provides a defining vision of God. It reminds us of the seriousness of the
human situation (overweening evil, unremitting war on all fronts, the te-
nacity of sin, and the depravity of man). Man’s catastrophe cannot be met
by human effort alone.199 Grace is critical.200 Only divine grace can enable
one to obey the book’s injunctions and persevere in the middle of diffi-
cult situations.201 Only grace can steady one through pressures of moral/
spiritual compromise.202 Only grace can nurture staying power that keeps
faith in the assurance of God’s victory and a vision of the redemptive re-
creation. Revelation’s grace overtakes and surpasses sin and sickness, war
and catastrophe. Grace is larger than the human condition. God’s grace
effects change in human hearts, our human condition, and the destiny
of our planet and the universe. It is profoundly transformative.
Through grace, we are released from our sins (Rev 1:5). We no longer
experience shame and guilt or the uncertainty of judgment (Rev 12:11;
18:20). Who we are becomes washed deep within and we can celebrate
innocence before self and God once more (Rev 7:14). We are vested with
significance, made into “a royal kingdom of priests” in relation to God
(Rev 1:5–6; 5:9–10; 14:1–5). A personal experience with redeeming grace
brings a life of obedience to God, purity, truthfulness, innocence, and a
life that follows the Lamb’s self-sacrificing way (Rev 7:15; 14:1–5; cf. 3:21).
195
Revelation 7:14–15; 12:11; 14:1–5; 22:14–15.
196
See the discussion of the ethical motivational function of Revelation’s throne motif in Gallusz,
294–298.
197
Revelation 1:5–6; 5:9–10; 6:9–11; 8:3–4; 12:17; 14:12; cf. 7:9–15; 14:1–5. Lichtenwalter, “Grace To
You,” 19–22.
198
Mounce, 68.
199
M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, ed. James Luther (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989), 41.
200
Osborne, Revelation, 798.
201
Ibid.
202
Substitutionary atonement factors largely in the book’s vision of

redemption and the release from sin and a fallen world.203 Jesus has ad-
equately cared for the sin problem through His substitutionary death.204
His followers experience a new position in the world as kings and priests
who have spiritual power and influence (Rev 1:6; 5:10). He is victor over
all and determines the final outcome of human history (Rev 5:1–8:1; 17:14;
19:11–21). His victory is shared through the presence and power of the
Holy Spirit (Rev 5:9–10).205
Revelation posits character and life immersed in the substitutionary
work of Jesus (Rev 7:14; 22:14). People are released from their bondage
to the power and penalty of sin by identifying by faith with Jesus’ sacri-
ficial death (Rev 12:11).206 “The reason for their victory over the world is
the death of Jesus and their conscious choice to identify with it.”207 The
cleansing effects of the blood of Jesus bring both moral impulse and
potency. Revelation’s redeemed have a distinct, intelligent knowledge
of their salvation cost. That is why they dip their robes in the blood of
the Lamb (Rev 7:14; 22:14). That is why they follow the Lamb in sacrifi-
cial life—holy life surrendered in a rhythm of obedience to the Father
(Rev 14:1–5; cf. 7:15).
The blessing pronounced on those who wash their robes points to
individuals who have a sense of sin and their need for atonement, and
who have the knowledge that evil has something to do with themselves
and they with it—that something is fundamentally wrong with them, that
ethics is more than right doing. It is on this deepest level that they must
yield in order to experience the quality of moral character and action
that Revelation envisions. The redeemed are motivated toward moral ex-
cellence because of the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14–15; 12:11; 14:1–5; 12;
17:14; 19:6–8). They experience moral excellence because He empow-
ers them. The blood of the Lamb cleanses them from sin and releases
203
Revelation 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:10–11; 17:14; 22:14.
204
Revelation 1:5; 5:9–10; 7:14; 12:10–11. In Revelation sin is seen as enslaving bondage (Rev 1:5);
incalculable debt (Rev 5:9); moral/spiritual defilement (Rev 7:14); and guilt and condemnation
(Rev 12:11). In each case the Lamb’s blood has incredible power.
205
Revelation 5:9–10; cf. 14:13.
206
207
Ibid., 436. Speaking of the redeemed, Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 1911), 649, writes, “By their own painful experience they learned the evil of sin, its
power, its guilt, its woe; and they look upon it with abhorrence. A sense of the infinite sacrifice
made for its cure humbles them in their own sight and fills their hearts with gratitude and praise
which those who have never fallen cannot appreciate. They love much because they have been
forgiven much.”
them from its power. Ethics in the Apocalypse is never legalistic or self-
help. It is ever grace inspired and grace empowered.
Revelation’s eschatological ethic provides a framework for moral re-
flection. Divine grace inspires and empowers human moral agency. The
redeemed do not act on their own impulse or power. The Holy Spirit in-
vites choice and beckons the will (Rev 2:7; 22:17; cf. 2:21). Substitutionary
atonement grounds moral action. The self is washed in the Lamb’s blood
(Rev 7:14). It is on this deepest level that one yields. It is this work of
God to which human beings as free moral agents respond.
Conclusion
The foregoing outline of eschatology and ethics in Revelation is pro-

grammatic. It approaches three broad issues: hermeneutics, worldview,
and the contours of ethical issues. Each area invites further study.
Revelation’s eschatology and ethics interweave, informing Scripture’s
ultimate moral vision and urgent appeal. There is a worldview-framed
moral context—a philosophical map, or moral vision against which
the book’s various moral themes may be considered. Interpretive keys
are found in the book’s introduction, conclusion, and strategic transi-
tional passages. Moral vision is cast across the spectrum of a variety of
conceptual modes.
Contours of moral being and ethics unfold against the vivid tap-
estry of an eschatological horizon comprised of a historical flow (past,
present, future) and in the context of an overarching worldview with its
vision of God and His redemptive re-creation. The context for ethical re-
flection is nuanced through key integrating worldview themes that call
for priority in our thinking and ethical method.
These moral realities include character (being and doing), freedom/
choice, the honor/shame paradigm, God as ground for ethical norms,
truthfulness, worship, covenant faithfulness, ethical practice, reconcilia-
tion, moral dilemmas, and moral agency.
As Scripture’s last book, Revelation’s moral themes are timeless and
universal. They invite us to consider significant moral issues that might
not otherwise make it into our religious or evangelistic agenda.208 It gives
hope of becoming—in both life and character—like the exalted Christ
208
These issues include character and choice, values and integrity, fidelity and truthfulness, and
conduct and confession—not to mention a host of troubling moral dilemmas that negatively
affect our everyday lives and stir moral responses (reactions) such as violence, injustice, power,
overweening evil, unrelenting strife and conflict, collateral damage and seemingly unwarranted
suffering and anguished cries about God’s apparent delay, righteousness, and justice.
it unveils (Rev 1:1; 3:21; 14:1–5; 19:7–8). The book’s moral vision is one of
grace-inspired and grace-empowered living (Rev 1:4–6; 22:21), which
in turn is true worship and in harmony with the moral reality of the
eternal life and age to come (Rev 21:5–8, 27; 22:10–15).
No other biblical text offers such incredible practical insight into the
link between eschatology and ethics.
Theological and
Historical Studies
CHAPTER 18
What Is Adventist Eschatology?
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez
Adventist eschatology is an exploration and exposition of biblical

apocalyptic eschatology.1 It announces a future characterized by a dras-
tic discontinuity between the present order of things and a future one
to be established by the Lord. It proclaims the consummation of the
eschatological newness initiated by Christ and therefore should place
its primary emphasis not on what will be terminated, but on the
establishment of God’s eternal kingdom on earth and the healing of
the cosmos. Adventist eschatology is a biblical vision of a most glo-
rious future for the cosmos and the human race. As we proceed in our
exposition of the topic, this study will discuss first the author’s compre-
hension of the nature of Adventist eschatology, and then some of the
challenges that it faces to further assist in elucidating its nature.
1
Scholars usually distinguish between prophetic eschatology, understood as the divine an-
nouncement of God’s plans for Israel and the nations to be fulfilled within history, and apocalyp-
tic eschatology as the announcement of cosmic catastrophes and the end of the present wicked
world. For a more detailed discussion of prophetic and apocalyptic prophecy, see Jon Paulien,
What the Bible Says about the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1994), 55–71;
Bill T. Arnold, “Old Testament Eschatology and the Rise of Apocalypticism,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 31–34; R.
S. Schellenberg, “Eschatology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine
K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 232–239;
and Stephen L. Cook, “Apocalyptic Prophecy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature,
ed. John J. Collins (New York: Oxford University Press, 214), 19–35.
Adventist Eschatology: Nature
Biblically Grounded
First, let us begin with the question of knowledge or epistemology.
How do we know what we claim to know about eschatological events?
The answer is simple: The epistemic ground of Adventist eschatol-
ogy is divine revelation. It is not founded in political theories, modern
cosmogony and cosmology, or even science fiction. Our vision of the
future of the cosmos is the result of God’s speech, through which He
shares with us His plan for His creation. Our own perceptions of the
future are limited by the fact that we are by nature creatures existing
in the present. We can, through the use of reason, scientific explora-
tions and speculations, statistical analysis, and our past and present
experiences, imagine what the future will be like and even begin to
prepare for it now, but our configuration of it will be always partial and
too uncertain to place our full trust in it. Only an omniscient, omnipotent,
and all-loving God can formulate the best future for His creatures, re-
veal it to them in the form of a promise, and call them to embrace it in
full confidence in Him and His power to deliver what He promises.
Since the divine plan has been preserved in the Scriptures as the de-
pository of God’s special revelation, the Scriptures are our only canoni-
cal source of information about apocalyptic eschatology. Any Adventist
discussion about eschatology must be grounded and flow from the bibli-
cal text. It is true that we also have the writings of Ellen G. White, which
in many cases flesh out some of the biblical information—particularly
with respect to the historical fulfillment of the prophecies—and provide
significant theological insights on the topic, but this information only
enriches the biblical data and should never take its place. The epistemic
ground of Adventist apocalyptic eschatology is and should always be
God’s revelation as preserved for us in the biblical record.
God, the Cosmos, and Time

Second, Adventist eschatology is about God, the cosmos, and time
(or space and time) created by God. Space and time are the spheres
within which God reveals Himself and interacts with His creatures. The
cosmic element signals the fact that eschatology is not simply about
one’s personal or private interest in the future, but is mostly related to
cosmic concerns that impact all creatures in the cosmos and in this
world. We should never overlook the cosmic dimension of apocalyptic
eschatology; otherwise it could become an anthropocentric search for
self-realization.2 This myopic view of eschatology could easily distort

our understanding of the nature and purpose of biblical apocalyptic es-
chatology. The time component in our eschatology reminds us that
eschatology is about the future of the cosmos—about God’s plans for His
creation. God is not only Lord over the past and present, but also over
the future.
Understood as Hope
Third, true Adventist eschatology should be understood as hope in
the sense of waiting for or expecting the arrival of the good from the
Lord.3 When it is described as the waiting and expectation of the good
or the new, hope is directly related to the passage of time, to divine
activity, and to a specific comprehension of human nature. To the ques-
tion of whether humans are by nature creatures existing in a condition
of anguish or despair, the biblical answer is that humans are creatures
of hope, constantly oriented toward the future.4 By creating beings who
2
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1913), 68–69,
writes, “But the plan of redemption had a yet broader and deeper purpose than the salvation
of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the in-
habitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded; but it was to
vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice—its
influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man—the Saviour looked
forward when just before His crucifixion He said: ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now
shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
unto Me.’ John 12:31, 32. The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only
make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in
their dealing with the rebellion of Satan.” N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven,
the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 80, also suggests
that we should not lose sight of the cosmic vision, “the great drama within our little dramas
are, as it were, the play within the play.”
3
The understanding of Adventist eschatology as hope is well documented; see, for instance,
V. Norskov Olsen, ed., The Advent Hope in Scripture and History (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 1987). In this same volume, particularly useful for our purpose are Richard Rice,
“The Advent Hope in Contemporary Thought,” 191–210 and Fritz Guy, “The Future and the
Present: The Meaning of the Advent Hope,” 211–229. See also Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Advent
Hope for Human Hopelessness: A Theological Study of the Meaning of the Second Advent for
Today (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2001), 15–54. This is also the case
among non-Adventists; see, for instance, Gerhard Sauter, What Dare We Hope? Reconsid-
ering Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1999); J. Lanier Burns, “Hope: The Heart of
Eschatology,” in Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 177–198; Anthony Kelly, Eschatology and Hope
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2006); and Brian Hebblethwaite, The Christian Hope, rev. ed. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2010).
4
The scholarly discussion of hope in theological circles was to a large extent initiated by Ernst
Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, I–III (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1954–1959), translated
exist within the sphere of time, God created beings who exist in a state or
condition of constant expectation. For humans every second is a waiting
period and every breath is an unconscious expression of the hope to go
on living. Hope is practically instinctive for humans—in the midst of
deep anguish and fear there is usually hope for deliverance.
This pull toward the future was the condition of Adam and Eve as
they came from the hands of the Creator. On the sixth day, they looked
forward to the seventh day and the good that it would bring. And
indeed it brought something new—namely, a day of rest and fellow-
ship with the Creator. The sixth day was gone forever and the new had
arrived. It was not that the sixth day was inferior or imperfect, but that
God had more for them than He was willing to pack into the sixth day.
He surprised them by planning for it to reach them on the seventh day.
Centuries later we continue to hope, but this time we look forward for a
better future in the midst of a cosmic conflict that threatens our existence.
Connected to the Cosmic Conflict

Fourth, a biblical view of eschatology has to take into consider-
ation the presence of evil in the cosmos and in human existence. The
as The Principle of Hope, vols. 1–3 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986). He was a Jewish atheist and
a Marxist philosopher whose concept of hope was influenced by the biblical understanding of
it. For him hope was not transcendental and to be realized through Marx’s philosophy of
history. Probably one of Bloch’s main contributions to the understanding of hope was that
according to him, and over against existentialism, humans do not exist in a state of anguish;
on the contrary, they are by nature creatures of hope. He demonstrated, through a massive
study of the human experience in its multi-diversity of expressions, that hope is constitutive of
human nature. Bloch particularly used human drives such as fear, love, self-preservation, joy,
hope, etc., and suggested that they are grounded in the instinct of self-preservation. The main
expression of our drives is in the form of hunger, understood in its broadest sense. Hunger means
that we are dissatisfied, that we exist experiencing the desire, the thirst or hunger for what is
not yet. Yes, he argues, life is incomplete and even inhospitable, but those elements move us to
the future in hope. According to Bloch we gain a better understanding of what it means to be
human through the future, through our temporality. His exposition of hope influenced a num-
ber of continental theologians, among them Jürgen Moltmann, Theologie der Hoffnung (Munich:
Kaiser Verlag, 1965), translated as Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a
Christian Eschatology (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1967). For Moltmann’s evaluation
of Bloch’s views, see Jürgen Moltmann, “Hope and Confidence: A Conversation with Ernst
Bloch,” Dialog 7, no. 1 (1968): 42–55. Bloch also influenced the thinking of Walther Zimmerli,
Man and His Hope in the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1971). In fact, anyone who
has written on hope after the 1950s has had to deal with the views of Bloch. For an analysis
of his views, see Richard Roberts, Hope and Its Hieroglyph: A Critical Decipherment of Ernst
Bloch’s “Principle of Hope” (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990). Evaluations and critics of Moltmann’s
theology of hope abound, one of the most recent being Margaret B. Adam, Our Only Hope: More
Than We Can Ask or Imagine (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013). The literature on hope is abundant,
demonstrating the importance of the subject at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
intromission of the anomaly and senselessness of evil in the cosmos

resulted in a cosmic conflict. When God, in order to appropriately
resolve the conflict, gave to the powers of evil time to manifest their true
intentions and reveal their characters, at that moment eschatology came
into existence—the hopeful waiting for and expectation of the moment
when evil powers would be unmasked and then properly eradicated
from the cosmos by the arrival of the new. With respect to humans,
something unique occurred. In spite of their allegiance to evil powers
in the cosmic conflict and the permanent loss of a future, God created
for them, out of grace, a new hope and a new future.
Unlike evil powers, for which there is no hope, and unlike the un-
fallen beings, for whom forgiving grace was not necessary, humans will
exist looking forward, not in anguish but in hope, to the moment when
their existential predicament will come to an end through divine grace.
This hope was theirs only in the form of a promise of God proclaiming
to them the future arrival of the new (Gen 3:16). Hope is always ours in
the present in the form of a divine promise accepted by faith. While we
wait for the fulfillment of the promise we experience in our daily lives
pain, suffering, and even death. The future looks uncertain, but comfort
and assurance are found in a hope that rejects the present as the final
destiny of our lives and anticipates a bright morning that will bring to
an end suffering and death. This is the arrival of the consummation of
the new introduced in human history by Christ.
Divine Origin of the Good/New

Fifth, by concluding that eschatology is by definition the expecta-
tion of the arrival of the good and new from the Lord, we introduce two
important ideas into the discussion of Adventist eschatology. First, es-
chatology is not predominantly about the end of the cosmos or human
history, but about an act of divine recreation that will be as good as
God’s creative activity was in the beginning. Biblical eschatology is
damaged when it is presented as God’s future work of de-creation instead
of God’s work of recreation; it tends to infuse in the human heart fear
rather than hope. Second, eschatology and the future it announces is the
exclusive work of God on behalf of His creation, and not the result of hu-
man ingenuity manifested through social, scientific, and technological
progress, or the use of self-improvement technics. The human hope ground-
ed in the progress that the Enlightenment offered to humans has proven
to be a utopian view of the future, leaving humans in despair (in the
etymological sense of the word, Latin de [“absence of ”] and spes [“hope”],
“to be without hope”).5 Such hopes were natural hopes configured by

humans from below.
The twenty-first century inherited from the previous one a hu-
manity living in a state of hopelessness and fear. Progress and human
inventions proved to be inept and powerless to bring to fruition a hope
like the biblical one. The Adventist apocalyptic hope we are discussing
is the exclusive work of God that transcends the threshold of death
and death itself, resulting in freedom and a new life.
Christ-Centered
Sixth, Adventist eschatology is by definition Christ-centered. Yes,
it is the work of God, but it is His work through the Son. Christian
theology practically marginalized eschatology by considering it to be an
appendix in systematic theologies, dealing primarily with the afterlife.
Now things are changing and hope has become, at least for some theo-
logians, the center of Christian theology. Theology, it is said, is to be
done from the perspective of hope—that is to say, from the perspective
of the ultimate goal of theology.6 To some extent this could appeal to
Adventist theologians because, for us, eschatology is inseparable
from Christ (soteriology), the cosmic conflict, and ecclesiology, and
consequently every theological topic is related to the eschatological
consummation of the work of Christ. We do not simply emphasize the
saving power of the cross, but also His mediation in the heavenly tem-
ple and His return in glory as events that unfold the fullness of the
cross. When hope is interpreted from a christological perspective it
finds its roots in the past, impacts the present, and determines the future
of the cosmos.
Biblical cosmic Christology specifies that this cosmos was cre-
ated through the Son, is held together by Him, and is being reconciled
through Him (Col 1:16–20). The future of the cosmos and of the human
race is determined by the work of the Son in the cosmic conflict. It was
He who faced the challenge of a fallen cherub in heaven and defeated him
5
For a discussion of the failure of the secular hope of progress, see Richard Bauckham and Trevor
Hart, Hope against Hope: Christian Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 10–20; Jürgen Moltmann, “Progress and the Abyss: Remembrance of the
Future of the Modern World,” in The Future of Hope: Christian Tradition amid Modernity and
Postmodernity, ed. Miroslav Volf and William Katerberg (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004),
5–16; and Wright, 79–91.
6
For instance, Jürgen Moltmann, “An Autobiographical Note,” in A. J. Conyers, God, Hope, and
History: Jürgen Moltmann and the Christian Concept of History (Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1988), 208.
(Isa 14:12–15; Ezek 28:14–17; Rev 12:7–9) and who at the end of the conflict
will be recognized by the same evil powers as Lord of all (Phil 2:10–11).
The future and the hope that God offered in love to the human race
was from the very beginning a messianic hope centered on the future
coming of the Savior—the seed of the woman. On the cross He defeated
all evil powers (Col 2:15) and at the close of the conflict all of His enemies
will be placed under His feet. This study argues that a Christ-centered
eschatology is indispensable in Adventist theology if we want to properly
represent biblical apocalyptic eschatology. It is because of His work of
redemption on the cross that we can unquestionably proclaim that the
cosmic conflict will climax in a cosmic theodicy.7
The Future Impacts the Present

Seventh-day Adventist eschatology is not only about the future but
also about its impact on the present. The hope we embrace requires be-
lievers to live “in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Pet 3:11),8 for “everyone
who has this hope . . . purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:3).
There is such a thing as an eschatological ethics or a Christian way of
life determined by the presence and coming of God’s kingdom. But there
is more to hope than personal holiness.9 The expectation of a future
7
The word “theodicy” (Gk. theo [“God”] and dikē [“justice”]) has been used among philoso-
phers and theologians in different ways, leading a number of philosophers to suggest that the
term belongs to modernity—the rational attempt to defend the reality of the divine in spite
of the presence of evil—and that its use by theologians to refer to premodern thinking is
anachronistic and consequently improper. For an excellent discussion of the issues involved in
the debate and the affirmation that “theodicy” can be used to refer even to biblical concerns
about the justice of God, see Marcel Sarot, “Theodicy and Modernity: An Inquiry into the
Historicity of Theodicy,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes
C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1–26. The volume itself shows how ancient is the human
concern with the divine and the presence of evil in the world. Lois Malcom, “Theodicy,” in The
Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Ian A. McFarland et al. (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), 499, summarizes the discussion, saying, “The term ‘theodicy’ need
not be limited to the theoretical problem of justifying belief in God in the face of evil. A vast
literature—ancient and modern—addresses the practical problem believers and unbeliev-
ers struggle with as they experience or witness evils that challenge either their sense of agen-
cy or what they have learnt about God from others (see Job 42:5).” Another factor that should
be taken into consideration as we seek reasons for the opposition not only to the use of the
term “theodicy” but for developing a theodicy itself is found in the horrors that the world saw
and experienced during the twentieth century; see Jennifer L. Geddes, “Evil,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Theology and Modern European Thought, ed. Nicholas Adams, George Pattison,
and Graham Ward (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 215–220.
8
All biblical quotations are from NASB, unless otherwise indicated.
9
The topic of personal holiness as preparation for the coming of Christ has been much discussed
among Adventists with a particular emphasis on character perfection; see, for example, Herbert
world free from pain, suffering, and death is to be embodied in a deep

concern for those who suffer. We seek to alleviate suffering while
waiting for its eradication at the realization of our hope. In other
words, our future hope does not make us indifferent to the sorrowful
condition of our planet and its inhabitants. The model for this view of
the present impact of eschatological hope is Jesus, the most powerful
proclaimer of the world to come, who went through towns and cities
healing the sick (e.g., Matt 4:23). Hope is more effectively proclaimed
when a token of it touches those who now mourn and hunger.
The presence of our hope in the now must deal with the vacuum left
by the collapse of hopes built on scientific and technological progress
and political promises. Technology, science, and politics have prov-
en to be a mixed bag of the good and the bad. Our hope should not
abandon any of these fields; rather, while denying they are a proper
source for ultimate human hope, we should find a place for them as
hope waits for its consummation. As the church continues to grow,
its impact on society will also increase, making it necessary for us to
explain how our hope relates to politics and science and technology—
the most powerful elements in our global life. The fact that these areas
of human life produce not only the good but also the bad suggests that
God has not yet given up on them, and consequently neither should
we. They are involved in the cosmic conflict. Our hope forces us to call
those spheres of human knowledge and life to work, in whatever
they are aiming to achieve, for the good of the people, in service to
others. We should challenge them to restrain the natural tendency to
self-service and uncontrolled manipulation of scientific and techno-
logical developments that instill fear and anguish in the human heart.
Otherwise our hope could become irrelevant for society. Society needs a
glimpse of what our hope will look like when fully realized.
E. Douglass et al., Perfection: The Impossible Possibility (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing,
1975); Douglass, Why Jesus Waits (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976); George R.
Knight, The Pharisee’s Guide to Perfect Holiness: A Study of Sin and Salvation (Boise, ID: Pacific
Press, 1992); Knight, I Used to Be Perfect: A Study of Sin and Salvation (Berrien Springs, MI: An-
drews University Press, 2001); Woodrow W. Whidden II, Ellen White on Salvation: A Chronologi-
cal Study (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1995); Paul M. Evans, “A Historical-Contextual
Analysis of the Final Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen” (PhD diss., Andrews Univer-
sity, 2010); and Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Theology of the Last Generation and the Vindication
of the Character of God: Overview and Evaluation,” in The Word: Searching, Living, Teaching,
ed. Artur Stele, vol. 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2015), 205–228.
Adventist Eschatology: Challenges
Apocalyptic eschatology is in itself a challenging subject, in that it is

by nature concerned with the future, about which humans know little,
creating anguish in our hearts. Adventists also face challenges that in
some cases are unique to our eschatology. We will discuss some of them
and suggest some pathways to follow in seeking to address them.
Divine Love and the Extermination of the Wicked

Let us begin with what is probably the most critical theological
challenge we face and that theologians, perhaps with a few exceptions,
have not yet carefully addressed: the connection between eschatology
and divine agape. At first it may appear to be a simple matter, but it is
far from simple. If the key question in the cosmic conflict is the charge
that God is not whom He claims to be—namely, a God who in His
most fundamental nature is absolutely oriented toward the other in
self-giving love—then the resolution of the conflict would have to be
based on an incontestable revelation of His love that would have a pro-
found persuasive power. We have correctly argued that such revelation
eventuated on the cross of Christ, but our question is how that revela-
tion of God’s love relates to the fact that at the resolution of the cosmic
conflict presumably millions of intelligent creatures will be permanently
deleted from the universe. How could the extermination of a portion of
God’s creation, and particularly intelligent creatures, be an expression
of divine love?
There are those who claim that God does not kill anybody, or that
sinners die by themselves as a consequence of their sins, without the in-
tervention of God.10 However, these answers evade the explicit language
of the Bible associated with the judgment of the wicked (e.g., Rev 20:10,
14; 21:8) and transform God into a detached observer of one of the most
devastating cosmic singularities.11 Such answers imply that the final
10
Sigve K. Tonstad, God of Sense and Traditions of Non-Sense (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
2016), 391, when referring to Revelation 20, raises the important questions: “How, precisely,
does evil come to an end in this book [Revelation]? And what does Revelation’s account of
the ending tell us of the kind of person God is?” In an attempt to show that the end of the
cosmic conflict does not compromise the loving character of God, Tonstad states, “Revela-
tion portrays the end of evil as self-destruction” (ibid., 394). He supports his argument using
Ezekiel 28:18—“I have brought fire from the midst of you; it has consumed you”—and 38:21—
“Every man’s sword will be against his brother,” meaning that they will kill each other (ibid.).
11
Ibid., 396, recognizes this when he writes, “Jesus and the redeemed participate only as specta-
tors bereft of the means to dissuade the combatants to reverse course.” We may not be able to
totally deny his comment but it would have to be placed in a context of divine involvement.
resolution of the cosmic conflict is the outwork of impersonal laws or

the very nature of evil, and not that of a loving, personal God. The
other option would be to conceive of God as personally and directly
inflicting intense pain on the wicked while rejoicing in His final victory
over them. This study proposes that the extermination of evil and the
wicked should be interpreted as an expression of God’s love. It could
not be otherwise because He is by nature love. Presumably at that mo-
ment God will not have suspended or deactivated His most gracious and
loving nature; He will remain the great “I AM WHO I AM” (Exod 3:14).
If this were not the case, eschatology would not be climaxing into a
theodicy, but into a display of divine power difficult to comprehend and
that would instill immense fear in the cosmos by leaving the cosmic
conflict unresolved.
There are diverse ways to approach this challenge, but let us be-
gin with a christological understanding of the extermination of the
wicked. We should never detach eschatology from Christology. And
that means that the hermeneutical key to decode the extermination of
the wicked is the cross of Jesus Christ as the most glorious display of
God’s love. There are many ways to justify this approach to the topic, but
this study chooses a simple one. Jesus Christ is the only person who so
far has personally experienced the fullness of God’s judgment as the
“Wicked” of the wicked who took upon Himself the sins of the world
(John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:21). According to this approach, His death is paradig-
matic for the death of the wicked at the eschaton.
Based on these introductory comments, this study suggests the
extermination of the wicked will include two important elements with-
out which we could not speak about a cosmic theodicy: persuasion and
surrender or capitulation. Persuasion12 does not bring the war to an end
because it does not change the nature of the forces of evil, but it prepares
them to accept that the war is over and their destiny is unchangeable.
Persuasion reaches its climax during the final judgment. It “reaches its
climax” because the millennium is a time of cosmic reflection for the
evil powers on earth that prepares them for the realization, during the
final judgment, that they were on the wrong side of the cosmic con-
flict. What is it that persuades them? The divine agape that did all
that was necessary to save them. During the judgment the books are
opened and they see not only their wicked choices, but also—and most
12
The Adventist scholar who strongly argues for divine transparency in the cosmic conflict
and persuasion is Tonstad, God of Sense, 365–383. See also Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation:
The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation, Library of New
Testament Studies 337 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2006), xv, 4–7.
importantly—the divine activity in their lives and particularly on the

cross of Christ.
White, in an insightful comment, clarifies what happens at this mo-
ment in the mind of evil powers:13
The abundant evidence given by God that he desires the salva-

tion of all, will be the condemnation of those who refuse the gift
of heaven. At the last great day . . . the cross of Calvary will
appear plainly before those standing before the Judge of all the
earth to receive sentence for eternity. They are made capable of
comprehending something of the love that God has expressed
for fallen human beings.14
As they see the love of God manifested through the cross, that rev-
elation of divine love penetrates their darkened minds and persuades
them that God is indeed a God of love—how this specifically happens
remains a mystery. At that moment even Satan will recognize that he
deserves to die.
Then all the wicked will begin to experience the second death—the
realization that they are eternally separated from their loving Creator.
The intensity of such pain is incomprehensible to us, but it was experi-
enced by Jesus. The desire to continue to exist in total alienation from
the Creator produces in the wicked indescribable pain—spiritual, emo-
tional, and physical. Jesus went through that experience and suffered
for as long as He chose to hold on to His life. The experience of eter-
nal death came to an end when He shouted, “Father, into Your hands I
commit My spirit” (Luke 23:46). This study submits that the wicked will
go through the same experience until they too give up their life willingly
13
For a penetrating discussion of theodicy and the cosmic conflict in the writings of White, see
Richard Rice, “The Great Controversy and the Problem of Evil,” Spectrum 32 (2004): 46–55. He
suggests a number of topics for further study related to this major and complex subject in Ellen
G. White.
14
Ellen G. White, “A Holy People,” Review and Herald, March 15, 1906, par. 13. With respect
to Satan, she writes, “Satan, the first apostate, looked upon the fruit of his apostasy in the vast
army under his banner, and his mind was made to comprehend the meaning of warfare against
God and his Son. He saw how many he had by his subtlety led away from God, from happiness
and holiness. The truth of his position and his efforts to overthrow God and assume his place,
when he took with him vast numbers of angels who might have been a happy family in heaven,
flashed over him. Never had the arch-deceiver such an appreciation of God and his throne, his
holiness, his justice, his goodness, his amazing love, as when Christ hung on the cross. Mercy
and Truth had met together; Righteousness and Peace had embraced each other” (“Christ Our
Example,” The General Conference Bulletin, October 1, 1899, par. 25, emphasis supplied).
to the Creator, who as such has the right to take it from them. It is not
through war that God takes their lives. His plan is that they will volun-
tarily give it back to Him. The persuasive power of the cross will result in
their willingness to bring the war to an end by acknowledging that God
has the right to take it from them. Here we witness the full expres-
sion of the cosmic theodicy.15 While acknowledging that much more
work is needed in order to interpret the extinction of the wicked as a
revelation of divine love and not only of His justice, this study will begin
with Christ.16
Delay of the Parousia

The second challenge that Adventist eschatology confronts is the
conviction of many Adventists that the parousia has been delayed. This
opinion is clearly influenced by the biblical conviction that eschatology
is historically validated through its fulfillment, and with respect to the
parousia it is obvious that such validation has not yet occurred. Inter-
estingly, instead of abandoning the promise believers prefer to speak
about a delay. In other words, the argument of a delay serves to affirm
the trustworthiness of the promise. From the time of the pioneers we
have constantly waited for the Lord to come soon—that is to say, within
a short period of time. We see prophecies fulfilled and it seems there is
not much left to be fulfilled. Yet, we are still here, 174 years later. The
question of the delay has haunted Christians for a long time, such that
some have concluded that the language used to describe it is mytho-
logical. These scholars have decided to recast the theological content of
the return of Christ into the language of modernity. They consider two
thousand years of waiting to be a long period of time. In contrast to that
view, in Adventist eschatology what is particularly disturbing for some
15
The subject of theodicy and its connection with the cosmic conflict is of key importance in
the book of Revelation, and various Adventist scholars have discussed it; e.g., Tonstad, God’s
Reputation; Tonstad, “Theodicy and the Theme of Cosmic Conflict in the Early Church,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004): 169–202; Laszlo Gallusz, The Throne Mo-
tif in the Book of Revelation, Library of New Testament Studies 487 (New York: Bloomsbury,
2014), 300–329; and Steven Grabiner, Revelation’s Hymns: Commentary on the Cosmic Conflict,
Library of New Testament Studies (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015), 35–68.
16
We should also take into consideration, among other things, that angels and humans were cre-
ated as free beings and that as such they are accountable for their actions to the Creator. Since
evil powers would damage God’s creation, it would be God’s loving decision to protect those
who have remained faithful to Him by eliminating those who destroy His creation. Besides,
since those on the opposite side of the conflict chose death and not life, God, after struggling to
persuade them to accept life, will respect their freedom, granting them what they wanted. One
can only speculate that the extermination of fallen beings would be a sober moment for the
cosmos and it that may not come to an end without a tear in God’s eyes.
is not that we have been waiting for two thousand years, but that we
have been waiting for 174 years. For us the apocalyptic prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation, and particularly their time periods, explain why
we are still here, but the lack of time prophecies going beyond 1844
contribute to raising the question of the delay.
The search for answers has been dominated by efforts to identify
who is responsible for the delay. The primary, if not the exclusive, an-
swer has been ecclesiological. That is to say, there is something deeply
wrong with the church that needs to be corrected before the coming of
the Lord can occur. For instance, some argue that Christ will not come
until the church accepts and proclaims a particular understanding of the
gospel. Others argue that the delay is due to the deteriorated spiritual
condition of the church, which must change in order to be ready to re-
ceive the Lord. Some claim that Christ will only come after a significant
number of church members reach perfection of character. More com-
mon is the conviction that Christ will only return after the message of
the church is proclaimed to the whole world. We do not have time to
evaluate these and other views, but independent of their value or lack
of it, these attempts to explain the delay of the parousia serve to alert us
to the fact that the question of the delay is real and that it is necessary for
us to address it. Some have, in fact, addressed it,17 but more work is still
needed.
The topic of the delay raises questions about the interaction between
divine sovereignty and human freedom, and also about the connection
between events in heaven (the mediation of Christ that will soon end)
and the activity of the church on earth (the realization of its mission).
These need our attention as Bible students. But perhaps the delay is
about the time between the two epiphanies of Christ: What should we do
while hope waits? In this particular case, it would then be important to
17
See, e.g., Le Roy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, DC: Review and Her-
ald, 1971), 561–603; Norval Peace, “The Second Advent in Seventh-day Adventist History and
Theology,” in Advent Hope, 176–189; Guy, “Future and the Present,” in Advent Hope, 218–219;
Hans K. LaRondelle, “Did Jesus Intend to Return in the First Century?” Ministry, May 1983,
10–13; Richard Lehmann, “Advent on Ice?” Ministry, November 1984, 7–10, 30; Ralph A. Neal,
How Long, O Lord? (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1988), 87–126; László Gallusz,
“How Soon is ‘Soon’? Reading the Language of Eschatological Imminence in the Book of
Revelation,” in Faith in Search of Depth and Relevance: Festschrift in Honour of Dr. Bertil
Wiklander, ed. Reinder Bruinsma (St. Albans: Trans-European Division, 2014), 127–145;
Marcos G. Blanco, “La tensión inminencia/demora de la segunda venida de Cristo en los escri-
tos de Elena White,” in “Porque cerca está el día del Señor”: Estudios en escatología, ed. Alvaro
F. Rodríguez and Roy E. Graf (Lima: Ediciones Theologika, 2018), 247–258; Jo Ann Davidson,
“The Second Coming of Christ: Is There a ‘Delay’?” in God’s Character and the Last Generation,
ed. Jiří Moskala and John C. Peckham (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018), 253–270.
explore the contribution of apocalyptic prophecies to this perceived or

real delay and the nature of the mission of the church. Adventists believe
that not all apocalyptic prophecies have been fulfilled, and that there-
fore we are still living in the time of fulfillment. Christ’s work of
salvation in the heavenly sanctuary has not yet concluded. Certain things
must happen before the second coming and they are now in the pro-
cess of happening. Therefore, it is imperative to keep hope and expec-
tation alive within our community of believers. This leads us to our
next challenge.
Certainty of the Christian Hope

What makes our eschatological expectation certain? The history
of hope reveals that history itself is a great cemetery of human hopes.
These were utopias that for a short period of time provided apparent
meaning to some human beings, but that finally were demonstrated to
be unsubstantial. In looking at the church, one wonders why the Chris-
tian hope, a matter of significant importance, does not seem to be a major
concern to many church members. There is little talk about the sec-
ond coming of Christ and we tend to live as if time will last indefinitely.
The element of expectation appears to be in “intensive care,” and
consequently the life of a believer is in many ways indistinguishable
from that of an unbeliever. Many of those sitting in our pews seem
to be facing almost a crisis of eschatological hope. When this hope is
appropriated, it leads believers to a holy and pure life (1 John 3:3). We
need a revival of the apostolic hope in the life of the church. The convic-
tion that Christ is coming soon can and should transform us by changing
the way we relate to God and to others.
Perhaps some of our theologians may be facing a crisis of hope. The
temptation to reject the historicist apocalyptic methodology may be
connected to such a crisis. The concept of the cosmic conflict and the
specificity of the biblical, apocalyptic eschatological hope that we hold
so dear are directly related to a historicist approach to apocalyptic proph-
ecy. Preterism would leave us without such a hope. Biblical hope tells
us that God has been personally and directly involved in history, lead-
ing it and pointing to its consummation at the parousia, when His
presence within our history will be visible, audible, and permanent.
This same God has provided for us an outline of historical events that,
as they are fulfilled, validate our eschatology and help us in our pilgrim-
age to locate ourselves within the flow of apocalyptic events. We need
to stand together on this approach to prophecy if we want to revive
hope within the church.
So, back to the question: what makes the Adventist eschatological

hope uniquely certain and absolutely trustworthy? For the author of this
study, a christological perspective on biblical eschatology provides an
answer: biblical eschatological hope is absolutely reliable because of
Christ. The Bible establishes that Christ is our hope—our living hope (e.g.,
1 Tim 1:1; 1 Pet 1:3)—not simply in the sense that He is the source and foun-
dation for our hope, but also in a more literal and direct way. He is what
we anticipate with great expectation. In the glorified Man from Galilee
we already see the concrete or palpable expression of our hope, making it
supremely reliable. In other words, since there is a human being in whom
what we have been hoping for has been realized, our hope is trustworthy.
We have evidence for it in Christ.
Here are a few examples to illustrate the argument: We look forward
to the moment when we will exist in the glorious presence of God, but
this is already a reality for the man Christ Jesus (John 14:3; 1 Tim 2:5).
The hope of those who died or will die in Jesus includes their res-
urrection from the dead. For them, as well as for all of us, this hope is
trustworthy because another human being has already been resurrected
from the dead—“the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will
also raise us with Jesus” (2 Cor 4:14, NIV). We look forward to the mo-
ment when our bodies will be transformed into a glorious body be-
cause Christ’s body has already been glorified: “For our citizenship is
in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ; who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body”
(Phil 3:21). We firmly believe that we will ascend to the Father because
Christ already ascended: “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will
come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may
be also” (John 14:3; cf. 1 Thess 4:17). We will reign with Christ because
He is already reigning as King: “To him who overcomes, I will give
the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down
with my Father on his throne” (Rev 3:21, NIV; 2 Tim 2:12). We will live
forever because He lives forever and ever: “Whether we are awake or
asleep, we will live together with Him” (1 Thess 5:10; cf. Rev 1:18).
The point is simple: our hope is reliable and trustworthy because
there is a human being positioned in the very presence of God who is the
embodiment of our hope. For Him it is a past and present experience,
but for us it is the shape of our future; it is still our hope.
Science and Biblical Eschatology

The conflict between scientific theories and biblical theology is
not limited to the area of origins, but also includes the field of biblical
eschatology. The topic has been a matter of discussion between scien-

tists and theologians. At the turn of the millennium, a number of natural
scientists, theologians, and philosophers met for three years at Princeton
and Heidelberg to discuss the topic of the interaction between the pres-
ent scientific understanding of the future of the cosmos and biblical
hope. The result of this consultation was published in the year 2000. In
the introduction of the book, John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker
write, “[Eschatology] is a particularly challenging one for the theol-
ogy and science discourse. It seems to provoke an irreconcilable split
between the sciences and theology by implying that there are two dis-
tinct realms of reality.”18 According to them eschatology is much less
compatible with scientific theories than creationism.
Eschatology and science is an area where Adventists have done
very little, probably because of our primary concern with the biblical
doctrine of origins. But the truth is that modern cosmogony and cos-
mology appear to challenge not only the biblical view of origins, but also
that of the future of the cosmos. For many, scientific theories demon-
strate that there is no future for the cosmos because it will come to an end
in a cosmic catastrophe; it will freeze or fry. The idea is that the fini-
tude of the cosmos is part of its very structure, and consequently it will
collapse on itself. The implications of this view for the human psyche
are impossible to fathom. According to it everything we do on this planet
is senseless and absurd, impossible to justify. Nothing will be preserved.
It is difficult to speak with finality about the future end of the cos-
mos. It seems that we are still in the realm of well-informed speculations
difficult to demonstrate. The cosmos is immense and we know so little
about it that it would be better to show a good dose of humility when
addressing the question of its future. As believers, we should take into
consideration divine providence at a cosmic level, as suggested by the
presence of the Spirit of the Lord within the cosmos before creation week
(Gen 1:2). But even if the scientific analysis is able to predict what would
appear to be the logical destiny of the finite cosmos as we now know it,
one should keep in mind that according to biblical eschatology the cos-
mos exists in the hope of being “set free from its slavery to corruption”
18
John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, eds., The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science
and Theology on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 1. Polkinghorne
wrote a popular version of the topics: The God of Hope and the End of the World (New Heaven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2002). Polkinghorne does not question the assessment of the future
of the cosmos provided by the scientific community, but finds in the biblical doctrine of the
resurrection the fulfillment of God’s plan for the cosmos and for humans. After the cosmic
catastrophe, God will recreate the cosmos, transforming it into the vision of the new found
in Scripture.
(Rom 8:20). The realization of this hope would preempt the scientific
predictions of its death.19 With the arrival of the new there will be a
most wonderful future for the cosmos. The primary point in this dis-
cussion is not to resolve the challenge, but to encourage us to confront
this particular challenge to Adventist eschatology.
Conclusion
What is Adventist eschatology? It is a vision of the future, iden-

tified as the Christian hope, configured in the divine mind as part
of His redemptive plan, centered in Christ, preserved in Scripture,
and appropriated by faith in the divine promise. It is only visible and
accessible in Christ, making it absolutely trustworthy. This hope is a
manifestation of our deepest desire to go back home, to be in the pres-
ence of our Creator and Redeemer. But at the same time it expresses our
disgust with the present condition of the world that, under the influence
of evil powers, afflicts humanity and opposes the values of the kingdom of
God. It is indeed a cosmic problem, and therefore this hope is not only
about the future of humans on this planet. Since the problem is cos-
mic, its resolution through Christ is also of cosmic proportions and will
culminate in a cosmic theodicy. God will be recognized by all as a self-
sacrificing God who deeply loves His creatures and always procures for
them the best. It is precisely love that is manifested in the extermination
of the wicked and that brings the controversy to an end.
Adventist apocalyptic hope reaches us from God and speaks to us
as creatures oriented toward the future who are eagerly waiting for the
new. While hope waits for its full realization, we seek to live a holy life
and to express this hope in service to others and to God in the fulfillment
of the mission of the church. This apocalyptic hope needs to be nurtured
by speaking about it, by not forgetting its nearness, and by sharing it.
According to it the future is glorious: “Then I saw a new heaven and a
new earth. . . . And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold
the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them,
and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer
be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain;
for the first things have passed away’” (Rev 21:1, 3–4).
19
See Robert Russell, “Cosmology and Eschatology,” in Walls, 573–574.
CHAPTER 19
Reflections On Historicism
And Eschatology
Ekkehardt Mueller
This paper deals with the relation of historicism and eschatology. After
some definitions of and observations about historicism, we will move on
to eschatology and then look at both of these topics together.
Historicism
Historicism as a Worldview
Typically, Adventists understand historicism as one of the approaches
to the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy. Other approaches are, for
instance, preterism, futurism, and idealism.
However, the term “historicism” is much broader and used in dif-
ferent ways in the field of theology as well as in other areas of research.
Anthony Thiselton states, “Historicism is usually defined as the view
that any event, person, culture, or situation is capable of explanation and
understanding solely in terms of historical cause and effect.”1 Another
definition expands this statement:
Historicism is the idea of attributing meaningful significance

to space and time, such as historical period, geographical place,
and local culture. Historicism tends to be hermeneutical because
it values cautious, rigorous, and contextualized interpretation of
information; or relativist, because it rejects notions of universal,
1
Anthony C. Thiselton, The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2015), 427.
fundamental and immutable interpretations. . . . Over time it

[historicism] has developed different and somewhat divergent
meanings.2
The hermeneutical aspect of historicism is presented in the his-

torical-critical method and, in the meantime, in other hermeneutical
methodologies. Sheila Greeve Davaney writes:
History has long been a concern of Western thinkers. . . . However,

it was only in the later modern period, from the late eighteenth
century onward, that thinking about history was itself histori-
cized; only in this era did historicism develop as a worldview, the
critical historical method take determinative shape, and epis-
temological questions concerning the historical character of
human thought itself come to the fore.
Historicism is a perspective or set of convictions that provides

categories and ways of thinking about human existence. But it
is also a movement that came into being at a particular time in
human history, in response to a specific set of problems and cir-
cumstances.3
Therefore, religion was redefined and reason elevated “to be human-

ity’s only authority.”4
It was envisioned as the means to progress, peace, tolerance,

and human freedom. Reason was to be autonomous, serving no
master but reason alone, pursuing no goals but those dictated by
rationality itself. . . . Reason was taken to be ahistorical or transhis-
torical, yielding universal, absolute, and timeless truths.5
2
Wikipedia, s.v. “Historicism,” last modified December 13, 2019, 23:45, https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Historicism (accessed February 16, 2020). On historicism and relativism, see Peter Wood-
ford, “Specters of the Nineteenth Century: Charles Taylor and the Problem of Historicism,” Jour-
nal of Religious Ethics 40, no. 1 (2012): 175.
3
Sheila Greeve Davaney, Historicism: The Once and Future Challenge for Theology (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 2006), 1.
4
Ibid., 4.
5
Ibid., 5.
In the twentieth century, contemporary historicism has developed.6

Davaney promotes what she calls “pragmatic historicism.” She describes
it as follows:
It leads, as did earlier historicisms, to a view of religion without

absolutes and of theology without certitude. It urges a resistance
both to the desire to escape history and the lure of confession-
alism and parochialism that inscribe new forms of historicized
absolutism within religious traditions.7
This approach to doing theology is opposed to timeless or absolute

truth.8
The Historicist Interpretation of Apocalyptic Prophecy
Definitions
Apart from this broad sense of historicism as a worldview and—
deriving from it—hermeneutical methods that exclude supernatural
events and interventions in history and therefore also divine revelation and
inspiration, treating basically all literature alike, there is a historicist
approach to the interpretation of apocalyptic literature that differs sub-
stantially in its presuppositions and consequently in its results. Historicism
as a worldview led to critical approaches to Scripture and consequently
to a preterist interpretation of apocalyptic texts. On the other hand, the
historicist approach to apocalyptic literature assumes that through His
prophets God has spoken to humans in apocalyptic prophecy, which
therefore is inspired and is predictive in nature.
L. E. Froom defines the historicist approach to the apocalyptic
prophecy as “the progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy, in
unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down
to the second advent and the end of the age”.9 The “progressive and
continuous fulfillment” does not exclude the existence of recapitulation
but emphasizes that historicists do not understand history to be cycli-
cal without reaching a clear goal. Should, however, the phrase oppose
6
See, e.g., Gina Hens-Piazza, The New Historicism Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament
Series (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002).
7
Davaney, 168–169.
8
Ibid., 156, 158, 161–164, says, “Truth is emergent, not given; truth, as the early pragmatics as-
serted, is to be made, not just discovered.”
9
LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Pro-
phetic Interpretation (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 1:22–23.
recapitulation, we would not be able to identify with this definition.

William Shea suggests, “The historicist method sees these prophe-
cies [of Daniel and Revelation] as being fulfilled through the course of
human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.”10
Reimar Vetne’s definition states, “Historicism reads historical apoca-
lyptic as prophecy intended by its ancient author to reveal information
about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the
eschaton.”11 The final report of the Daniel and Revelation Committee
contains a section on apocalyptic prophecy (Daniel/Revelation) stressing,
for instance, its unconditional nature, a one-time fulfillment, the need to
use the historicist method of interpretation, and the year-day principle.12
It is unfortunate that the term “historicism” is used to describe her-
meneutical approaches that are directly in opposition to each other. This
requires Bible students to be very careful and not jump to quick con-
clusions without verifying whether a critical or non-critical approach is
being used.
From now on, this study will focus on the historicist approach to the
interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy in contradistinction to preterism
and futurism. The terms “historicism” and “historicist” will only be used
to indicate that a sequence of historical periods is intended in the
respective literature.
Problems with Historicism

The historicist approach to apocalyptic prophecy has fallen into dis-
repute within scholarship and large circles of Christianity. While this has
historical reasons—namely, definite identifications of Christian move-
ments as anti-Christian that are considered to be offensive—there are
also other reasons for its rejection. Christine Joy Tan critiques idealism
and historicism using the two witnesses of Revelation 11 as a test case. She
states that the main group to support historicism consists of Seventh-day
Adventists. In her opinion the historicist approach has “four major
weaknesses: multiple interpretations, unnecessary allegorization, limited
10
See William H. Shea, “Historicism, the Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm 17,
no. 1 (2003): 22.
11
Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting
Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (2003): 7.
12
Richard Lesher and Frank B. Holbroook, “Daniel and Revelation Committee: Final Report,”
in Symposium on Revelation—Book 2, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series 7 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 452–454. For a historical review,
see Gluder Quispe, The Apocalypse in Seventh-day Adventist Interpretation (Lima: Universidad
Peruana Unión, 2013), 212–215.
perspective, and erroneous results.”13 Elaborating on these four, she

points out that a multiplicity of historical identifications of characters
in Revelation does not contribute to the credibility of historicism. To
maintain the chain of events “far-fetched spiritualization” may be used. It
may be that no corresponding events can be found in history. The his-
torical perspective may be too narrowly focused on the medieval ages and
Europe. False time calculations have done great harm and caused
fanaticism.14
Whether or not her evaluation is correct on all points and whether
it would—partially and at times equally—apply to preterism or futur-
ism is not the focus of this inquiry. Adventist scholars acknowledge that
the historicist approach is not always used properly.15 Unfortunately,
among Seventh-day Adventists one can find a time setting for the sec-
ond coming of Jesus Christ, arbitrary switching from symbolic to literal
interpretations, multiple fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy, conspiracy
theories, interpretations not derived from Scripture, identifications of
historical events with the text of Revelation that do not match what the
text and its context spell out, etc.
For instance, one booklet on the seven thunders of Revelation
concludes, “We are promised Jesus will come before the winter of 2008
and not on Sabbath. At noon on or before September 24, 2008 we ex-
pect the words of God the Father to be true.”16 And a short document
entitled “Look at What the Lord Has Recently Revealed to Me” defends
a definitive time setting and—based on the Israelite festivals—comes to
the following conclusion:
May 15, 2013 Latter rain

Sept. 14, 2013 The closing of probation
Sept. 15–21, 2013 Six plagues poured out
Sept. 22, 2013 Seventh plague, voice of God,
special resurrection
Sept. 23, 2013 Jesus’ second advent
13
Christine Joy Tan, “A Critique of Idealist and Historicist Views of the Two Witnesses in Revela-
tion 11,” Bibliotheca Sacra 171 (July–September 2014): 337.
14
Tan, 337–338.
15
E.g., Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical
Apocalyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (2003): 17–18.
16
Connie Ordelheide-Anderson, Decoding the Bible Prophecy of the 7 Thunders (n.p., n.d.).
Besides these examples of a hard time setting for the second com-
ing, there are numerous authors who favor a soft time setting.17 With
regard to the sixth trumpet, Toby Joreteg holds, “In these verses possi-
bly some military machines are described, and it seems that the wicked
are destroying themselves.”18 Turning to the 1260 days mentioned in
Revelation 11:3 and 12:6, Adam Cirkic argues, “The multiple expressions
for the same period of time alone shows that there could be a multiple
meaning of it.”19 So he suggests that there are 1260 literal years as well as
1260 days that correspond to three and a half literal years.
A trend that can be observed in churches is a superficial reading of
the biblical texts, a lack of thorough exegesis and theological consid-
eration, and a quick attempt to identify biblical symbols with current
events. Driven by curiosity and discontent with our interpretation of
Revelation, which does not seem to speak sufficiently to the turmoil in
politics and economics and therefore seems to be irrelevant, there are
new, fancy, and irresponsible interpretations constantly appearing.
They discredit historicism, as does the attempt to combine historicism
and futurism.20
A Responsible Approach
Jon Paulien writes:
Any rebirth of historicist interpretation among scholars of faith,

therefore, will need to avoid the minute details and ‘newspaper’
exegesis of previous interpretation, while taking seriously the
plain meaning of the symbols in their original context.21
It is not enough to claim a historicist approach based on it having

a long tradition in Christianity and always being used by Adventists. It
17
Cf. Paulien, “The End of Historicism? . . . Part One,” 18. See also Ekkehardt Mueller, “Pope
Francis, 666, and Time Setting,” Reflections, April 2013, 1–4.
18
Toby Joreteg, Revelation (Brushton, NY: Aspect Books, 2001), 152.
19
Adam Cirkic, Great Light Has Lighten up the Prophecy about Seven Seals (n.p., n.d.).
20
Ekkehardt Mueller, “A New Trend in Adventist Eschatology: A Critical Analysis of a Recent
Publication,” Reflections: The BRI Newsletter, October 2013, 1–6.
21
Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apoca-
lyptic—Part One,” 42. Hans Heinz, “Theologische Schulen prophetischer Interpretation,” in
Prophetie und Eschatologie, Teil 1, Bibelkonferenz Marienhöhe (n.p., 1982), 47, states, “The his-
torical interpretation often overlooks the fact that it overcharges apocalyptic prophecy when
it believes that it is a prophetic compendium of world and church history with an abundance
of details.”
must be shown from the text that such an approach is demanded by the
biblical text.22
Therefore, apocalyptic texts must be carefully exegeted and their
theological embedment in the biblical book must be studied and shown.
Exegesis and theology are not per se enemies of a historicist approach.23
On the contrary, they allow us to do justice to the text and avoid his-
torical associations of a prophecy under study that are arbitrary and not
supported by the data furnished by the text.
For instance, a thorough exegesis of a passage includes 1) determin-
ing the immediate context, the larger context, and the delimitation of a
passage; 2) attempting to discover its structure; 3) studying the back-
grounds; 4) investigating the time frame and basic locations of the
vision; 5) looking for major characters and major emphases; 6) observ-
ing syntactical, grammatical, and literary features; 7) determining what
is symbolic and what is not; and 8) dealing with the question of the
literary genre. Is the passage under investigation apocalyptic prophecy
that has to be understood historically, or is it not?
The book of Daniel contains various genres of literature, includ-
ing narrative, classical prophecy, and apocalyptic prophecy. The book of
Revelation is similar to and yet different from Daniel, and its literary genres
are perhaps more difficult to determine. Although Revelation contains an
epistolary frame, narrative units, prophecy, and apocalyptic material, to
track them with precision and clearly distinguish the genres can be quite
difficult.24 Still the task of the biblical scholar is to argue that the text
demands a historicist approach and contains a sequence of historical
events. Only after serious exegetical and theological study may the in-
terpreter look at a possible historical event that fits the biblical text.
Again, it is not enough to assume that the historicist approach works.
It is not enough that it was used by Reformers and our pioneers. It is
not even enough that in Adventist history texts were interpreted one way
or the other. These interpretations are often correct, but sometimes may
22
Cf. Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apoca-
lyptic—Part One,” 38.
23
They may be problematic if they follow the presuppositions of critical hermeneutical meth-
odologies. However, a hermeneutical method that regards Scripture as the inspired Word of
God is crucial for the interpretation of prophecy, whether classical or apocalyptic.
24
Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apoca-
lyptic—Part One,” 36, notes, “So to completely distinguish between prophetic and apocalyptic
books is extreme difficult if not impossible. It is perhaps safest to say that the Apocalypse is
a unique literary work, one that utilizes the expressions of apocalyptic literature, but also
reflects the conviction that the spirit of prophecy had been revived (Rev 19:10). George Eldon
Ladd, therefore, proposed a hybrid categorization.”
not be. To discard them right away would be throwing the baby out with
the bath water, and to cling to them no matter what would merely be
tradition. Our interpretations must be true to the Word of God as best
as possible with our human imperfections. Shortcuts are not permissible.
Otherwise we will always have fanciful and irresponsible interpretations
that discredit historicism.
In addition, a historicist approach has to be shown for each vision of
Revelation separately—that is, on a one-to-one basis. If, for instance, the
seven plagues affect only the last days of human history, a sequencing of
the individual plagues from the time of the author to the final consum-
mation is unwarranted. This study suggests that Revelation as a whole
furnishes a development of salvation and the great controversy motifs
from the time of the author to the final consummation and that various
visions in Revelation do the same, recapitulating that process.
Paulien has developed four criteria for identifying the genre of his-
torical apocalyptic. “These are: 1) textual markers that indicate historical
sequence, 2) consistent sequence of symbols and explanation, 3) a com-
prehensive sweep of events, and 4) parallels with clear examples of
historical apocalyptic.”25 This study suggests adding to the list the delimi-
tation of a passage/vision. If a vision begins in the time of the prophet
and reaches to the parousia or beyond, it may be an additional indica-
tor that it is historical apocalyptic. Having applied these principles to
Revelation 12–14, Paulien comes to the conclusion that the central vision
of Revelation is historical apocalyptic and needs to be interpreted with
a historicist approach. The outcome would be as follows:
1) Stage Zero: Before the Time of the Vision (12:1–4)

The original war in heaven ([v.] 4)
The dragon embodies the kingdoms of the earth ([v.] 3)
The woman represents God’s true people ([vs.] 1–2)
2) Stage One: The Time of Jesus and John (12:5, 7–12)
The woman gives birth to the male child ([v.] 5)
He is snatched up to heaven ([v.] 5)
War in heaven ([vs.] 7–9)
Enthronement and victory ([vs.] 10–11)
Transition ([v.] 12)
25
Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apoc-
alyptic—Part Two,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 206.
3) Stage Two: The Serpent Attacks the Woman (12:6, 13–16)

The dragon pursues the woman ([v.] 13)
She flees into the desert and is protected 1260 days ([vs.] 6, 14)
The serpent spews water to sweep her away ([v.] 15)
The earth helps the woman ([v.] 16)
4) Stage Three: The Dragon and the Remnant (Rev 12:17, etc.)
The dragon is angry and goes away to make war (12:17)
He calls up allies for the conflict (13:1–7, 11)
The unholy trinity deceives and persecutes (13:8–10, 12–18)26
This is followed in chronological order by the response of the rem-

nant (Rev 14:1–13) and the return of Jesus (Rev 14:14–20).
Here is another example for the historicist approach: The vision of
the seven seals begins in heaven with the slaughtered but living Lamb
(Rev 5). Jesus was installed in His heavenly ministry and as a response
poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in AD 31. There is an allusion
to Daniel 7:13–14 and a parallel in Acts 2:33. The seventh seal ends in
heaven (Rev 8:1). The sixth seal describes essential signs of Jesus’ return,
as described in Matthew 24 (Rev 6:12–17). According to Revelation 6:17,
the sixth seal takes John’s audience to the great day of the wrath of God
and the wrath of the Lamb. The time for the seals series extends from
the first century AD beyond the second coming of Jesus. The fifth seal
asks the question “How long?” (Rev 6:10) and thereby refers to Daniel 8:13.
The answer is found in Daniel 7 and 12 and the pre-advent judgment.
So time markers, a broad sweep of events,27 the periodization of the
time between the beginning and end of the vision, and the reference to
other historic apocalyptic material that has already been established as
such suggests that a historicist interpretation is the correct approach to
this type of prophetic material.
Eschatology
We now turn to eschatology. Literally understood, eschatology is

the teaching of the last things. In some scholarly resources, eschatology
includes personal eschatology and may even give this aspect priority—
the individual’s death, his or her state in death, judgment, and resurrec-
tion. For instance, in his article on eschatology F. F. Bruce begins with
26
Jon Paulien, “The 1260 Days in the Book of Revelation,” Reflections, January 2006, 3.
27
See Ekkehardt Müller, Der Erste und der Letzte: Studien zum Buch der Offenbarung, Adventis-
tica: Forschungen zur Geschichte und Theologie der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten 11 (Frankfurt:
Peter Lang, 2011), 143–144, 159–162.
a definition or description of eschatology and then immediately turns

to “Individual Eschatology” before discussing “World Eschatology in
the OT,” “NT Eschatology,” and various theological proposals of how to
understand general eschatology.28
Thiselton admits that “eschatology is the doctrine of the ‘last things,’’’
but he states,
In the Bible this refers not so much to individual death and res-
urrection as to the three great cosmic events: the parousia . . . ,
the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment. Over time,
however, other elements were added: the death of the individual,
heaven and hell, the imminence of the end, hope, the intermediate
state, the nature of eternity and the beatific vision.29
Similar to Thiselton, Paul A. Rainbow in his volume on Johannine

theology sees the major eschatological events as the
second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, the

last judgment and the commencement of God’s eternal king-
dom. This simple scheme of events with Christ at its center,
attested by the Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of John, forms the
core eschatology behind the recapitulation visions of the book of
Revelation.30
Erickson discusses and critiques various views on eschatology. He

calls them the liberal modernized eschatology, the demodernized escha-
tology (Albert Schweitzer), realized eschatology (C. H. Dodd), existential
eschatology (Rudolf Bultmann), political eschatology (Jürgen Moltmann),
and dispensationalism’s eschatology.31 While most of them may contain
elements of truth, not all of them seem to come close to the teachings
of Scripture on eschatology. Due so certain emphases in Catholic and
Protestant theology, eschatology may have appeared like an adden-
dum to Christian theology. This has dramatically changed with Albert
28
F. F. Bruce, “Eschatology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 362–365.
29
Thiselton, 302.
30
Paul A. Rainbow, Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academics, 2014), 230.
31
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1162–1170.
Schweitzer,32 Karl Barth,33 and Jürgen Moltmann. According to Moltmann,
From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is

eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and
therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the presence.
The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the
medium of Christian faith as such.34
However, the question needs to be raised: What is eschatology when

we talk about it as the doctrine of the last things? What are the last
things? Typically, Adventists think about future events associated with
the final consummation. However, this is too limited. While looking to
the future, which is important, we should not forget what has already
happened and what is an integral part of eschatology. The “last days”
and the time of the end are not future. They are present. And while we
are aware of this, a reminder serves to maintain the dual New Testament
focus:35
Matthew 12:28 “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out de-
mons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Luke 17:21 “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
John 16:8, 11 “And when he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will con-
vict the world concerning sin and righteousness and
judgment . . . concerning judgment, because the
ruler of this world is judged.”
Acts 2:17 “But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young
men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream
dreams.”
32
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress From Reimarus
To Wrede, 2nd. ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911).
33
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 3.2, The Doctrine of Reconciliation (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2009), 712, states, “The point to be grasped is that in Jesus Christ we really do have
the reality of world history. . . it is in Him that world history really and properly takes place.”
34
Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Escha-
tology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 16. He also suggests on the same page, “Eschatology
should not be the end, but its beginning.”
35
Hebrews 1:1–2, 4 “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God
spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last
days he has spoken to us by his Son . . . After making
purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand
of the Majesty on high.”
1 Peter 1:20–21 “He was foreknown before the foundation of the
world but was made manifest in the last times for the
sake of you who through him are believers in God,
who raised him from the dead.”
2 Peter 3:3; Jude 18 The “scoffers” of “the last days” in 2 Peter 3 and Jude are
already present in the first century AD.
1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard
that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists
have come. Therefore we know that it is the last
hour.”
On a personal level the same picture emerges:
John 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but

whoever does not believe is condemned already.”
John 5:24 “Whoever hears my word and believes him who
sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judg-
ment, but has passed from death to life.”
Ephesians 1:7–8 “In him [Jesus] we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to
the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us,
in all wisdom and insight . . .”
Ephesians 1:11, 13 “In him we have obtained an inheritance . . . In him
you also . . . were sealed with the promised Holy
Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance.”
Ephesians 2:6 [God] “raised us up with him and seated us with him
in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”
1 Peter 1:18–19 “You were ransomed . . . with the precious blood of
Christ.”
1 John 3:1 “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that
we should be called children of God; and so we are.”
But while the kingdom/reign of God has already come and has bro-
ken into our time and history, we still pray as Jesus taught us: “Your
kingdom come” (Matt 6:10). While we are already God’s children here
and now, we are still waiting to see Him as He is (1 John 3:2). While
we are already saved, we eagerly await the final liberation from all
corruption (Rom 8:14–25). F. F. Bruce states,
There is a tension between the “already” and the “not yet” of the
Christian hope, but each is essential to the other. In the language
of the seer of Patmos, the Lamb that was slain has by his death
won the decisive victory (Rev 5:5), but its final outworking, in
reward and judgment, lies in the future (Rev 22:12).36
What happened at Christ’s first coming has to be fulfilled with His

second coming and all the events associated with it, including the
establishment of a new creation. However, to desire and look forward
with great joy to the second advent instead of dreading it, one must
have already experienced salvation here and now. So this experience is
foundational to an appreciation of future eschatology.
What the New Testament teaches about eschatology is that the
incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ were crucial. With
Christ’s first advent a new era dawned, not completely foreseen by the
Old Testament. While the Old Testament messianic prophecies were ful-
filled in Jesus,37 “what the OT did not foresee so clearly was the ironic
reality that the kingdom and the tribulation could coexist, at the same
time.”38 Obviously, it did not indicate that the present evil age would
overlap with the kingdom of God until this kingdom is transformed
from the kingdom of grace to the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of
God came and comes in two stages.39
First Coming of Christ Second Coming of Christ
New Age
Old Age
36
Bruce, 165. See also Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2000), 600.
37
See Bruce, 363.
38
G. K. Beale, “Theological Foundation: Grasping the Already—Not Yet,” in Making All Things
New: Inaugurated Eschatology for the Life of the Church, ed. Benjamin Gladd and Matthew S.
Harmon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 11.
39
Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel
L. Akin (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007), 869. For the illustration, cf. Jon Paulien, What the
Bible Says About the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1994), 77.
Gregory Beale states, “All that the OT foresaw would occur in the end
times has begun already in the first century and continues on until the
final coming of Christ.”40 We need to appreciate deeply the significance
of the first advent and the cross for salvation history. If other Christians
stress it strongly, there is no reason for Adventists to take it lightly and
leave the discussion to them. We have to develop an understanding of
the eschatological nature of the first advent, just as we do for the second
advent. After all, we claim to teach all of Scripture, not just a part of it.
Crucial changes took place with Jesus’ first coming: salvation for sin-
ners, victory over sin and Satan, the end of the Old Testament earthly
sanctuary system and the beginning of Jesus’ reign as King and High
Priest, the inauguration of a new covenant, and the beginning of New
Testament eschatology, to name some. As Beale notes, “the apostles
understood eschatology not merely as futurology but also as a mind
set for understanding the present within the climaxing context of
redemptive history.”41
Eschatology is based on the work of the Godhead, and especially
on that of Jesus. Without Jesus there is no eschatology! Therefore, “the
future will come to us in Jesus.”42 That may mean we need to focus more
on Jesus. The second coming is by its nature related to Jesus. But what
about the millennium and the judgment? Do we teach the millennium
just as a doctrine or do we relate it to Jesus? Should we explore whether
Jesus is the Judge on the great white throne, as some scholars suggest?
What would the implication be if the Lamb is also the final judge? What
would that tell us theologically about the judgment? And when it comes
to the new heaven and the new earth and the new Jerusalem, the new
creation, are we talking about this subject anthropocentrically or chris-
tologically? Is the issue a life in ease and luxury for eternity or is it about
seeing God and living in closest communion with Jesus?
To summarize: The eschatological outlook on history has its origin
in the Trinity and was addressed right after the fall in the proto-gospel
(Gen 3:15). When the predicted time was fulfilled, God the Father sent
His Son Jesus Christ in order to redeem and adopt us as His children
(Gal 4:4–5) and advance His plan of salvation that will culminate in Jesus’
glorious reign after His parousia.
40
Beale, 8.
41
Ibid., 13.
42
Gerhard O. Forde, “The Apocalyptic No and the Eschatological Yes,” in A More Radical Gospel:
Essays on Eschatology, Authority, Atonement, and Ecumenism, ed. Mark C. Mattes and Steven D.
Paulson, Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 21.
Jesus Christ with His life, death, and resurrection is the center of
our eschatological hope and the beginning of the end time, the last days,
the last hour of world history. The main point in eschatology is not the
details of events that may or will happen, not a precise timetable of
future events; it is Jesus. The future kingdom is not all about us, although
it is also about us; it is about Jesus and God’s reign. “God has highly
exalted him [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every
name” (Phil 2:9). “All things were created through him and for him. And
he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. . . . that in ev-
erything he might be preeminent” (Col 1:16–18). “Christ is all and in
all” (Col 3:11).
Eschatology is future-oriented—but only partially. It is rooted in
the cross and the here and now looking for the final consummation.43
Through the Holy Spirit, Christ makes known Himself, His ministry,
and His message. Through Him Jesus speaks to unbelievers and to the
church, affirming believers that they are God’s children and heirs, while
they fervently wait for His coming, engage in mission and in the welfare
of humanity, and live a holy life. The Spirit teaches the believers to call
out, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:17), and He offers to all the water
of life without cost. The study of eschatology encompasses many biblical
doctrines. Therefore, “the truths of eschatology deserve careful, intense,
and thorough attention and study.”44
Historicism and Eschatology
Christ’s Comings and the Interim

After having addressed historicism and eschatology separately, we
have to bring the two together. The historicist interpretation of apoca-
lyptic prophecy focuses mainly on Daniel and Revelation. Since we have
addressed New Testament eschatology, we will concentrate on Rev-
elation for a moment. How are historicism and eschatology connected?
This study suggests that there are three basic periods of New Testa-
ment time—that is, three periods of the time of the overlap of the present
evil age and the new age of the kingdom of God. These three periods
are: 1) the beginning of the occurrence of this overlap initiated by the
incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah; 2) the end of
this overlap coming with the second advent of Christ, the millennial
judgment, and the new creation; and 3) the interim period between the
43
See Erickson, 1170.
44
Ibid., 1170.
first and second comings. The time of the interim may be further sub-
divided into different segments, as is evident in apocalyptic prophecy.
1 3
2 Second Coming of Christ
First Coming of Christ
Interim
New Age
Old Age
By definition apocalyptic prophecy reaches from the time of the

prophet to the final consummation. Therefore, it covers the entire
overlap and the time following it. It contains, to a large extent, the fu-
ture reality of eschatology, the biblical hope alive in true believers. The
different series of the historical part of Revelation (Rev 4–12)—especially
the sixth and seventh seals, the seventh trumpet, and the end of the vi-
sion on cosmic conflict—focus on the parousia, and some even on
events beyond the parousia. Revelation 15–16 deals with the seven last
plagues. Revelation 17–19 elaborates on the last two of these plagues,
bringing us to the second advent. Revelation 20 deals with the final
judgment and Revelation 21–22a with the new creation. Thus the entire
second part of the Apocalypse addresses the “not yet,” the future, not
the present time. But do we also find the “already,” the present reality of
eschatology, in Revelation as we do in the Gospels, Acts, and letters of
the New Testament? Before answering this question, let us take a brief
look at preterism and futurism.
In contrast to historicism, futurism leaves a vast gap between the
fulfillment of prophecy in the life and death of Jesus on the cross and
the future eschatological activity of God. When it comes to preter-
ism, Charles Ryrie distinguishes between three forms. He suggests that
1) there is a mild form of preterism, holding “that the prophecies in
Revelation were fulfilled in the first three centuries” Further, he suggests
that 2) “extreme preterism includes all future prophecies having been
fulfilled by 70, including those about the second coming of Christ and
resurrections.”45 These two forms of preterism do not, from the perspec-
tive of the present author, leave room for future eschatology. Lastly, Ryrie
says, 3) “Moderate preterism sees the prophecies in Revelation 4–19 as
45
Charles C. Ryrie, “The Doctrine of the Future and the Weakening of Prophecy,” in Eschatol-
ogy: Biblical, Historical, and Practical Approaches, ed. D. Jeffrey Bingham and Glenn R. Kreider
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2016), 73.
fulfilled in 70 [AD], although some prophecies—like those related to

Christ’s second coming and future resurrections—are yet to be fulfilled
in the future.”46 This moderate form of preterism would also—as futur-
ism does—leave a gap between the time shortly after the completion of the
New Testament canon and future events such as the second coming, res-
urrections, judgment, and the creation of a new heaven and earth. While
God would be leading His people individually, there would be no pre-
dicted historical events and time prophecies marking off periods of salva-
tion history in the interim between the first and second comings of Christ.
1 3
First Coming of Christ
2 Second Coming of Christ
Interim
New Age
Old Age
Preterism Modern Preterism

Futurism Futurism
Historicism
The “Already” in Revelation

Back to the question of the “already” in Revelation! The present as-
pect of eschatology, the “already,” is also found in Revelation. It applies
to the kingly rule of Christ and to the individual believer:47
Revelation 1:5 When the book of Revelation was written by John,

Jesus was already the ruler of the kings on earth. How-
ever, according to Revelation 11:15 the kingdom of
the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and
of Christ with the seventh trumpet only. While Jesus
is King, and while the enemy is already defeated, there
is still opposition to His rule until this opposition
comes to an end with the last of the seven trumpets.
Revelation 1:5 “He [Jesus] has freed us from our sins by his blood.”
Revelation 1:6 He “made us a kingdom, priests to his God and
Father.” While followers of Christ are already priests
here and now, there is a future dimension of this
priesthood (Rev 20:4, 6) surpassing the present reality.
46
Ryrie, “The Doctrine of the Future and the Weakening of Prophecy,” 73.
47
Revelation 1:9 John considers himself to be partner in the tribula-

tion but also in the kingdom.
Revelation 3:5 The conqueror’s name will not be blotted out of the
book of life where it is already noted.
Revelation 3:11 Followers of Christ already have the “crown” but need
to hold it fast.
Revelation 5:9–10 “By your blood [Jesus] you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to
our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
Revelation 13:6 “Those who dwell in heaven” are being slandered. In
verse 8 “those who dwell on earth” form a contrast
to the heaven dwellers. The group that forms the
inhabitants of the earth is always understood nega-
tively in Revelation. The heaven dwellers are blas-
phemed, while the earth dwellers worship the sea
beast. This suggests that the heaven dwellers are
humans who are already portrayed as being seated
in heaven (cf. Eph 2:6).48
The present aspect of eschatology is found in Revelation, as is the

future aspect. Revelation follows the rest of New Testament literature
by maintaining “the already and not yet.” If that is so, and if eschatology
has been made possible through the incarnation, life, death, and resur-
rection of Jesus, then we are back to Jesus and need to take a closer
look at Him in Revelation.
1) The Apocalypse is the revelation of Jesus Christ.
2) In chapter 1 He is the faithful witness (Rev 1:5), and the book of
Revelation is His witness, the testimony of Jesus (Rev 1:2), covering the
entire period, which we encounter as New Testament history.
3) Jesus is the firstborn of the dead (Rev 1:5). He was dead but is
now alive. The book of Revelation plays out in the time when Jesus is
the ever-living Lord after His death on the cross. He declares, “[I am]
the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18).
Therefore, He also calls Himself “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17).
Obviously, this designation is used synonymously with the expres-
sions “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End,” describing
God the Father (Rev 1:8; 21:6) and Jesus Christ (Rev 22:13). In Greek
48
See Grant R. Osborne, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 2002), 500.
thought “Beginning and End” points to the eternal existence of God.49

The titles are used seven times in the self-designations of God and
Jesus. This may not be an accident in light of the series of sevens in the
Apocalypse.50 And God the Father is the one who is and was and is to
come (Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; and modified in 11:17), spanning all time and all
eternity and therefore also every prophecy and every statement made
in Revelation.
4) Jesus is introduced as the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:15).
He is this in the first century AD. He is this throughout the book of
Revelation. When someone reads or hears the book of Revelation and
is blessed according to the promise in Revelation 1:3, that person en-
counters Jesus as Ruler and King. Jesus will be attacked as such in the
final war (Rev 17:14), but proves to be victorious as King of kings and
Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). Because He is the King, He can make His
people a kingdom, priests here and now and forever (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
As for the prologue of Revelation, how does Jesus fare with the three
phases of New Testament eschatology in Revelation, suggested above?
1) Jesus’ incarnation becomes evident in His birth (Rev 12:5). The end
of His life on the cross is described with language of death (Rev 1:5, 18;
2:8), with language of a slaughtered lamb (Rev 5:6, 9, 12), and with the
term “to crucify” (Rev 11:8). His resurrection appears in Revelation 1:5
and in connection with language of life (Rev 1:18; 2:8). His ascension
(Rev 12:5) and presence in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 5) and His seat-
ing with the Father on the throne of God (Rev 5) round out the picture
and mark the beginning of New Testament eschatology.
2) Quite frequently Jesus’ second coming (Rev 1:7, 16:15) and even His
soon coming (Rev 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20) and the nearness of time (Rev 1:3; 22:10;
cf. 1:1; 22:6) are emphasized in Revelation. The parousia is also described
with images such as a double harvest (Rev 14:14–20). In addition, Jesus
judges the enemies at the end of time (Rev 6:16–17; 19:11).
The Lamb in Revelation is slain. If this Lamb does not rise and if
he does not come again to establish his reign over the nations and
the entire cosmos, the Creator’s rightful claim over the creation is
nullified, and the creation remains captive to all evil purposes.51
49
Cf. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 26–27.
50
The phrase “the first and the last” appears again in Revelation 2:8. However, there it is not in-
troduced by “I am.” Cf. ibid., 26.
51
John Christopher Thomas and Frank D. Macchia, Revelation, The Two Horizons New Testa-
ment Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 585.
3) In Revelation, Jesus’ presence in the time between His comings is

indicated by His characterizations as spelled out above. His judgments
do not only occur at the very end, but also during human history (e.g.,
Rev 2:5; 2:22–23; 3:16). His love is not limited to the first and/or second
comings only, but can be experienced during historical time (Rev 1:6; 3:9).
As High Priest in Revelation 1:13 Christ cares for His churches on earth.52
As the angel of Revelation 8:3 He serves as humanity’s mediator in the
interim.53 As a mighty angel (Rev 10)54 He sees to it that time is not
prolonged before the consummation of all things, that the Word of God
is being internalized, and that the gospel be preached.
Summary, Implications, and Conclusion
Although Jesus seems to appear more frequently in the introductory

and closing scenes to the visions than in the interim and progression from
His first coming to His second, this is not the full picture. Actually in
the messages to the seven churches He addresses each church indi-
vidually. With the seven seals the same pattern appears. The opening of
each seal is dependent on Him. With the trumpets He dominates the
52
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the
New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 58, writes, “The Greek word translated ‘a
robe reaching down to his feet’ (podērēs) occurs only here in the NT. It is found seven times in the
LXX, and in every case but one it refers to the attire of the high priest. The sash of the priest was
made of fine twined linen and embroidered with needlework (Exod 39:29), while the sash that
gathered together the long robe of the exalted Christ (it probably came down diagonally from
one shoulder to the waist) was of gold. Josephus speaks of the priest’s girdle as being interwoven
with gold. This, plus the fact that high girding (‘around his chest’) denotes the dignity of an im-
portant office, suggests that this part of the description is intended to set forth the high-priestly
function of Christ.” Interestingly enough, in Hebrews as well as in Revelation Jesus is introduced
as King first before appearing as Priest/High Priest.
53
Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2009), 133, calls Him “the angelic priest” and Frederick Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon:
The Revelation to John, The New Testament in Context (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 235, “the
priestly angel.” Louis A Brighton, Revelation, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis, MO: Con-
cordia, 1999), 220, writes, “The angel here is analogous to the priests who daily ministered in the
holy place of the temple in Jerusalem, offering up incense while the people before the temple
prayed (Luke 1:9–10; cf. Exod 30:7–8).”
54
Beale, 522, notes, “If he is an angel, he is an extraordinary one, since he is described in a majestic
way, unlike any other angel in the book. He is given attributes that are given only to God in the
OT or to God or Christ in Revelation.” These characteristics strongly suggest that the angel is a
divine being, namely Jesus Christ. Cf. John Court, Revelation, New Testament Guides (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1994), 112, who suggests, “To speak of Christ as an angel may not seem to be saying
much about his relation to God. But this angelic figure at least controls and sends other angels
(1.1; 22.16).”
expansion of the sixth trumpet, etc.

John Thomas and Frank Macchia make two interesting statements
that summarize the essence of New Testament eschatology. Here is the
first: “A lot is at stake in this battle for redemption in Revelation, for God
is personally involved in its outcome. God and eschatology are therefore
integrally connected in Revelation.” The second statement may be even
more pointed: “Eschatology is determined by Christology. This is eschato-
logical Christology, which enfolds as a drama in which the end is already
foreshadowed in him but is still yet to be fulfilled throughout creation.”55
This may be precisely reflected in Revelation’s prologue:
Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who
is to come [present and future eschatology], and from the sev-
en spirits who are before his throne [present eschatology], and
from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead,
and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has
freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom,
priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for-
ever and ever. Amen [present eschatology]. Behold, he is com-
ing with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who
pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of
him. Even so. Amen [future eschatology]. ‘I am the Alpha and the
Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to
come, the Almighty’ [comprehensive eschatology] (Rev 1:4–8).
If, therefore, New Testament eschatology comprises Christ’s first

coming, the interim in which we now live, and the longed-for second com-
ing of our Savior and Lord, historicism may be the approach that does
most justice to the perspective of apocalyptic literature, especially as
found in Revelation. It is significant to keep in mind that
the eschatological vision of the book [of Revelation] is thus di-

rected not only to the future but also to the present. . . . There
is no question that the book yearns for Christ’s coming. . . .
However, salvation is also a present reality to be experienced in
the here and now.56
Only then will we truly long to see the Lord’s face (Rev 22:4).
55
Thomas and Macchia, 588, emphasis supplied.
56
Ibid., 590.
CHAPTER 20
Theistic Evolution And Its

Implications For Adventist
Eschatology
Kwabena Donkor
In some quarters of contemporary culture, evolution has been taken

as fact. Consequently, this has the effect of making the interdisciplinary
conversation between Christian theology and science an increasingly
important theological topic. It may come as a surprise that this resur-
gence is happening in the context of postmodern pluralism with its
disillusionment with comprehensive systems of thought. Nevertheless,
this interest has risen partly due to the seemingly successful post-
modern challenge of the assumed superiority of the rationality of the
natural sciences. The result has been openness to dialogue. Also, because
of developments in contemporary studies in cosmology that treat the
universe as a single object, a way seems to have been paved for meaning-
ful dialogue between science and theology.1 Theistic evolution represents
one of the more serious attempts to reconcile the Christian view of re-
ality as expressed in the Bible with the scientific view as represented by
contemporary evolutionary thought.
Among Christian thinkers, theistic evolution has been advocated
and condemned at the same time. Bemoaning the prospect of having to
1
E.g., J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen, Duet or Duel, Theology and Science in a Postmodern World
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), xiii–xiv, argues for an evolutionary epistemology, con-
tending that rightly understood, evolutionary epistemology “reveals the biological roots of all
human rationality and should therefore lead precisely to an interdisciplinary account of our
epistemic activities.”
choose between the Christian gospel and evolution, which he describes

as a highly credible scientific concept, Howard J. Van Till writes,
If scientifically knowledgeable persons are led to believe that

in order to accept the Christian Gospel they must also reject a
scientific concept that they have judged, by sound principles of
evaluation, to be the best way to account for the relevant ob-
servational and experimental evidence, then a monumental
stumbling block has I believe, been placed in their path.2
At the same time, no less than a dozen Christian scholars have re-
cently embarked on an all-fronts scientific, philosophical, and theo-
logical critique of theistic evolution.3 Stephen Meyer comments that the
form of theistic evolution that accords creative power to neo-Darwin
and/or other evolutionary mechanisms “generates either 1) logical
contradictions, 2) a theologically heterodox view of divine action, or
3) a convoluted and scientifically vacuous explanation.”4
Seventh-day Adventist scholars, however, have for the most part
distanced themselves from all forms of theistic evolution.5 Given the
centrality of the doctrine of creation in Seventh-day Adventist theology,
it is understandable why theistic evolution is seen to represent such a
serious theological threat to the church’s belief system. For obvious rea-
sons, protological questions are generally connected with eschatology.
But for Seventh-day Adventists in particular, their interpretation of
the Genesis creation account is so intricately connected to their con-
figuration of eschatology that without it, the latter would simply dis-
appear. Since theistic evolution’s protology stands in sharp contrast to
Adventist interpretation of origins, it would be instructive to exam-
ine what the implications might be for Adventist eschatology if theistic
2
Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation (‘Theistic Evolution’),” in Three Views on Cre-
ation and Evolution, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, J. P. Moreland, and John Mark Reynolds, Zonder-
van Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 179–180. Van Till writes as
a proponent of theistic evolution, although he prefers to brand it “the fully gifted creation.”
Among the eminent Christian thinkers who have advocated some form of theistic evolution are
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, John C. Polkinghorne, John F. Haught, Richard Swinburne, Alister
McGrath, and Arthur Peacocke.
3
See J. P. Moreland et al., eds., Theistic Evolution, A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological
Critique (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
4
Stephen C. Meyer, “Scientific and Philosophical Introduction, Defining Theistic Evolution,”
in ibid.
5
See, e.g., L. James Gibson, “Theistic Evolution: Is it for Adventists?” Ministry Magazine, January
1992.
evolution were to be embraced. The goal of this presentation is to ex-

plore this very issue. So, what is Adventist eschatology that it cannot be
friends to theistic evolution? And what is it about theistic evolution
that makes it stand in a dialectic relation to Adventist eschatology?
Procedurally, this study will first outline Adventist eschatology. Next,
it will give a sketch of some key evolutionary principles that inform the-
istic evolution. Finally, it will compare and contrast Adventist eschatology
with some outlines of theistic evolution’s eschatology.
Adventist Eschatology: An Overview
This study begins by exploring the general concept of eschatol-

ogy. The term is derived from the Greek word eschatos, with the basic
meaning of “last” or “final.” But the word has a variety of meanings.
Within a broad frame of reference, it may refer to the farthest extent
of space, the final element of time, or the last piece of money. In theo-
logical discussions, however, it refers to “the last things in a world-
wide and historical sense”—for example, “an apocalyptic, cosmic
cataclysm and a new age of conflict followed by utopian bliss.”6 Escha-
tology, then, for our purposes, is the branch of Christian teaching about
“the last things,” but in terms of content, “it refers to a time in the future
when the course of history will be changed to such an extent that one
can speak of an entirely new state of reality.”7 Most religions address
“last things” in some respect, yet more specifically, “the term eschatology
is usually linked to the Abrahamic tradition and, most often, is associ-
ated with Christian doctrines concerning the Second Coming of Christ
and God’s final judgment of mankind.”8
The wide variety of theological views within the Abrahamic tradi-
tion requires that Adventist views on eschatology be delineated. In his
Christian Theology, Millard Erickson provides some helpful key questions
by which Christian eschatologies may be distinguished.9 Taking a cue
6
David L. Petersen, “Eschatology: Old Testament,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David
Noel Freedman, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 576.
7
Ibid., 575.
8
Jill Stevenson, “Eschatology,” Ecumenica 7 (2014): 13.
9
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1161. Among the key
questions Erickson raises are the following: Is eschatology thought of as pertaining primarily
to the future or the present? Is the view of the future of life here on earth primarily optimis-
tic or pessimistic? Is divine activity or human effort thought to be the agent of eschatological
events? Is the focus of eschatological belief this-worldly or otherworldly? Does the escha-
tology hold that people will come into the benefits of the new age individually, or that their
from Erickson’s questions, this study will distill four themes with which
Adventist eschatology will be outlined: in terms of form, it is histori-
cist; in content, it looks for a general worsening of the circumstances of
human existence under human control, until God intervenes and
rectifies what is occurring; from the point of view of agency, it is super-
natural and looks for the genuinely transcendent working by God; and
in terms of focus, it is otherworldly.
The Form of Seventh-day Adventist Eschatology

As noted above, biblical eschatology has to do with issues pertain-
ing to the “last things” or “the end of times.” The Bible has quite a bit
of material that speaks to the future, especially in its prophetic and
apocalyptic portions. By introducing the issue of the form of Seventh-day
Adventist eschatology, this study aims to approach the subject of how
Seventh-day Adventists configure biblical material regarding the future.
The view is that, to a large extent, Seventh-day Adventist eschatology
may be described as historicist. Basically, the historicist view “holds
that the events described [in biblical prophecies] were in the future at the
time of writing, but refer to matters destined to take place throughout
the history of the church.”10 Hans LaRondelle sees great hermeneutical
significance attaching to L. E. Froom’s view that among the three unique
characteristics the early church, the Reformation, and the Second Advent
Awakening recognized in the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation
was that “both books contain several series of outline prophecies that
unfold an unbroken sequence of events leading up to the establishment
of the eternal kingdom of God.”11 Jon Paulien likewise states that “the
Seventh-day Adventist Church derives its unique witness to Jesus
Christ from a historicist reading of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel
and Revelation.”12
bestowal will be cosmic in character?

10
Erickson, writing about the futuristic, preterist, historicist, and idealist views as a system of
classifying the various interpretations of prophetic or apocalyptic material in Scripture, Erickson
observes, “While it is most often used as a means of classifying interpretations of the Book
of Revelation or, more generally, all such prophetic literature, the system can also be applied
to distinguish views of eschatology.”
11
Hans K. LaRondelle, “Interpretation of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in A Sym-
posium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1974), 231.
12
Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apoc-
alyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (2003): 15.
Although currently the Seventh-day Adventist Church is one of the

major Christian denominations officially endorsing the use of the his-
toricist method,13 Adventists often point out that the historicist method
was not their invention, listing some of the prominent interpreters
who used the historicist approach: Jewish apocalyptic writings (e.g.,
1 Enoch and 2 Baruch); Jesus (e.g., Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21); and
the early church fathers (e.g., Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus on Daniel 2
and 7, Clement of Alexandria on Daniel 9, and Cyril on the fourth
kingdom in Daniel).14
The historicist approach has its home in prophetic and apocalyptic
material, and scholarship both within and without the church on these
subjects engenders discussion among Adventists on the proper use of
the historicist approach. It appears that a key focus in these discussions
involves the question of the proper genre of books and passages, espe-
cially in Daniel and Revelation. Paulien admonishes, in the context of
recent scholarship,
Seventh-day Adventist interpreters have had the tendency to

treat most or all of Daniel and Revelation as historical apoca-
lyptic, without specific attention to the textual markers that
would indicate such interpretation. As a result, texts like the
seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3 or the “seven times” of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream were interpreted in a historicist fashion
even though there was no specific textual evidence for doing so.
This approach was plausible when Daniel and Revelation were
thought of as completely apocalyptic. But a more nuanced
approach is now called for by the evidence.15
13
See the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the historicist approach in
the guidelines for interpreting prophecies that were outlined in the report submitted by the
“Methods of Bible Study Committee” and approved by the 1986 Annual Council of the General
Conference, in Adventist Review, January 22, 1987, 19.
14
For a succinct summary, see Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as
a Method of Interpreting Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14,
no. 2 (2003): 9–13.
15
Paulien, 33. Another way to view this problem is the way Remar Vetne presents it. Whereas
in the past historicism for Adventist interpreters meant that one had to choose one method
and stick with it for all of Daniel and Revelation, Vetne, 7, finds the proposal of those who
would argue to “cut up the pie in smaller pieces” appealing, “showing which sections Adventists
agree on placing in John’s own day, noting in which sections eschatological Parousia-related
events are described, and then going on to argue for historicism only in the very sections
where Adventists find predictions of the course of history.”
As important as these discussions are, they are not particularly op-

posed to this study’s core description of Adventist eschatology as histori-
cist. Using “historicist eschatology” as a formal hermeneutical identity
marker for Seventh-day Adventists serves to bring out what is critical to
the church’s understanding of biblical prophetic/apocalyptic material—
namely, its predictive element. Paulien is correct in his assessment that
the Adventist “view of God-ordained prophetic history is dependent
on the possibility of predictive prophecy,”16 and that “the primary point
of difference between the Adventist understanding of Daniel and the
scholarly majority has to do with the date of the book, whether the
visions are predictive or interpretations of history after the fact.”17
The Content of Adventist Eschatology

In most standard theological treatments of eschatology, one finds
such topics as the second coming of Christ, the millennium, judgment,
and the final states of the redeemed and the lost. Adventists also speak
about these topics when dealing with eschatology, although in some
cases, there are significant differences on each of these subjects. To
review Adventists’ teachings on these topics,18 they believe that the
second coming of Christ represents the grand climax of the gospel,
after He ends His high priestly mediatorial work in the heavenly sanc-
tuary. The coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide,
during which time the righteous dead will be resurrected and, together
with the righteous living, will be glorified and taken to heaven, but the
unrighteous will die. Furthermore, Adventists believe that, on account
of their historicist reading of most lines of prophecy, together with the
present condition of the world, Christ’s coming is near—it is imminent.
When Christ appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous
will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. There will be a second
resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, which will take place
a thousand years later. This thousand-year period is the millennial
reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second
resurrections. The wicked dead will be judged at this time; the earth
will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied
by Satan and his angels. At the close of the millennium, Christ with His
16
Paulien, 24.
17
Ibid., 33–34.
18
See “28 Fundamental Beliefs,” https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Be-
liefs.pdf (accessed April 9, 2018). The present study offers an abridged form of Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Fundamental Beliefs 25–28, using as much as possible the exact wording of the state-
ments. Supporting Bible texts have been left out.
saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The un-
righteous dead will then be resurrected, and will surround the city with
Satan and his angels, but fire from God will consume them and
cleanse the earth. This will be the new earth in which righteousness
dwells—an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment
for everlasting life, love, joy, and learning in His presence. For here
God Himself will dwell with His people, and suffering and death will
have passed away. The great controversy will be ended, and sin will be
no more. All things, animate and inanimate, will declare that God is
love, and He shall reign forever.
Several of these views are unique to Adventists, but the inter-
est of this study is not to compare and contrast Adventist teachings on
these topics with other Christian views; the interest is to point out the
distinctive Adventist approach to these teachings with the view of un-
derstanding how they fare in the face of theistic evolution. What is
distinctive about Adventist teaching on these topics is that it is framed
by the great controversy, or cosmic conflict motif. Christ’s parable of
the wheat and tares (Matt 13:27–30, 36–43) tersely outlines the cosmic
conflict narrative. The farmer in the parable, having sown only wheat
in his field, is surprised by a report from his servants that tares have
sprung up among the good seed. The servants inquire of the master how
such a thing could happen, whereupon the master replies, “An enemy
has done this.” The servants would just as quickly go in and uproot the
tares, but the master instructs them to allow both the wheat and tares to
grow together, warning, “For while you are gathering up the tares, you
may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until
the harvest.” When Christ later interprets the parable, He identifies the
“one who sows the good seed” as “the Son of Man” (Matt 13:37)19 and
explains that “the field is the world” (Matt 13:38) and the “enemy that
sowed” the tares is “the devil” (Matt 13:39). Some Bible commentators
see an explicit depiction of a conflict between Christ and Satan in this
parable.20
The Cosmic Conflict

For Seventh-day Adventists, the full chronological exploration of
the cosmic conflict motif begins with the wisdom of God by which He
predestined “the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19) “before the ages”
19
All biblical quotations are from NKJV, unless otherwise indicated.
20
E.g., John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Greek Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 544, remarks on Matthew 13:25 that “the figure of ‘his en-
emy’ suggests that standing feud is involved.”
(1 Cor 2:7).21 The “mystery” anticipated God’s creation of a universe

(heaven and earth, Gen 1:1) with intelligent, free, and moral beings capa-
ble of either rendering loving allegiance to the Creator or rejecting His
authority. To provide an antidote to the possibility of rebellion on the
part of the creatures, a rescue plan was also put in place. The latter plan,
rooted in God’s mercy and lovingkindness, involved the atoning death
of Christ, which would provide salvation and character restoration for
penitent sinners (2 Tim 1:9–19).
The conflict proper began in heaven, with the fall of Lucifer, an an-
gelic being (Isa 14:4–21; Ezek 28:12–19), over the issues of God’s law
(1 John 3:4; cf. 1 John 3:8) and, by implication, His character and the
autonomy of the creature (Isa 14:13–14). Lucifer’s questioning ulti-
mately led to an insurrection in heaven that resulted first in his physi-
cal expulsion from heaven to the earth, together with his loyal angels
(Rev 12:3–4; cf. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6), and subsequently his spiritual banish-
ment (Luke 10:18; Rev 12:7–9).
The conflict eventually moved onto the earth where Adam and Eve,
who, like the angels, had been the first created free moral beings placed
in the garden of Eden. The temptation by Satan (Lucifer) of the first
human pair in the garden, designed to plant seeds of doubt in them
about God’s integrity, yielded the results he was hoping for: Adam and
Eve fell (Gen 3:1–7). The result of humanity’s fall, which in sum meant
estrangement from God, involved death (Gen 3:19), Satan’s wresting of
the rulership of the earth from humans (2 Cor 4:4–5; John 12:31), and
depravity of human nature (Jer 17:9; Eph 4:18).
Humanity, however, was not abandoned to doom. With the fall in
the garden of Eden came the promise of deliverance (Gen 3:15), in antici-
pation of the Seed to “descend through the line of Abraham (Gen 12:3;
22:18; cf. Gal 3:16), his great grandson Judah (Gen 49:10); and through
the latter’s descendant David (Ps 89:20–37; Jer 23:5–6).”22 With sacrifi-
cial rituals (Gen 4:4; Heb 11:4) and prophetic representations (Mic 5:2;
Dan 9:24–27; Isa 42:1–7; 53; 61:1–4), the promise of the Seed (the
Messianic Redeemer) was kept alive. But Satan was not to be outdone—
at least not yet. With his “spirit . . . now at work in the sons of disobe-
dience” (Eph 2:2), wickedness, idolatry, and corruption of true worship
became rampant—not only in the people who lived before the flood
(Gen 6:5–12), but even among the chosen people of God, Israel
21
This study is dependent on Frank B. Holbrook’s account of “The Great Controversy,” in Hand-
book of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 2000), 969–1008.
22
Ibid., 981.
(Ps 106:34–40). Yet throughout the history of the nation of Israel, God
always maintained a faithful “remnant” through whom the knowledge
and worship of the true God was preserved (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:18; Ezra 9:15;
Amos 9:9–12).
Finally, “when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His
Son [the promised Messiah], born of a woman, under the law so that
He might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons” (Gal 4:4–5). This was the first “coming” (advent)
of Christ. The conflict intensified and would eventually come to a crisis
at the cross. In the meantime, Christ registered systematic defeats over
Satan, first in His temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11), and sub-
sequently in daily victories over demons (Matt 8:29; 25:41; Mark 3:11–12;
Luke 4:33–35, 41). And on the cross, several of the goals of Christ,
the Messiah, were accomplished: judgment secured against Satan
(John 12:31–32), the plan of salvation confirmed (Rev 12:10–12), atone-
ment made for human sin (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:24; cf. Isa 53:6–12), and
the moral law and character of God upheld (Rom 3:25–26; cf. Heb 9:15).
From a historicist point of view, Revelation 12 depicts the church
phase of the cosmic conflict following the death, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ. William Shea agrees “with the majority of com-
mentators who see the woman as the church,”23 and sees three phases of
conflict involving the church—the early church (Rev 12:1–5), the pure
church of the Middle Ages (Rev 12:6–16), and the church of the last
days (Rev 12:17).24 Revelation 12:17 simply says that “the dragon was
enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her
offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony
of Jesus Christ” (NKJV). Revelation 13 and 14 depict just how the con-
flict will unfold. While the devil brings heavy oppression and persecution
to bear on God’s people (Rev 13), God’s two major actions include first,
the proclamation of God’s last worldwide warning and invitation to
accept the gospel (Rev 14:6–13), and second, the first of three phases of
the final judgment (Rev 14:6–7). Revelation 14 ends with the second
coming of Christ depicted as a farmer who comes to reap the harvest of
His redeemed, but also hinting at the reaping and destruction of the
impenitent (Rev 14:14–20).
To summarize the content of Adventist eschatology, the eschatologi-
cal topics of the second coming of Christ, the millennium, judgment,
23
William H. Shea, “Time Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12–13,” in Symposium on
Revelation, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 349.
24
Ibid.
and the final states of the redeemed and the lost are cast within the
context of the cosmic conflict motif. These topics acquire their intel-
ligibility through this motif, which is really a philosophy of history, a
worldview developed by Adventists out of the application of the histori-
cist method to apocalyptic materials of the Bible, especially Daniel and
Revelation. It is a metanarrative of cosmic and world history that has
a specific temporal, historic beginning and a definite historic end. As
shown in this study, the beginning goes back to the fall of the intelligent
beings God created in the universe. Thus, the cosmic conflict motif in-
extricably links a creation protology to a re-creation eschatology. More
importantly, the cosmic conflict narrative is marked by genuine historic-
ity, meaning that it involves entities and events in real space and time. In
this way, it is distinguished both from an idealized as well as a realized
eschatology.
The Agency of Adventist Eschatology

One of the clear implications of the Adventist cosmic conflict motif
is God’s overarching control of history. Although the conflict may be se-
vere, and more so as history winds down to a close, its outcome is nev-
er in question. God will be victorious. This is the expected role of God
within the cosmic conflict motif, nurtured, as it were, in the apoca-
lypticism of the books of Daniel and Revelation. As a worldview that
characterized a strand of religion in Second Temple Judaism and early
Christianity,25 apocalypticism saw the present world order as evil and
under the control of Satan and his human collaborators. That world
order would shortly be destroyed by God and replaced with a new one.26
The replacement was not envisioned as one that would occur naturally
over a prolonged period of time, but something that would happen su-
pernaturally in the form of God-ordained cataclysmic events preceding
the new order.27 The view is correctly expressed that “for Adventists the
books of Daniel and Revelation are not marginal works; they are foun-
dational to the Adventist worldview and its concept of God.”28 God’s
25
Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 51.
26
Paulien, 26.
27
Rowland, 52.
28
Paulien, 26–27. It is significant though, that the apocalyptic worldview that characterizes Ad-
ventists was true to the convictions of the early Christians. Rowland, 53, remarks that “despite
attempts over the years to play down the importance of apocalypticism in early Christianity,
the indications suggest that its thought forms and outlook were more typical of early Chris-
tianity than is often allowed. In the earliest period of Christianity, resort to the apocalyptic
agency in Adventist eschatology, then, is based on a view of a God

who transcends His creation and yet governs it providentially through
indirect and direct means.29 It is a view that runs counter to conceptions
of God’s activity that are pantheistic and panentheistic in nature.30 It
will be through God’s direct providential activity that the eschaton will
be realized.
The Focus or Goal of Adventist Eschatology

The issue at stake here concerns whether the promises of God
will be fulfilled on this earth in a fundamental continuity with the life
now known.31 The focus and goal of biblical eschatology from an Adven-
tist perspective is the restoration of creation to God’s original intended
state.32 In the New Testament, Paul presents a cosmic sense of the fall,
depicting creation in its present state as in bondage, groaning and wait-
ing to be set free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:20–22). His depiction
of the fall’s effect on humans is captured cogently by J. D. G. Dunn:
Here, the primary allusion is to the Adam narratives: ματαιότης

[mataiotes] in the sense of the futility of an object which does
not function as it was designed to do (like an expensive satel-
lite which has malfunctioned and now spins uselessly in space),
language and genre enabled the NT writers to have access to the privilege of understanding
the significance of events and persons from the divine perspective. Apocalypticism, therefore,
was the vehicle whereby the first Christians were able to articulate their deepest convictions
about the ultimate significance of Jesus Christ in the divine purposes.”
29
Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1903), 173, states, “In the annals
of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on
the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined
by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and
we behold, behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and
power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the
counsels of his own will. The Bible reveals the true philosophy of history.”
30
Pantheism, which means “all is God,” identifies nature with God. Although like panthe-
ism, panentheism conceives God as immanent within nature, it posits at the same time that God
also transcends nature. Still, panentheism sees nature as a part of God.
31
Erickson, 1161, asks a set of questions that help distinguish eschatologies on this point: “Is the
focus of eschatological belief this-worldly or otherworldly? In other words, is it expected that
the promises of God will largely come to pass upon this earth in a fundamental continuity with
life as we now experience it, or is it expected that there will be a deliverance from the present
scene and that his promises will be fulfilled in heaven or some place or situation radically
different from what we now experience? Eschatologies of the former type pursue more secular
hopes; those of the latter type are more spiritual in nature.”
32
Daegeuk Nam, “The New Earth and the Eternal Kingdom,” in Dederen, 957.
or, more precisely, which has been given a role for which it was
not designed and which is unreal or illusory.33
Consequently, humanity is unable to alter their life situation by

determination, exercise of willpower, or self-reformation.
Any hope for the restoration of creation to its original ideal must
point away from creaturely resources. The resolution of creation’s problem,
from the viewpoint of the apocalyptic worldview of biblical eschatology,
requires the supernatural intervention of God in a re-creative act. So,
Isaiah says that God will make the heavens and the earth new (Isa 65:17),
and the apostle Peter speaks about the coming of the day of the Lord,
“in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will
be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be
burned up” (2 Pet 3:10). Although what is in view here is clearly not a
creation ex nihilo, it is a divine act that renews or regenerates the world
(Matt 19:28).
It is very clear in 2 Peter that we are not talking about repeating

cycles, but about linear history punctuated with divine judgment.
We are also not talking about a necessary and natural process
(and that is especially the case in Stoic materialism), but about
the divine word being the cause of these judgments.34
Having given a sketch of Adventist eschatology in its particulars,

this study will now try to outline the concept of theistic evolution before
drawing its implications for Adventist eschatology.
Theistic Evolution
In the creation-evolution version of the ongoing debate between

religion and science, the issue is usually cast simply as an either-or
conflict.35 There are those, however, who while refusing to accept such
33
James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 470,
emphasis supplied.
34
Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2nd Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 273.
35
Michael A. Harbin, “Theistic Evolution: Deism Revisited,” Journal of the Evangelical Theologi-
cal Society 40, no. 4 (1997): 639. Harbin explains, “This simplification probably occurs because
the classic evolutionist position is both naturalistic and atheistic. It is naturalistic because it
argues that the entire universe is a product of natural processes that are currently being ob-
served through science and that may be extrapolated back for an extremely long period of
time. It is atheistic because a universe of natural causes seems to lead logically into a position
polarization, provide a third alternative, suggesting evolution as the physi-

cal process that God initiated and sustained to create the universe. It is
this mediating position that has been referred to as “theistic evolution.”
Theistic evolutionists are all in agreement on the foundational point
that evolution is the means by which God initiated and sustains the
created universe. Different meanings of evolution, however, lead to
different conceptions of theistic evolution. Out of the three main con-
ceptions of evolution, two are particularly relevant to our discussion
—evolution as common descent and evolution as the creative power of
natural selection.36 Besides these two conceptions of evolution, which
in their essence concern biotic evolution, evolutionary thought on
contemporary physics and cosmology needs to be taken into account as
we try to understand theistic evolution.
Some Basic Concepts in Evolutionary Thought

Since theistic evolution is based on the scientific concept of evolu-
tion, it would be helpful to outline some key concepts in evolutionary
thought that necessarily must be of interest to theistic evolutionists. A
first key evolutionary theme is that of common descent. Evolution as
common descent is a view shared by many biologists today, and that
was the basic sense in which Charles Darwin conceived of his notion of
evolution. The idea of common descent, depicted as a great branching
tree, has the bottom of the trunk representing the primal organism, and
the branches standing for the new forms of life that have grown out of
it. If this idea were to be portrayed graphically, there would be a verti-
cal axis on which the tree is plotted to be the “arrow of time,” while the
horizontal axis would represent changes in biological form.37 Since
common descent requires all organisms to be related as a single family,
that there is no God. The antithesis of this position is creationism, normally formulated in
terms of a literal understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis and usually associated
with what is called a young earth.” See also David H. Lane, “Special Creation or Evolution:
No Middle Ground,” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (1994): 11.
36
Stephen C. Meyer, “Scientific and Philosophical Introduction: Defining Theistic Evolution,”
in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J. P. Moreland et
al. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 34–40. Meyer classifies the three meanings of evolution as
follows: 1) Evolution as “change over time” (such as is seen in microevolution); 2) Evolution as
“common descent” (meaning, all living organisms have descended from a single common an-
cestor in the distant past); 3) Evolution as “the creative power of the natural selection/random”
variation mechanism (with attention on natural selection, acting upon genetic mutation, as the
mechanism that produces change, even the macro evolutionary change implied in evolution as
common descent).
37
Ibid., 36.
this meaning of evolution leads to what is called a “monophyletic” view

of the history of life. Furthermore, this view of evolution implies gradual,
continuous, and virtually infinite biological change.
A second important evolutionary theme is the fact that the cre-
ative power by which the previously mentioned change occurs has been
accorded to the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection works
on random changes that occur in the chemical units of DNA to bring
about the adaptive complexity of life.38 Furthermore, evolutionary biolo-
gists account for the appearance of design in biological systems by the
same mechanism of natural selection and random variation.39 The idea
is that nature itself, through environmental changes and other factors,
has the same effect on organisms as an intelligent agent would. At this
point, we should mention the modern synthesis paradigm of evolu-
tion also called neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism connects the classical
Darwinian theory of natural selection with discoveries in genetic theory.
This modern synthesis, then, views evolution as a gradual process that
can be explained by small genetic changes in populations over time as
a result of the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation
among individuals in the population. The phenotype is the total physi-
cal traits, including anatomical, physiological, and biochemical traits,
that can be observed in an individual, whether organism or cell.40
When discussion on evolution centers on common descent and the
mechanism of natural selection,41 it is usually the history of “life” that
is in view.42 Similar evolutionary thinking, however, lies behind the
conception of the world of galaxies, stars, and planets. The American
physicist Howard J. Van Till writes in support of his claim for the va-
lidity of biotic evolution, “It is a conclusion entirely consistent with the
conclusion reached by physical scientists regarding the formational
38
Meyer, 36.
39
Ibid., 37.
40
See “Neo-Darwinism,” New World Encyclopedia, https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en-
try/Neo-Darwinism (accessed November 12, 2019).
41
Francisco Ayala explains, “It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive
organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection,
without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent” (“Darwin’s Greatest Discovery:
Design without Designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 104 [May 15, 2007]: 8567–8573, quoted in Moreland et al., 39).
42
Indeed, as Alister E. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural
Theology (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 188, accurately said, “natural selection does
not account for how biological forms and phenotypes arise in the first place. The Darwinian
narrative of evolution does not concern the origin of life, but its subsequent development.”
history of the universe of galaxies, stars, and planets.”43 The scenario he

puts forth for this formational path includes movement from quarks
to protons and neutrons, to atomic nuclei, to different atomic nuclei,
to atoms, to molecules, and in the large context of space, to massive
clouds of atoms and molecules that act and interact to form immense
physical structures such as galaxies, planets, and the like.44
A third notable theme of discussion in evolutionary thought is the
notion of chance. The concept is used generally in connection with the
description of Darwinian evolution as a “random” process. Thus, the
French atheist biologist Jacques Monod (1910–2002) proclaimed that
the evolutionary process is governed and directed by “pure chance,
absolutely free, but blind.”45 This understanding of randomness or
chance suggests that it is meaningless to talk about purpose and direc-
tion in the evolutionary process. But others, such as Arthur Peacocke,
interpreted the concept of chance in a more positive light. For him, it
is through the agency of rapid and frequent randomization/chance at
the molecular level of DNA that the potentialities of living matter are
explored.46 Charles Darwin had argued that daily and hourly, natural
selection scrutinizes the world for every variation and rejects what is
bad, while preserving and adding up all that is good.47 Meanwhile,
43
Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation, ‘Theistic Evolution,’” in Three Views on Creation
and Evolution, ed. Stanley N. Gundry et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 183. Van Till
writes about creation’s formational economy by which he means “a particular set of resources
and capabilities with which the creation has been gifted by God, . . . the creation’s resources
and capabilities that contribute to its ability to organize or transform itself into a diversity of
physical structures and life-forms” (Till, 184).
44
Ibid., 184–185. See also McGrath, 188 who confirms that both organic and inorganic things
are one piece of the same evolutionary process. “The process of evolution at the physical,
chemical, and biological levels shows a marked and essentially irreversible trend towards com-
plexity. The initial cosmic ‘big bang’ created a rapidly expanding universe consisting primar-
ily of hydrogen, helium, and small quantities of lithium. These three elements are incapable,
individually or in any known combination, of supporting or leading to life. After the initial
period of rapid expansion, clumps of cosmic material began to aggregate, creating the dense
regions of very high pressure and temperature that we call ‘stars.’ These conditions led to the
emergence of stellar nucleosynthesis, in which nuclear fusion led to the gradual formation
of heavier elements, such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—all of which are essential to life.
Chemical complexity thus developed over time.”
45
Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
(New York: Knopf, 1971), 110, quoted in McGrath, 192.
46
Arthur Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979),
94, discussed in McGrath, 192.
47
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John
Murray, 1859), 84.
those variations are caused by chance, although the outcomes are not de-
termined by it, since the evolutionary process has a tendency to navigate
its way to certain apparently predetermined outcomes.48
A fourth significant theme in evolutionary thought is the notion of
teleology. The word “teleology” is used to describe behavioral observa-
tions in phenomena that appear to be purposeful, directional, or tending
toward goals, whether driven by internal or external forces. As early as
the days of Darwin, Thomas H. Huxley (1825–1895) argued for what he
called a “wider teleology” in the theory of evolution.
The teleological and mechanical views of nature are not neces-

sarily mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a
mechanist the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a
primordial molecular arrangement of which all the phenomena
of the universe are the consequences, and the more completely
is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always
defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular arrangement
was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe.49
Alister McGrath insists that we distinguish teleology from design.

While the former may simply be interpreted as evidence of function
or purpose within nature, the latter involves intent applied externally
to the order of nature with the view of achieving some end or external
goal.50 On this account of teleology, the interrelations of structures and
processes in organisms, the adaptation of organisms, and natural se-
lection itself have been considered to be teleological processes.51 With
regard to natural selection as a teleological process,
it is directed to the goal of increasing reproductive efficiency

and generates the goal-directed organs and processes required
for this. Teleological mechanisms in living organism are thus
48
McGrath, 192–193 reflects on the work of the paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris, who
argues that the evolutionary process possesses a propensity to navigates its way to certain
apparently predetermined outcomes. Thus, Morris, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a
Lonely Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xii, speaks about “convergent
evolution,” meaning “the recurrent tendency of biological organization to arrive at the same
solution to a particular need.” Thus, although evolutionary routes are many, the destinations are
limited.
49
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, 201, quoted in McGrath, 186.
50
McGrath, 189.
51
Ibid., 190.
biological adaptations, which have arisen as a result of the pro-

cess of natural selection.52
But the universe as a whole is considered to embody a “wider tele-

ology.” The idea is that the properties of elements and compounds that
scientists consider to be critical to the origin and development of life
were fixed at the origins of the universe, thus placing the Darwinian
mechanism in a wider context that enables one to speak of a wider or
deeper teleology.53
A fifth scientific idea that is relevant to this topic is the concept of
emergence. Emergence theory was formed as a meta-scientific inter-
pretation of evolution in all its forms: cosmic, biological, mental, and
cultural.54 Generally, the term is used to refer to “the appearance in
natural history of more and more intricately organized physical and liv-
ing systems over the course of time.”55 It relates to the development,
over time, of new and unpredictable properties and behaviors that
incorporate increasing levels of complexity within the natural world.56
It now believed that everything that exists in space and time is made up
of particles that are known to physics. When these particles aggregate
and attain a certain level of organizational complexity, new properties
appear. The properties that emerge, however, cannot be reduced to or
predicted from the lower level phenomena from which they appeared.
Nevertheless, entities at higher levels have causal influence over proper-
ties of the lower level elements.57 Biophysicist Harold Morowitz is noted to
have observed that the history of the universe shows evidence of at
least twenty-eight clear stages of emergence.58
On the basis of these concepts of evolutionary thought, scientific
naturalism comes to the conclusion that nature is all that there is, and
science is the only reliable way to understand it.59 Embodied in such
scientism is an antagonistic approach to the science-religion debate.
52
McGrath, 191.
53
Ibid., 197.
54
Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Emergence and Complexity,” in Oxford Handbook of Religion and
Science, ed. Philip Clayton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 767.
55
John F. Haught, Is Nature Enough? Meaning and Truth in the Age of Science (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), 77.
56
McGrath, 230.
57
Ibid., 230–231
58
Haught, 78.
59
Ibid., 4.
Theistic evolution, however, interprets these ideas differently, based on

an understanding that both disciplines can have a mutually enriching
dialogue. John C. Polkinghorne, for example, is committed to a principle
of the unity of knowledge that leads him to observe that
Since God is the ground of all that is, every kind of human ra-
tional investigation of reality must have something to contrib-
ute to theological thinking, as the latter pursues its goal of an
adequate understanding of the created world, understood in
the light of the belief that the mind and purposes of the Cre-
ator lie behind cosmic order and history. Every mode of rational
exploration of reality will have an offering to make.60
Consequently, he shares the view that the search for the knowledge
of God must be anchored in experience—“that theology stands in need
of data which in George Tyrrell’s words are ‘not tacked down to the ta-
ble by religious authority.’”61 Along these lines, many scientists who feel
committed to both science and religion have explored possible ways
and means of connecting scientific insights with religious/theological
beliefs. So, Arthur R. Peacocke, a pantheist, quite early suggested that
the new scientific perspective requires a reinterpretation of the clas-
sical version of creation to mean that the cosmos, which is sustained and
held in being by God, “is a cosmos which has always been in process
of producing new emergent forms of matter.”62 Furthermore, he suggests
that the most meaningful theological account ought to emphasize
that God is immanent, that his action in the world is continu-

ously creative, and that the coming of Christ and the role of the
Church are to be understood in such dynamic terms, rather
than in the more classical and static images of earlier theological
exposition.63
Peacocke’s theological reinterpretation exploits three key con-

cepts, including that of emergence, which he himself was influential in
60
John C. Polkinghorne, Theology in the Context of Science Theology (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2009), 9.
61
John C. Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (Minne-
apolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 35.
62
Arthur R. Peacocke, “Chance, Potentiality, and God,” Modern Churchman 17, no. 1 (October
1973): 20–21.
63
Ibid.
developing. He sees parallels between the natural world and the world of
theological studies. These parallels involve, “first, emergent ontological
features; second, higher levels of causal influences; and third, transforma-
tion of lower-level components by means of downward influences from
the emergent ontological levels.”64 Peacocke expounds further on his
work by clarifying his motivation to be the result of
perceiving a certain connectedness between the theology [he

had] been developing, constructed in relation to the scientific
account of the world, and the way the natural world itself, as
perceived through the sciences may be interpreted. . . . The
hierarchy of complexity of the natural world, increasingly expli-
cated by the sciences both in detail and through wider concepts,
has made apparent how new realities emerge at higher levels
of complexity, with all their interactions and ramifications and
how these higher levels of complexity can influence, and even
transform, the behavior of the lower-level entities that consti-
tute them. It has occurred to me that this same “scenario” . . . is
also manifest in those situations we denote as spiritual or reli-
gious experiences, which theology then attempts to analyze and
to formulate intellectually and conceptually.65
Peacocke is only one of many thinkers (theistic evolutionists) who

try to bring science and religion together by interpreting Christian
teachings in the context of scientific findings. Our interest in this pre-
sentation, however, focuses on theistic evolution and its impact on the
Seventh-day Adventist teaching on eschatology previously outlined.
To facilitate this reflection, it would be helpful, now, to explore theistic
evolution’s approach to eschatology vis-à-vis Adventist eschatology.
Theistic Evolution’s Eschatology in Relation

to Adventist Eschatology
In defining Adventist eschatology, this study explored it in terms of
its form as historicist; its content as looking for a general worsening of
the circumstances of human existence under human control, until God
64
See Nancey Murphy, “Arthur Peacocke’s Naturalistic Christian Faith for the Twenty-First
Century: A Brief Introduction,” Zygon 43, no. 1 (2008): 69.
65
Arthur Peacocke, “A Naturalistic Christian Faith for the Twenty-First Century: An Essay
in Interpretation,” in All That Is: A Naturalistic Faith for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Philip
Clayton (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress), 3, quoted in Murphy, 69.
intervenes and rectifies what is occurring; its agency as supernatu-

ral and a genuinely transcendent working by God; and its focus as
otherworldly. This study will try to follow the same procedure in relat-
ing Adventist eschatology to theistic evolution’s eschatology, primarily
using Polkinghorne’s eschatological vision, because he has engaged
more explicitly with the question of eschatology.66
The Form of Adventist Eschatology Versus Theistic Evolution’s

Eschatology
This study has already characterized Adventist eschatology as
historicist in form, which is in reference to the way prophetic and
apocalyptic material in the Bible, especially Daniel and Revelation, is
interpreted. As mentioned earlier, historicism takes the view that the
events described in prophetic/apocalyptic material were in the future
at the time of writing but refer to matters destined to take place through-
out the history of the church. The focus here is on the events. From
the historicist point of view, these events are not actions that occur by
happenstance or on account of processes of present reality; they are
prophetic events, and “prophecy necessarily assumes that God is able
to speak and that the God who speaks is the one who acts.”67 In sum,
the suggestion of the form of Adventist eschatology as historicist presents
a view of eschatology as God-ordained prophetic history, dependent on
the possibility of predictive prophecy.
This study suggests, however, that theistic evolutionist eschatology,
on the whole, is a Christian attempt to formulate a response to the es-
chatological implications of scientific cosmology.68 In general, these
responses take the form of transformational processes that have roots
66
See John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, eds., The End of the World and the Ends of God:
Science and Theology on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000). For a more extensive
discussion on Polkinghorne’s eschatology vis-à-vis his protology, see H. Nicholas De Lima,
Protology and Eschatology in the Writings of John C. Polkinghorne: A Study of Contrastive Roles
of Scripture (master’s thesis, Andrews University, 2012).
67
David W. Pao, “Prophecy and Prophets in the NT,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpreta-
tion of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 624.
68
See Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Deadlock to Interac-
tion,” Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 999, who writes, “When we expand the domain of eschatology
from an anthropological and even an ecoterrestrial context to a cosmological horizon, we en-
counter the grim reality of a universe in which all life must inevitably and remorselessly be
extinguished. Following this, the prognosis for far cosmic future is either ‘freeze or fry’ (i.e.,
either endless cold as the universe expands forever or unimaginable heat as it recollapses),
and as we shall see following, current cosmology strongly points to ‘freeze’ through an eternal
and accelerating expansion.”
in the present world, extending into a transformed future. One such

approach is the so-called “physical eschatology” of Frank Tipler.
Polkinghorne crystallizes the core position of Tipler as follows:
Humanity, and carbon-based life generally, will certainly disap-

pear, but might not “intelligence” be able to engineer further
embodiments of itself, appropriate to changing cosmic circum-
stances and permitting either its infinite continuance within
the decaying phase of an expanding universe, or processing of
an infinite amount of information during the hectic, highly
energetic, final moments of a collapsing cosmos?69
Tipler’s approach has been described as reducing Christian escha-

tology to physical cosmology, and Polkinghorne criticizes it as having
physical, anthropological, teleological, and intuitive difficulties.70 On his
own part, Polkinghorne presents an eschatology also based on the trans-
formation of the universe into the new creation, using the analogy of
the bodily resurrection of Christ. He distinguishes the old creation from
the new creation with the phrases “creation ex nihilo” and “creation ex
vetere” (from the old) respectively, and explains, “The old creation is
God’s bringing into being a universe which is free to exist ‘on its own,’
in the ontological space made available to it by the divine kenotic act
of allowing the existence of something wholly other; the new creation is
the divine redemption of the old.”71
Clearly, Polkinghorne is committed to seeing eschatology in the form
of a transformational process in such a way that there will be continuity
between the old and the new creation.72 His evolutionary framework
comes through when he postulates regarding the new creation, “Its pro-
cess can be free from suffering, for it is conceivable that the divinely
ordained laws of nature appropriate to a world making itself through
69
Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist, 164–165.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
72
Russell, 1006, sheds some light on Polkinghorne on this aspect of his program: “Involved in its
[a resurrected world created ex vetere] coming to be must be both continuity and discontinuity,
just as the Lord’s risen body bears the scars of the passion but is also transmuted and glorified. . . .
Polkinghorne then focuses on the element of continuity that will characterize the transformation
of the universe into the new creation, since it is here that science can offer a partial perspective
on these elements of continuity. He starts with such theories as special relativity, quantum me-
chanics, chaos theory, and thermodynamics and ‘distill’ out of them some very general features
of the universe that might be a clue to the new creation: relationality and holism, energy, pattern
(form), and mathematics.”
its own evolutionary history should give way to a differently constituted

form of ‘matter,’ appropriate to a universe ‘freely returned’ from indepen-
dence to an existence of integration with its Creator.”73 It is correct that
in describing the new creation, the Bible intends the renewal, and not
the abolition, of creation. Nevertheless, the cosmic dissolution that the
Bible describes in 2 Peter 3:10–12, for example, emphasizes such radi-
cal discontinuity between the old and the new that it is hard to see it as
processive in form.74
From the point of view of the form that eschatology takes, theis-
tic evolutionary eschatology and Adventist eschatology take different
paths. While theistic evolution’s commitment to evolutionary science in-
clines it to adopt a developmental/processive approach to eschatology,
Adventists’ commitment to historicism sees eschatology as the active
work of God in a God-ordained prophetic history. The two approaches are
clearly incompatible.
The Content of Adventist Eschatology Versus Theistic Evolution’s

Eschatology
Earlier in this study, the content of Adventist eschatology was pre-
sented as comprising the topics of the second coming of Christ, the
millennium, judgment, and the final states of the redeemed and the
lost, cast within the context of the cosmic conflict motif. It was argued
that these topics acquire their intelligibility through this motif, which
is really a philosophy of history. It was emphasized that as a philoso-
phy of history, the cosmic conflict motif is a metanarrative of cosmic
and world history, which has a genuine specific, temporal, historic be-
ginning and a definite historic end. Thus, the cosmic conflict motif
inextricably links a creation by fiat protology to a re-creation eschatology.
Polkinghorne’s notion of the new creation as creation ex vetere
is a clear indication that theistic evolutionists also link protology to
eschatology. “The new creation is the divine redemption of the old,”75
Polkinghorne observes. Consequently, it is critical, however, to under-
stand the nature of the “old creation” since the content of eschatology will
73
Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist, 167, emphasis supplied.
74
See Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983),
326, who writes, “The cosmic dissolution described in vv. 10, 12, was a return to the primeval
chaos, as in the Flood (3:6), so that a new creation may emerge (cf. 4 Ezra 7:30–31). Such passages
emphasize the radical discontinuity between the old and the new, but it is nevertheless clear that
they intend to describe a renewal, not an abolition, of creation (cf. 1 Enoch 54:4–5; Rom 8:21).”
75
Polkinghorne, Faith of a Physicist, 167.
necessarily be defined by it. After all, eschatology (new creation) is the

redemption of the old creation.
It is well known that theistic evolutionists make several substantive
and interpretive claims about biblical protology (Gen 1–3): Genesis 1–3
should be read as “poetry and allegory,” and not as historical narrative;76
creation was “brought into being in a relatively formless state, but
brimming with awesome potentialities for achieving a rich diversity
of forms in the course of time;”77 “Adam and Eve would not necessarily
be envisioned as the first human beings, but would be elect individuals
drawn out of the human population and given a particular representa-
tive role in sacred space.”78 It seems that after denying the historic speci-
ficities of biblical protology as outlined in Genesis 1–3, theistic evolution’s
account of the content of eschatology is bound to be vacuous.
The Adventist approach to all the topics of eschatology previously
outlined reflect the understanding that those supernatural interventions
of God in history, especially toward its end, represent the resolution
of the cosmic conflict. These are the redemptive responses of God to the
fall of Adam and its consequences on the creation. On the other hand, a
theistic evolutionist, such as Polkinghorne, while using the language
of eschatology to describe the new creation as “the divine redemption of
the old,” can still object to the biblical portrayal of the new creation in
2 Corinthians 5:17 and Revelation 21:1–4 as “pie-in-the-sky.”79 Indeed,
because Polkinghorne is committed, formally, to the view that escha-
tology is dependent on evolutionary/developmental processes, albeit
an act of God, he is not able to accord any real historical status to the
realities of eschatology. Regarding heaven he observes that “the patient
process of this world will find its reflection in the redemptive process
of the world to come. Our notion of heaven is delivered from any stat-
ic, and potentially boring, conception.”80 Similarly, while affirming the
Christian hope that the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of the
hopes of humanity, he warns that the language of Christ ascended and
sitting at the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:34–36;
Heb 8:1) is so heavily symbolic that
76
See Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), 206, quoted in J. P
Moreland et al., 791.
77
Van Till, 203
78
John Walton, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View,” in Four Views on the Historic
Adam, ed. Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 109.
79
Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist, 166.
80
Ibid., 170.
we are not committed to the quaint picture, sometimes found

in medieval stained glass, of the Lord’s feet projecting from the
underside of a cloud, as he sets out on his space-journey to the
heavenly realm. In Scripture a cloud is the symbolic presence
of God (Exod 19:16; Dan 7:13; Mark 9:7), and its role in the sto-
ry of the ascension is to emphasize the divine authority of the
exalted Christ.81
So, if Jesus ascending to heaven with the clouds is a quaint picture

that Adventists are no longer committed to, it is hard to know what to
make of Acts 1:10–11, a core eschatological text for Adventists. The
historical, literal understanding of topics such as Jesus’ second com-
ing, the resurrection of the dead, heaven, judgment, and the new earth
have always characterized Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. Theistic
evolution, by denying the literal, historic reading of Genesis 1–3,
would so undercut the theological foundation of the Adventist histori-
cist approach to these eschatological doctrines as to make Adventism
unrecognizable.
The Agency of Adventist Eschatology Versus Theistic Evolution’s

Eschatology
This study distinguished God’s agency in Adventist eschatology on
the basis of a view of a God who transcends His creation and yet governs
it providentially through indirect and direct supernatural means. This
manner of God’s agency or involvement in history is a theological
derivative of traditional Christian understanding of a supernatural fiat
creation and direct divine providence. The manner of God’s activities
regarding “last things” are correlated to the nature of His “beginnings”
activities. On these two points, the approach of theistic evolution
stands necessarily in stark contrast to the Adventist view, if only we re-
mind ourselves that the formulators of theistic evolution intend for it to
qualify as an alternative to neo-Darwinism.82 It is true that theistic
evolutionists generally affirm that it was God who created the universe
and the laws of nature. Nevertheless, their commitment to the valid-
ity of evolutionary science restrains them from affirming direct divine
81
Polkinghorne, 123. Polkinghorne continues to observe that “a similar purpose is served by the
mythological language of the heavenly session. The words of Psalm 110:1: ‘The Lord says to my
Lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool,”’ afforded the early Church
some clue to how the Lordship of Christ was related to the fundamental Lordship of God.”
82
Stephen C. Meyer, “The Difference It Doesn’t Make: Why the ‘Front-End Loaded’ Concept of
Design Fails to Explain the Origin of Biological Information,” in Moreland et al., 217.
supernatural involvement in the history of the created order. That

prospect would imply a “God of the gaps” situation that would be
unsatisfying for the nature of God’s work. But, once one makes the
commitment to explain “beginnings” and providence not by direct su-
pernatural causes, but by “secondary causes” such as the laws of nature
and evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection and random mutations,
etc.), consistency demands that the “last things” be explained in similar
terms.83 So Polkinghorne explains, “The history of this universe is that
of an enfolding process, and we have already said that the life of the
world to come may also be expected to involve a similar unfold-
ing process.”84 The notion of the universe as an unfolding process has
implications for God’s knowledge that would seem to undercut the very
notion of prophecy. This issue must be pointed out before proceeding
further. Polkinghorne remarks,
If the universe is one of true becoming, with the future not yet
formed and existing, and if God knows that world in its tempo-
rality, then that seems to me to imply that God cannot yet know
the future. This is no imperfection in the divine nature, for
the future is not yet there to be known. Involved in the act of
creation, in the letting-be of the truly other, is not only a kenosis
of divine power but also a kenosis of divine knowledge.85
Back to Polkinghorne’s rejection of the “pie-in-the sky” under-

standing of the new creation, the logic he employs is quite instructive
on how he suggests one ought to think about the new creation and the
manner of God’s involvement in it. After recognizing that in tradition-
al Christian thought the resurrection of Christ within history is under
83
Philip Clayton, God and Contemporary Science (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
1997), 8, is correct in observing that for one who attempts a theology of nature in the light of
contemporary science “at the points at which one may wish to break with the (apparent) im-
plications of the scientific results, it mandates that one either finds reasons inherent within
the sciences themselves for making that break, or that one supply reasons that might be held
to be convincing in other fields (history, the human sciences, ethics or philosophy) which
point in the direction of the theological conclusions one wishes to defend.”
84
John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, eds., The End of the World and the Ends of God:
Science and Theology on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000), 40. Indeed, Polkinghorne
feels unhappy about apocalyptic theology because “it introduces a surd-like rift into the story
of creation” (ibid., 38).
85
John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1998), 73.
stood as the anticipation of a great event lying beyond history, he suggests

that there is an obvious difficulty in such a conception, and queries,
Does the future hope not devalue the present reality, by making
the former the true existence and the latter only an unsatisfactory
prelude to it? Indeed, one might add, an unnecessary prelude,
for if the new creation is going to be so wonderful—and its
nature is expressed in terms of a picture where “death shall be no
more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying nor pain any
more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev 21:4) —why
did God bother with the old?86
Polkinghorne seems committed to the notion of God’s use of sec-

ondary causes, even in the new creation, by suggesting that the “matter”
of that world to come must be such that it will not “enforce recapitulation
of the deadly raggednesses and malfunctions of the present universe.”87
He lays it down as a non-negotiable principle that “what we must be at
pains wholly to exclude is any magical notion of a divine tour de force
simply putting right, through the exercise of naked power, something
which had otherwise got out of control.”88 Yet, it must be made clear
that Polkinghorne seems committed to the view that eschatological
hope cannot be based on a kind of evolutionary optimism that de-
pends solely on the extrapolation of present process.89 Thus in critiquing
Frank Tipler, he remarks categorically, “I regard physical eschatology
as presenting us with the ultimate reduction ad absurdum of a merely
evolutionary optimism.”90 How, then, shall Polkinghorne’s apparent
commitment to the use of secondary causes in the new creation and his
denial of basing eschatological hope in evolutionary optimism be rec-
onciled? It seems that the constitution of the “new matter” of the new
creation is the work of the Spirit of God, but the unfolding of the new
creation is subsequently the activity of appropriate laws of nature. “If
the world to come is to be free from death and suffering, its ‘matter-
energy’ will have to be given a different character. There will have to be
a discontinuous change of physical law.”91
86
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid., 169.
89
See H. Nicholas De Lima, 87 n. 22.
90
91
Polkinghorne and Welker, 39.
The Focus of Adventist Eschatology Versus Theistic Evolution’s

Eschatology
The concern in this section is to inquire about the end point of
theistic evolution’s eschatology and relate it to Adventist eschatology. This
study has emphasized that for Adventist eschatology, God is the agent
who acts directly and supernaturally in the eschaton. He does all this for
the purpose of resolving the problem of the creation’s futility in a new
creation, which Polkinghorne characterizes as “pie-in-the-sky.” So, what
is the end game of theistic evolution? For Polkinghorne, the end game is
“an existence of integration with its Creator.”92 He sets this in contrast to
the goal of the old creation. The old creation did not lie outside the sus-
taining and providential care of God, but it was “endowed with the
ability through the shuffling explorations of its happenstance to ‘make
itself.’”93 Suffering was a necessary part of that process. The new creation,
however, is constituted with a form of “matter” that leads into an exis-
tence of integration of the world into its creator. It is a universal return, a
theosis (deification), brought about by the cosmic Christ. Thus, accord-
ing to Polkinghorne, “One might say that panentheism is true as an
eschatological fulfilment, not a present reality.”94
While espousing panentheism as a true eschatological fulfillment,
Polkinghorne seems to be uncertain about universal salvation. He incor-
porates judgment in his eschatological vision, but seems to prevaricate
on the subject of universalism, noting, “I cannot believe that God will
ever foreclose on his loving offer of mercy, but equally I do not believe
he will override the human freedom to refuse.”95 Also, “there cannot be
a kind of curtain which comes down at death, dividing humanity irre-
versibly into the companies of the saved and of the damned.”96 His solution
seems to be an existential interpretation of the judgment, based, in part,
on the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31–46).
Take that haunting parable of judgement . . . (Matthew 25:31–46).

To the sheep the Lord says . . . To the goats, the Lord says the op-
posite. . . . These words present us with a formidable challenge, but
if we take them seriously, do we find ourselves unambiguously
in one company or the other? . . . We are neither wholly sheep
92
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid., 168.
95
Ibid., 171.
96
Ibid.
nor wholly goat. Perhaps then, judgement is not simply a retro-

spective assessment of what we have been but it includes the pro-
spective offer of what we might become. . . . Perhaps judgement
builds up the sheep and diminishes the goat in each one of us.97
If judgment includes the prospective offer of what people might be-

come, and builds up the sheep and diminishes the goat in humans, then
it seems to be an evolutionary or developmental process and not some-
thing indicative of an end state in the eschaton. From the point of view
of Polkinghorne’s panentheism as a true eschatological fulfillment and
judgment as an “unfinished business,” people are far away from the Ad-
ventist understanding of the goal of eschatology as previously outlined.
Conclusion
Doctrines such as the second coming of Christ, judgment, the

millennium, and the new earth are well known to be in the “DNA” of
Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. They constitute what is sometimes
referred to as the pillars of Adventist belief. These are also some of the
doctrines generally discussed under the subject of eschatology. Thus,
Adventist theology is fundamentally eschatological, and the first part
of this study outlined the nature of that eschatology. One of the key
points is the fact that the Adventist understanding of the eschatological
doctrines mentioned is shaped by a historicist perspective on the Bible,
with particular emphasis on its prophetic parts. A historicist perspec-
tive, however, has clear implications for our understanding of the nature
of God and His activities in both creation and providence. Furthermore,
the Adventist cosmic conflict motif provides the metanarrative within
which to understand, with a significant degree of specificity, the nature
of God and His activities in the history of our world. Adventists under-
stand God to be a transcendent God who spoke, and thereby brought the
world and its laws into being at a point in time. He has since intervened
to care for creation, following its fall from the created ideal, in both di-
rect and indirect ways. His goal is, through such eschatological events
as the second coming of Christ, the judgment, the millennium, and
the creation of the new earth and the new heaven, to restore cre-
ation to its original ideal. All of these ideas hang together as a coherent
97
John C. Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World (New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 2002), 129–130, quoted in H. Nicholas De Lima, 100.
theological system, and a change in one aspect of it will necessarily result

in areconfiguration of the whole system.
Theistic evolution as a theological system, however, construes the
nature of God and His activities, both in creation and providence, in a
way that seeks to accommodate the findings of science on matters of
origins and cosmology. Reality today is the result of evolutionary pro-
cesses, based, for many theistic evolutionists, on God’s “giftedness” to
the original stuff of the Big Bang. All things, including sentient beings,
have evolved through evolutionary mechanisms and phenomena such
as the laws of nature, natural selection, and emergence. The biblical
narrative of Adam and Eve is not literal history, and neither is the fall.
Under this scheme, God cannot be allowed to intervene in natural pro-
cesses since it would evoke the “unsatisfying” specter of “the God of
the gaps.” In conclusion to an essay on eschatology, Polkinghorne makes
an observation that appears to underscore his underlying methodology:
In eschatological discourse, science mostly poses some of the

questions and looks to theology principally to provide the answers.
Yet the form these answers take will have to bear a sufficiently
consonant relation to the process of this present universe so as
to be persuasive that, amid the redemptive transformation of the
old through God’s gracious action, there is enough continuity to
make sense of the conviction that it is indeed Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob who live everlastingly in the divine presence.98
Adventist eschatology and theistic evolution’s eschatology are built

on such contrasting hermeneutical foundations that they cannot coexist
coherently. To adopt theistic evolution and its eschatological vision into
the Adventist belief system would mean a reworking of Adventist es-
chatology such that it would bear no resemblance to what we know it
to be presently.
98
Polkinghorne and Welker, 41.
CHAPTER 21
The Three Angels’ Messages As

The Teleological Principle Of
The Adventist Theological
System
Dan-Adrian Petre
In contemporary Protestant theology, eschatology “might not be as

extensive as in the past.”1 But in Adventist theology, it occupies a central
place, indicated, among other factors, by the name itself: “Adventist.”2
“Adventist theology arose as a truly ‘eschatological’ theology a century
before the German ‘eschatological’ theologians Wolfhart Pannenberg
and Jürgen Moltmann came to prominence.”3 Two doctrines stand as in-
tegrative factors for the Adventist doctrinal system: the sanctuary and
the three angels’ messages.4 The doctrine of the sanctuary has received
far more attention than the three angels’ messages, both in biblical and
theological studies.5 The former is considered to be the “hermeneutical
1
Markus Mühling, T&T Clark Handbook of Christian Eschatology (London: Bloomsbury, 2015),
xiii.
2
Richard L. Lehmann, “The Second Coming of Jesus,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist
Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 893.
3
Fernando L. Canale, “From Vision to System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Theology, Part
III Sanctuary and Hermeneutics,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 2 (2006): 54.
4
See Alberto R. Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages: Integrating Factors in the
Development of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation
Series 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1995), 1–4.
5
The biblical foundation of the doctrine of the sanctuary is found in the volumes of the Dan-
iel and Revelation Committee Series, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (listed in order of publication):
key” that unlocks the meaning of the biblical metanarrative.6 This meta-
narrative is the great controversy between good and evil. Integrating all
doctrines into a whole, the cosmic controversy is “the hermeneutical
The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1986); Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies (Washington, DC:
Biblical Research Institute, 1986); Issues in the Book of Hebrews (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1989); Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey (1845–1863) (Silver
Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1989); Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and
Exegetical Studies, Book 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992); Symposium
on Revelation: Exegetical and General Studies, Book 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 1992); and William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, rev. ed. (Silver
Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992). For other contributions, see the literature re-
view in Denis Kaiser, “The Biblical Sanctuary Motif in Historical Perspective,” in Scripture and
Philosophy: Essays Honoring the Work and Vision of Fernando Luis Canale, ed. Tiago Arrais,
Kenneth Bergland, and Michael F. Younker (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological
Society Publications, 2016). Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2011), 437–464, integrates this doctrine in his theo-
logical system. For the biblical foundations of the three angels’ message doctrine, see Hans K.
LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible: The Biblical-Contextual
Approach (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 185–191, 230–251; LaRondelle, Light for the
Last Days: Jesus’ End-Time Prophecies Made Plain in the Book of Revelation (Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 1999), 74–83; and Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of
Revelation, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 445–476. For a
historical treatment of the significance of the three angels’ messages, see P. Gerard Damsteegt,
Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1977); and Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages. For the theological significance,
see Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Remnant and the Three Angels’ Messages,” in Dederen, Handbook.
6
Fernando L. Canale, “The Eclipse of Scripture and the Protestantization of the Adventist
Mind: Part 1: The Assumed Compatibility of Adventism with Evangelical Theology and Ministe-
rial Practices,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 21, no. 1–2 (2010): 152. In the area of
fundamental theology, Canale argues for sanctuary as a hermeneutical key. For his contribu-
tion, see Adriani Milli Rodrigues, “Hermeneutics of Doctrine and Theological Deconstruction:
The Contribution of Fernando Canale for Doctrinal Studies,” in Scripture and Philosophy:
Essays Honoring the Work and Vision of Fernando Luis Canale, ed. Tiago Arrais, Kenneth
Bergland, and Michael F. Younker, Adventist Theological Society Publications (Berrien Springs:
Adventist Theological Society, 2016), 54–71; and Michael F. Younker, “From Metaphysics to
Templephysics: Situating the Significance of Fernando Canale’s Contribution for the ‘Chris-
tian Philosopher’,” in ibid., 194–259. For Canale’s proposal for a systematic theology based on
the doctrine of the sanctuary, see his trilogy of articles: Fernando L. Canale, “From Vision to
System: Finishing the Task of Adventist Theology, Part I: Historical Review,” Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 2 (2004): 5–39; Canale, “From Vision to System: Finishing
the Task of Adventist Biblical and Systematic Theologies, Part II,” Journal of the Adventist Theo-
logical Society 16, nos. 1–2 (2005): 114–142; and Canale, “From Vision to System, Part III.” See
also Canale, “Philosophical Foundations and the Biblical Sanctuary,” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 36, no. 2 (1998): 183–206. For a development of the doctrine of the sanctuary
as the key vision of Adventist theology, see Canale, Vision and Mission: How a Theological Vision
Drives the Mission of the Emerging Remnant (North Charleston, SC: Fernando Canale, 2015).
The Three Angels’ Messages as the Teleological Principle 431
principle of articulation in biblical Adventist theology.”7 The articulation

principle is part of the hermeneutical principles of theology.8 These
principles, along with the cognitive, teleological, and methodological
principles, delineate any theological system.9
The Adventist doctrinal system is mission-oriented. Furthermore,
its ecclesiological identity is based upon the eschatological mission,
symbolized by the three angels’ messages in Revelation 14:6–12.10 As
a missional-theological synthesis, the three angels’ messages can be
equated with the teleological principle of the entire doctrinal struc-
ture. Hence, the teleological principle is eschatological in nature.
Consequently, the purpose of the theological system is identified with
the ultimate purpose of the cosmic salvific plan. The whole effort of un-
derstanding the historical-cognitive realm of Scripture by methodologi-
cally applying hermeneutical criteria is, thus, teleologically oriented.11
While the cognitive, hermeneutical, and methodological principles
receive reasonable treatment in Adventist theology,12 the teleological
7
Canale, “From Vision to System, Part III,” 62, understands the great controversy as “the his-
torical acts of Christ from before the creation of the world to the unending ages of eternity.”
Canale, “The Message and the Mission of the Remnant: A Methodological Approach,” in
Message, Mission, and Unity of the Church, ed. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, Studies in Adventist
Ecclesiology 2 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2013), 280. Norman R. Gulley,
Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 398,
presents the great controversy as the “larger biblical worldview.”
8
As indicated by Canale, “From Vision to System, Part III,” 42, the hermeneutical principles
comprise the principle of reality (ontology), the principle of articulation (metaphysics), and
the principle of knowledge (epistemology).
9
Fernando L. Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method in Christian Theology? In Search of a Working
Proposal,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 43 (2001): 373.
10
See “The Remnant and Its Mission,” Fundamental Beliefs, Seventh-day Adventist Church,
https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental-beliefs/church/the-remnant-and-its-mission
(accessed February 22, 2020). See also the official document “Roadmap for Mission,” repub-
lished as an appendix in Rodríguez, Message, Mission, and Unity, 455–460. In it, mission is
called “the lifeblood of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Mission is woven into our identity;
mission defines who we are and why we exist” (p. 455).
11
Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method,” 374, states that “the teleological principle sets the goals that
require theological action (method).”
12
E.g., in the following works, Canale treats cognitive, methodological, and hermeneutical
principles, respectively: Fernando L. Canale, The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology: A
Hermeneutical Study of the Revelation and Inspiration of the Bible (Berrien Springs, MI: Lithotech,
2005); Canale, Creation, Evolution, and Theology: The Role of Method in Theological Accom-
modation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Litotech, 2005); and Canale, A Criticism
of Theological Reason: Time and Timelessness As Primordial Presuppositions, Andrews Univer-
sity Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 10 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
1987). These three principles are also treated by Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena. The
principle is not so favored.13 While the topic of mission is addressed

from an ecclesiological perspective,14 it seems that a discussion of the in-
tegrative role of the three angels’ message as a teleological principle of
Adventist systematic theology is still wanting.15
Eschatology is considered only a part of the theological system,
thus bound by a limited set of doctrines.16 Eschatology, as symbol-
ized by the three angels’ messages, is more than a part of the Adventist
theological system. It functions as its teleological principle. How do the
three angels’ messages encapsulate this principle? The argument of this
study is that the three angels’ messages comprise the rationale of the
cognitive principle, understood as being represented by Scripture, is also treated by John

Peckham, “The Canon and Biblical Authority: A Critical Comparison of Two Models of
Canonicity,” Trinity Journal 28, no. 2 (2007): 229–249; Peckham, “The Analogy of Scripture
Revisited: A Final Form Canonical Approach to Systematic Theology,” Mid-America Journal of
Theology 22 (2011): 41–53; Peckham, “Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Commu-
nity Approach to Canon-Determination,” Themelios 36, no. 2 (2011): 203–215; Peckham, “Sola
Scriptura: Reductio ad Absurdum?” Trinity Journal 35, no. 1 (2014): 195–223; and Peckham,
Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2016). Other treatments of the cognitive principle appear mainly with a herme-
neutical focus. See, e.g., George W. Reid, ed., Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach,
Biblical Research Institute Studies 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2006);
Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” in Dederen, Handbook; and Peter M. van
Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Dederen, Handbook.
13
Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 4–5. correctly points out that “none of
the major Seventh-day Adventist academic theologies” employed sanctuary and the three angels’
messages as “integrating factors in the systematization of doctrines.” In regard to the three angels’
message, this statement is still valid.
14
See, e.g., Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, ed., Toward a Theology of the Remnant, Biblical Research
Institute Studies in Adventist Ecclesiology 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2009)
and Rodríguez, Message, Mission, and Unity.
15
E.g., only Fritz Guy, “The Future and the Present: The Meaning of the Advent Hope,” in The
Advent Hope in Scripture and History, ed. V. Norskov Olsen (Washington, DC: Review and Her-
ald, 1987), 211–229, treats the topic of eschatology, but more from a theological-experiential
perspective than from the perspective of fundamental theology. Another Adventist author who
presents eschatology from a systematic outlook is Sakae Kubo, God Meets Man: A Theology of
the Sabbath and the Second Advent (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1978), 81, especially
in the second part of his book; still, his perspective is centered only on the parousia, neglecting
the broader cosmic controversy.
16
See the following from “Fundamental Beliefs,” Seventh-day Adventist Church, https://www.
adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental-beliefs (accessed February 22, 2020): 25, “The Second
Coming of Christ”; 26, “Death and Resurrection”; 27, “The Millennium and the End of Sin”; and
28 “The New Earth.” Eschatological echoes are found in 4, “The Son”; 8, “The Great Contro-
versy”; 9, “The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ”; 10, “The Experience of Salvation”; 12,
“The Church”; 13, “The Remnant and Its Mission”; 16, “The Lord’s Supper”; 20, “The Sabbath”;
and 24, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary.” Of these, only Fundamental Belief 13,
“The Remnant and Its Mission,” refers directly to the three angels’ message.
great controversy, which articulates every Adventist doctrine. As the

teleological principle, it creates an eschatological interconnectedness of
the entire theological system.
Adventist theology is based on a historicist understanding of the
apocalyptic prophecies. This study accepts this as a necessary presuppo-
sition in order to fulfill its purpose. After the introduction, the second
part of the study presents an overview of the Adventist theological
system. A short presentation of its cognitive, hermeneutical, and meth-
odological principles follows. The third part introduces the three angels’
messages as the teleological principle. In order to place this criterion in
its proper theological context, first a short presentation of the doctrinal
development of the three angels’ message is set forth. Second, the theo-
logical content of the three angels’ messages is analyzed. As a result, the
teleological characteristics that result from the analysis are present-
ed. These characteristics are related with the major systematic sets of
doctrines (God, humanity, salvation, church, and last things). Within
this interaction, the eschatological interconnectedness is emphasized,
reinforcing the teleological character of the three angels’ messages. The
last part presents the conclusions of this research.
The Adventist Theological System
Adventist theology is more than the sum of its doctrines. It is a uni-

fied system, articulated by the biblical metanarrative of salvation. The
whole doctrinal structure is oriented toward the eschatological fulfill-
ment of the Great Commission presented both in Matthew 28:18–20 and
in Revelation 14:6–12. As such, the Adventist theological system is
inherently missiological. This identity derives from the biblical source
that supports the system. The cognitive substratum represents a par-
ticular hermeneutical combination of metaphysical and epistemological
assumptions. These guide the methodological steps followed in order
to reach the teleological goal presented in the three angels’ messages.
The teleological orientation of the threefold angelic messages can be
clearly perceived within the theological system. For this reason, the
first section of this part outlines the Adventist system of beliefs. The
following sections offer concise details about the cognitive, hermeneutical,
and methodological principles describing the doctrinal structure.
An Overview of the System

The Adventist system of beliefs is based on the concise doctrinal
formulation expressed in 28 Fundamental Beliefs.17 These doctrines
follow what can be termed a “theological-experiential” order. The narra-
tive behind this order is formed by the cosmic plan of salvation. It is a
pendular history, oscillating between divine initiative and human
autonomy, between divine presence and human loyalty, and between
divine intervention and human restoration. Hence, the 28 Fundamen-
tal Beliefs can be grouped into six larger categories reflecting these
oscillatory movements.18
The divine initiative in relation with creation is presented in the
first group of doctrines. It starts with the epistemic foundation of
human knowledge about God: the Scriptures. Theology proper follows,
with a presentation of the three persons of the Godhead.19 The human
autonomy is presented in the context of creation and fall, making the
second category mainly anthropological.20 The divine initiative mate-
rializes in the divine presence in the context of the sin problem. The
divine presence is actualized both in the larger and narrower perspec-
tives on salvation. Hence the soteriological flavor of the third category.21
For human beings accepting salvation, autonomy gives way to loyalty.
17
These 28 Fundamental Beliefs are explored in several books. Ministerial Association of the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe… A Biblical Expo-
sition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1988) was republished
with the added belief “Growing in Christ” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition
of Fundamental Doctrines, 2nd ed. [Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 2005]). After minor improvements
and corrections voted by the General Conference Session of 2015, a third edition was published,
which is the text quoted in this study: Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of
Fundamental Doctrines (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2018). More theological in na-
ture and not necessarily following the order of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, is Dederen, Hand-
book. The recent systematic theology of Norman Gulley presents Adventist doctrines grouped
in four major groups; see Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena; Systematic Theology: God as
Trinity; Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univer-
sity Press, 2012); and Systematic Theology: The Church and the Last Things (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 2016).
18
Seventh-day Adventists Believe presents this sixfold division: 1) the doctrine of God, 2) the doc-
trine of humanity, 3) the doctrine of salvation, 4) the doctrine of the Church, 5) the doctrine of
the Christian life, and 6) the doctrine of last things.
19
A total of five beliefs are included in this first category: 1, “The Holy Scriptures”; 2, “The Trin-
ity”; 3, “The Father”; 4, “The Son”; and 5, “The Holy Spirit.”
20
In this category two beliefs are included: 6, “Creation” and 7, “The Nature of Humanity.”
21
The larger context of salvation is presented in the eighth fundamental belief, “The Great Con-
troversy.” This narrows down on the earthly context in the next three beliefs: 9, “The Life, Death,
and Resurrection of Christ”; 10, “The Experience of Salvation”; and 11, “Growing in Christ.”
Adherence to God creates unity in the divinely appointed mission for

the world. This becomes the core feature of the new community of
believers, which outlines the fourth category.22
In the fifth category, human loyalty appears under the guise of
Christian behavior.23 Obedience to divine commandments has a signifi-
cance for real life. It embraces responsible care for the various personal,
social, or material gifts received from God. The Sabbath becomes a
reminder of requisite care, a symbol of continual dependence on God,
and a foretaste of future life. The inward restoration of humanity is made
possible by Christ’s intercession and completed by divine intervention
at the second coming of Jesus. The eschatological restoration universally
vindicates God’s character. The last things presented in the sixth category
become the prologue of a new creation.24
The narrative history of Adventist beliefs marks the progression
from the divine initiative to the final cosmic restoration by the divine
intervention. A coherent unity transpires. This oneness is articulated
according to an eschatological goal. It follows that Adventist theology
has all the characteristics of a theological system. As a result, the main
thrust of the system is theological “in its purest sense.”25
The Cognitive Principle

Any theological system can be defined as “a cognitive whole of ar-
ticulated theological doctrines.”26 This implies that there are several nec-
essary conditions for a system to exist.27 The first condition is cognitive,
referring to the data to be analyzed. The second condition is teleological,
pointing to the purpose of the system. The third condition is hermeneu-
tical, interpreting data according to the fourth condition, methodology.
22
Under the fourth section, “The Doctrine of the Church,” seven beliefs are included: 12, “The
Church”; 13, “The Remnant and Its Mission”; 14, “Unity in the Body of Christ”; 15, “Baptism”; 16,
“The Lord’s Supper”; 17, “Spiritual Gifts and Ministries”; and 18, “The Gift of Prophecy.”
23
The fifth division comprises 19, “The Law of God”; 20, “The Sabbath”; 21, “Stewardship”; 22,
“Christian Behavior”; and 23, “Marriage and the Family.”
24
The final systematic category groups the last things: 24, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly
Sanctuary”; 25, “The Second Coming of Christ”; 26, “Death and Resurrection”; 27, “The Millen-
nium and the End of Sin”; and 28, “The New Earth.”
25
Willie E. Hucks II, “The Importance of Understanding and Teaching Seventh-day Adventist
Fundamental Beliefs,” in The Word: Searching, Living, Teaching, ed. Artur A. Stele (Silver Spring,
Timothy Watson, “The Meaning and Function of System in Theology” (PhD diss., Andrews
26
University, 2012), 86.

27
Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method,” 373, calls them principles of theology.
The cognitive condition is vital for the system. It refers to the epis-
temic source accepted as normative for theology. In Adventist theology,
the cognitive principle is Scripture alone.28 The sola-tota-prima Scriptura
principle explicitly rejects other sources like “science, philosophy, tradi-
tion, or experience”; hence, the biblical “complete system of theological
and philosophical truths replaces the system of theological and philo-
sophical truths of tradition.”29
There are several tenets derived from the cognitive principle.30
First, the Bible is sufficient for inferring doctrinal truth (sola Scriptura).
Philosophy or science need not midwife theology in order to arrive at
truth.31 Second, the biblical teachings are found in the whole corpus of
the Scriptures (tota Scriptura). A doctrine cannot be based on a sin-
gular text, but on a network of interconnected passages. These form
certain themes, motifs, or structures running throughout the Bible, con-
tributing to a broader perspective on the biblical teaching. Third, one
has to distinguish between the universal principles and their applica-
tion in a specific biblical context. While “God’s Word is not culturally
or historically conditioned,” it is “culturally/historically constituted.”32
These universal principles have primacy over other principles based on
tradition, experience, or reason (prima Scriptura).
The Hermeneutical Principles

The hermeneutical principles of a theological system set the “pattern
through which the cognitive material with which the theologian works
28
Canale, “Message and the Mission,” 275.
29
Ibid., 275 n. 30.
30
For an expanded discussion, see Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 60–68.
31
See Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena, 1–44 for a helpful discussion about the influence
of philosophy and science on theology. Fernando Canale, Basic Elements of Christian Theology:
Scripture Replacing Tradition (Berrien Springs, MI: Lithotech, 2005), 20, insightfully notes
that “Theologians working from a multiple sources of theological knowledge matrix interpret
theology and construct their understanding of theology from the dictates of philosophy and
science.” In another publication, Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the
Cognitive Foundation of Christian Theology in a Postmodern World (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 2001), 54–55, explains that the relation between theology and philosophy
“is understood to mean that only human philosophy can provide hermeneutic presupposi-
tions for systematic theology, or that human philosophy provides the tools for conceptual
analysis and schemes that lead to a deeper understanding of Christian truths, or that human
philosophy supplements theology by helping to produce a rational reformulation of bibli-
cal truths in order to address the current situation,” and so theology is made subservient to
philosophy.
32
Ekkehardt Mueller, “Guidelines for the Interpretation of the Scripture,” in Reid, 113.
should be interpreted.”33 At the confluence of the biblical metaphysics

and biblical epistemology, a threefold hermeneutical structure is formed.
The first element is the principle of reality. It refers to the reality of
God, humanity, and the world. The principle of articulation constitutes
the second element. It comprises the interaction between the divine and
the created realms. The last element, the principle of knowledge, indi-
cates the way theological knowledge is constructed. All three principles
intertwine into a complex pattern that delineates the theological territory
to be explored.
The main concern of biblical metaphysics is reality. In the “spa-
tiality and temporality of the entities and things, either empirical or
metaemprical,” the biblical reality presents God, human beings, and the
world as relating with each other.34 Far from atemporality, the Bible de-
picts God as temporal. His reality “is essentially temporal and historical.”35
As a result, His actions recorded in the Bible are not mythological
but actual. God lives and acts in an analogous temporal flow, orienting
human history toward a linear end.36
The divine interest in human history is a manifestation of the care
and compassion God has for the world. This relationship is best char-
acterized by love.37 The revelation of God’s love is circumscribed by the
biblical metanarrative of the great controversy. The cosmic conflict
originated in heaven and later spread to the earth through the fall.38
Through His life, death, resurrection, intercession, second coming, and
final judgment, Christ will put an end to this conflict forever. This meta-
physical interaction between the Godhead and the world constitutes
33
Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method,” 374.
34
Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, Dumnezeu, Scriptura și Biserica: Tratat de teologie, hristologie și spiritu-
alitate [God, the Scripture and the Church: A Treatise of Theology, Christology, and Spirituality]
(Bucharest: Editura Universitară, 2013), 78.
35
Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration, 38. The turn from a timeless ontology of reality to-
ward a temporal one “the most radical hermeneutical paradigm shift in the history of Christian
theology” (Canale, “From Vision to System, Part III,” 52). “By understanding reality as existing
in one single historical level where God, angels, and human beings as spiritual beings interact,
Adventists effectually rejected and replaced the Neoplatonic cosmological dichotomy between
the realms of spirit (heaven) and history (creation)” (Canale, “Message and the Mission,” 277).
36
Fernando Canale, “The Quest for the Biblical Ontological Ground of Christian Theology,”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 16, nos. 1–2 (2005): 17–19.
37
For a description of the attributes of God’s love, see John C. Peckham, The Love of God: A
Canonical Model (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).
38
For more details about the cosmic controversy, see Frank B. Holbrook, “The Great Contro-
versy,” in Dederen, Handbook.
the principle that articulates coherently the entire Adventist theological

system.
The epistemological principle concerns the source, nature, and
function of theological knowledge. According to the cognitive principle,
Scripture contains and provides the knowledge for Christian theology.39
Therefore, the nature of knowledge can be understood through a careful
study of the process of revelation-inspiration. God meets humans in the
flow of history. With a redemptive purpose in mind, God communicates
with human beings by accommodating His truth into human “cognitive
and linguistic patterns.”40 Given that “knowledge is interpretation pro-
duced with the presuppositions we bring to the objects we attempt to
understand,” the theologian must acknowledge his assumptions about
reality and replace them with ones intrinsic to the Bible.41
The Methodological Principle

The methodological principle of the Adventist theological system
involves three constitutive parts: 1) the biblical data, 2) the matter in
question, and 3) the assumptions.42 Each part encompasses one of the
principles mentioned. The biblical data refers to the cognitive and articu-
lation principles. The subject matter reflects the principle of reality. The
assumptions are related with the principle of knowledge.
The principles of reality and articulation are used as tools to uncover
the core elements of theology that constitute the problem of research.43
These basic elements refer to the attributes and activities of God and
His creatures. As such, they indicate the doctrine of God, the doctrine
of humanity, and the doctrine of creation. In addition, the interaction
between the Creator and His creation on the same historical and tem-
poral level encompasses the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the
church, and the doctrine of the last things. Interpreting these doctrines
39
Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration, 17.
40
Fernando Canale, “Revelation and Inspiration,” in Reid, 63. For the communicative, redemp-
tive, and accommodative characteristics of revelation, see Van Bemmelen, 31–33.
41
Canale, “From Vision to System, Part III,” 63–64.
42
Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration, 56–57.
43
Canale makes a differentiation between principles and elements. He defines principles as the
ideas the human mind “already possesses from earlier experiences to make sense of the new
ones.” Their nature is “theoretical and abstract.” The elements are the basic components of the-
ology. According to Canale, Basic Elements, 236, these are “real entities, activities, and wisdom
revealed by God which theology attempts to understand.” Canale, “From Vision to System, Part
III,” 63, also says that preexistent ideas of the human mind “originate from the historical nature
of human beings and their historical experiences.” As such, they must be acknowledged and
transformed by the biblical worldview.
within the presuppositional borders outlined by the epistemological

principle is conducive to a biblically grounded systematic theology.
Given that “the subject-matter of systematic theology is not the in-
terpretation of the written text of Scripture, but of the living text of
reality,” the methodological principle bridges the theoretical and practi-
cal aspects of theology.44 As such, it reveals that the various doctrinal
systematic components are teleologically oriented toward the fulfillment
of God’s cosmic plan of salvation. This goal is what defines the iden-
tity of the teleological principle. In Adventist theology, the three angels’
messages capture the essence of this principle.
The Three Angels’ Messages as the Teleological Principle

The three angelic proclamations orient Adventist theology toward the
fulfillment of its missiological identity. The teleological character of the
threefold message was perceived from the beginning of Adventism. The
first section of this part reveals this perception by indicating briefly the
doctrinal development of the three angels’ messages. Revelation 14:6–12
addresses each systematic doctrinal category. The theological content
of the angelic proclamations detailed in the second section makes this
plain. Moreover, the purposive nature of the three angels’ messages
interconnects the systemic categories by their traits. The third section
presents these characteristics.
The Doctrinal Development of the Three Angels’ Messages

The doctrinal background of the Adventist understanding of the
three angelic pronouncements is found in the Millerite theology.45 The
former Millerite preacher Joseph Bates was the first Sabbatarian Adven-
tist to perceive the teleological nature of three angels’ proclamations.46
Pointing to the eschatological significance of the Sabbath, he presented
the relation between the Sabbath and the three angels’ messages.47 As part
44
Canale, “Interdisciplinary Method,” 386.
45
In the Millerite theology, the first message was understood as referring to the proclamation of
judgment at the end of the world. The fallen Babylon of the second message was interpreted as
a call to come out from Roman Catholicism and apostatized Protestantism and unite with the
people expecting Jesus to come back to earth. The third angel’s message was not much devel-
oped; only the interpretative relation of the beast and her mark with paganism and papacy was
somewhat developed. For more details, see Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages,
42–48.
46
For a good biography of Joseph Bates, see George R. Knight, Joseph Bates: The Real Founder of
Seventh-day Adventism (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2004).
47
Joseph Bates, The Seventh Day Sabbath: A Perpetual Sign from The Beginning, to the Entering
into the Gates of the Holy City According to the Commandment, 2nd ed. (New Bedford, MA: Press
of the “commandments of God” (Rev 14:12),48 the Sabbath was identi-

fied with the seal of God, making the third angel’s message “the sealing
message.”49
Soon after Bates’ tract was printed, James White published A Word
to the Little Flock.50 In it, he summarizes the incipient Adventist under-
standing of the three angels’ messages. The first proclamation “presents
the advent message, to the church and world.” The second angel “brought
us to the 7th month, 1844.” The third message “was, and still is, a WARN-
ING [sic] to the saints ‘to hold fast’ and not to go back, and ‘receive’ the
marks which the virgin band got rid of, during the second angel’s cry.”51
The first and second angels’ messages announce the proclamation of
the second coming and the decadency of a corrupted church. These were
recognized as having a historical incipient fulfillment in the Millerite
experience. The third angel’s message was “assumed by the pioneers of
the Seventh-day Adventist church as their duty and responsibility.”52
It comprised both the first and the second proclamation, and was en-
riched with the doctrine of the Sabbath, and later with the health message
(1860s) and a broader understanding of righteousness by faith (1880s).53
The Theological Content of the Three Angels’ Messages

The three angels represent a faithful remnant in the end time that
has a “universal mission and divine credentials to proclaim a message of
judgment.”54 As such, their messages have a prophetic character. Each
of Benjamin Lindsey, 1847), 60, depicts the seventh day as the truth “that will test every living
soul that enters the gates of the city”—that is, the new Jerusalem. In the first edition of 1846, Bates
only hints at the relation between Sabbath and the third angels’ message (24). Yoshio Murakami,
“Ellen G. White’s Views of the Sabbath in the Historical, Religious, and Social Context of
Nineteenth-Century America” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1995), 57–58, recognizes that prob-
ably Bates “was the first Adventist that declared Sunday-keeping as the ‘mark of the beast’; this
would be one of the key concepts in Seventh-day Adventist thinking.” Bates “decisively” incor-
porates “such concepts as ‘remnant,’ ‘persecution,’ ‘God and Satan,’ and the Sabbath as ‘test’” in
eschatology. “All these conceptions would be adopted by Ellen White and become the official
views of Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
48
All biblical quotations are from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated.
49
Damsteegt, Foundations, 146.
50
James White, A Word to the Little Flock (Brunswick, ME: James White), 1847.
51
Ibid., 10–11.
52
K. F. Mueller, “The Architect of Adventist Doctrines,” in J. N. Andrews: The Man and the Mission,
ed. Harry Leonard (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1985), 88.
53
Alberto R. Timm, “Three Angels’ Messages,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis
Fortin and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 1219.
54
LaRondelle, “The Remnant and the Three Angels’ Messages,” 874.
of the three angelic proclamations embodies a theological synthesis of

the Adventist teachings. They unwrap their content in a “chronologi-
cal sequence.”55 Each subsequent message integrates the previous one.
As a result, the three proclamations “eventually merge into one threefold
message.”56 The first angelic announcement represents the gospel call to
repentance:57
Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eter-

nal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every
nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a
loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his
judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and
earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 14:6–7, ESV).
Only through remorse can the divine imperatives appealing human

beings to revere, glorify, and worship God be obeyed. These imperatives
point to an estrangement of creation from its Creator due to sin. But the
proclamation of the first angel “creates a new spiritual Israel of God in
the end-time.”58 This group announces the fulfillment of God’s cosmic
plan of salvation through the final judgment of sin. The first phase of
the final judgment takes place before the second coming. It is identified
with the pre-advent judgment begun in the heavenly sanctuary as de-
scribed in Daniel 7. The date for the beginning of the judgment is
AD 1844.59
The judgment is closely associated with creation. Revelation 14:7
alludes to the Sabbath. Therefore, the first angel’s message “calls for the
restoration of true worship by presenting before the world Christ the
Creator and Lord of the Bible Sabbath.”60 The visible sign of repentance
is “loving obedience” to God’s commandments, Sabbath included.61 The
Creator is glorified “when true worship is restored and believers live
the principles of God’s kingdom.”62
55
Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 121.
56
57
Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 185.
58
59
LaRondelle, 874.
60
61
62
The second angelic proclamation indicates the result of rejecting the

first angel’s message: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen,
fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of
the passion of her sexual immorality’” (Rev 14:8).63 Babylon is understood
as representing “church and state on a world scale,” joined together
against God’s people.64 It is an illicit relation that results in enforcing
non-biblical religious teachings that intoxicate the human conscience.65
The angelic repetition of “fallen, fallen” indicates one of the verdicts of
divine judgment. The second angelic message is echoed in Revelation 18,
calling God’s people to come out of a morally fallen Babylon in order
to escape the heavenly verdict.66 As such, this proclamation contin-
ues the process of gathering God’s people into one body of believers.
As a culmination of the previous two messages, the third angel’s
proclamation is considered by Adventists to be the identifying marker
of our theological system. It announces “the most solemn and fearful
warning in the Bible”:67
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud

voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a
mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine
of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger,
and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence
of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the
smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no
rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image,
and whoever receives the mark of its name” (Rev 14:9–11, ESV).
The language used by the angel indicates that this is the last divine
message announced to the inhabitants of the earth. In the Revelation
narrative, it is followed by the second coming. If the second proclama-
tion indicates the moral fall of Babylon, the third message announces
the individual fate of those who choose to give their allegiance to the
corrupt powers and not to God.
63
64
65
Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 198–199.
66
67
Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 199–200.
Central to the third angelic message is a “confrontation of signs.”68

Loyalty toward God is manifested by accepting God’s sign, the Sabbath.
Allegiance to the opposing powers is revealed by receiving the mark of
the beast. As long as the offer of rest found in Sabbath observance is
refused, the followers of the antichrist remain restless. Trying to secure
the present by running from a temporal death (Rev 13:15), they run into
eternal death, forfeiting their future bliss. The angel clearly presents
the temporal nature of the human being, and indicates the inability of
humans to save themselves. The entire effort to participate “in a form
of worship God has forbidden but which the beast and his image com-
mand, a man-made worship” is doomed to fail.69 Only by accepting
God’s seal of righteousness can human beings be saved.
The third angel’s message is summarized in Revelation 14:12: “In
this point is the endurance of the saints, those who keep the com-
mandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (author’s translation). As a
result of the proclamation of the three angels, the process of gather-
ing all true believers is made complete. They honor God more than they
fear for their lives. In the book of Revelation, “God has made rejection
of the mark of the beast an essential qualification of the conquerors.”70
The followers of the Lamb seem to be defeated, while the followers of
the antichrist seem to triumph. But at Jesus’ second coming, His follow-
ers are saved and secured forever. Those who received the mark of the
beast suffer under the pouring of the seven plagues (Rev 16) and are
annihilated in the executive judgment (Rev 20:11–15).
The Teleological Characteristics of the Three Angels’ Messages

The three angelic proclamations have a “historical-missiological”
orientation that impacts the entire Adventist theological system.71 The
Millerite experience is interpreted, understood, and integrated into the
Adventist theological system.72 The articulation principle of the cosmic
controversy provides the tool for this historical integration. In addition,
the three apocalyptic angels are understood as referring to a definite
68
Sigve K. Tonstad, The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univer-
sity Press, 2009), 494.
69
70
71
72
Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, A Search for God: Understanding Apocalyptic Spirituality (Bucharest:
Universitară, 2010), 60–61, 90.
group of people with a distinct message for the world.73 As a result, the
newly born theological identity reflects a “prophetically pre-ordained
destiny.”74
The three angels’ messages provide a missionary orientation for
Adventist theology. Several traits circumscribe this teleological charac-
ter. First, all three messages have a temporal nature that influences their
content. The first message announces the beginning of the judgment
before the second coming. It also alludes to the Sabbath, a literal period
of rest. The second message proclaims the beginning of the moral fall
of Babylon. With the first mention of the word in Revelation 14:8,
Babylon is depicted as a temporal entity, which has a beginning and an
end. The third message points to the specific moment when the mark of
the beast becomes effectual. Through His messengers, God exhorts the
world against its reception. Moreover, the third proclamation indicates
the temporal finitude of human beings. The followers of the beast are
annihilated in the eschatological fire. In addition, the conclusion of the
threefold angelic warning indicates a time when God’s faithful believ-
ers will unite with the remnant church persevering in keeping God’s
commandments and Jesus’ faithfulness. Therefore, as part of the his-
torical flow of salvation, the messages are eschatologically focused.
Second, the angelic proclamations indicate the pre-advent judgment
as central to God’s plan of salvation. This judgment is connected with
the heavenly sanctuary, one of the central foci of Revelation. The en-
tire celestial creation loyal to God is presented in a court setting. The
purpose of judgment is threefold: 1) to reveal God’s justice, 2) to save
God’s people on earth, and 3) to condemn the persecuting powers.75 As
such, the judgment hints at the final restoration, taking place after the
destruction of the wicked, when the Lamb and His angels return to
earth (Rev 14:10).
73
74
Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, The Rise and Development of Seventh-day Adventist Spirituality: The
Charismatic Guidance of Ellen G. White, Doctoral Dissertation Series 1 (Cernica: Institutul Teo-
logic Adventist, 2005), 143.
75
For more details on the last two verdicts, see William H. Shea, “Unity of Daniel,” in Holbrook,
Symposium on Daniel, 178. This judgment investigates the records of “God’s professed peo-
ple, both true and false believers,” dead and alive. Those who did not persevere in following
Christ, who deserted Him by living godless lives, will have their names erased from the book
of life. By publicly opening the heavenly books, God’s proceedings in the plan of salvation
are justified and He is declared just. His saints are also vindicated, their sins being blotted out
from the records. They are shown to be worthy, through Christ, to inherit the kingdom of God
because of their faithful loyalty to Him. Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Judgment,” in Dederen,
Handbook, 841–842.
The third teleological trait is represented by the concept of the

Sabbath. The Sabbath plays a central role in the last book of the Bible.76
As the seal of God’s law, the seventh day is directly alluded to in
Revelation 14:7, and indirectly in verses 9 and 11.77 Standing in direct
opposition with the imprint of the opposing apocalyptic power,
Sabbath observance identifies loyal adherence to God.78 It recognizes
God’s power to save, and makes human effort futile. Moreover, by re-
membering the theme of creation in the midst of a solemn warning, the
seventh day retells the cosmic conflict.79 The Sabbath marks the border
between destruction and restoration. As a result, the proclamation of
the Sabbath comes at the juncture between past and future, being filled
with eschatological overtones.
The Sabbath imagery, the pre-advent judgment, and the temporal
nature of the three angelic messages outline their teleological charac-
ter. The three teleological traits interconnect the themes of creation, re-
demption, and restoration in the metanarrative of the great controversy.
These three themes are essential for any systematic theology based on the
sola-tota-prima Scriptura principle. As a result, the three angelic proc-
lamations interact with every doctrinal category of Adventist theology.
This dynamic eschatological interconnectedness is presented in the next
part of this study.
76
William H. Shea, “The Controversy Over the Commandments in the Central Chiasm of Reve-
lation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11, nos. 1–2 (2000): 229. Larry L. Lichtenwalter,
“The Seventh-Day Sabbath and Sabbath Theology in the Book of Revelation: Creation, Covenant,
Sign,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49, no. 2 (2011): 287, asserts that “ the biblical seventh-
day Sabbath is both a tacit concern and an underlying theological-sign concept with regard to
Revelation’s worldview of covenant in relation to creation and redemptive re-creation.”
77
Anthony MacPherson, “The Mark of the Beast as a ‘Sign Commandment’ and ‘Anti-Sabbath’
in the Worship Crisis of Revelation 12–14,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 43, no. 2 (2005):
278 and Jon Paulien, “Revisiting the Sabbath in the Book of Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 9, no. 1–2 (1998): 185.
78
Stefanovic, 423. The term charagma (“mark, imprint”) appears seven times in Revelation. All
occurrences are associated with the beast (Rev 13:16–17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).
79
In a final reprise, the Genesis battle against God’s rest is taken up again in Revelation. The ser-
pent with his allies fight against the redeemed people of God who bear the seal of God (Rev 13:15;
14:1). The conquerors of “the beast and its image and the number of its name” (Rev 15:2) are
those whose names are written in the book of life (Rev 3:5). They bear the seal of God
(Rev 14:1–5) and have kept their allegiance to God even unto death (Rev 20:4). As a result, they
are redeemed (Rev 7:13–17) and enjoy the presence of God forever (Rev 20:6). Those conquered
bythe beast and its seal presumably do not have their names written in the book of life. As
such, they die the second death (Rev 20:14–15)—that is, they are completely annihilated.
Therefore, thereis an indirect connection between the seal of God and the names written in
the book of life.
The Eschatological Interconnectedness of the

Adventist Theological System
The three angels’ messages function as the teleological principle
of the Adventist theological system. Through their rich eschatological
overtones, the angelic proclamations interconnect all other doctrines,
orienting them toward the ecclesiological-missiological fulfillment. This
fourth part restructures the teleological characteristics presented in the
previous part according to the major categories of systematic theology:
the doctrine of God, the doctrine of humanity, the doctrine of salva-
tion, the doctrine of the church, and the doctrine of the last things. The
eschatological relation of the three angels’ messages with each doctrinal
category is analyzed in each of the following sections.
The Three Angels’ Messages and the Doctrine of God

Having the reverence of God, the glorification of His name, and
the worship given to Him at their center, the threefold angelic messages
address the doctrine of God. Theology proper can be structured in three
major parts:80 1) the reality of God, 2) the divine attributes, and 3) the
divine activities. The three proclamations interact with each part, en-
riching their understanding. Through the Sabbath allusion, God is pre-
sented as Creator. Through the imagery of judgment, God is presented as
Savior. Through the imagery of the executive judgment, God is presented
as a restorer.
Coming at the end of creation week, the seventh day is not situ-
ated “outside of the historical reality of Creation.”81 The historicity of
the Genesis account is fundamental for understanding God’s reality. Far
from atemporality, the Bible depicts God as temporal.82 His reality “is
essentially temporal and historical.”83 As a result, His actions recorded
in the Bible are not mythological but actual. The Bible can speak about
salvation and restoration “only because God is the Creator.”84 As Creator,
God is an all-powerful being who transcends creation. The bringing
80
Fernando L. Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Dederen, Handbook, 105.
81
Jacques Doukhan, Genesis, Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (Nampa,
ID: Pacific Press, 2016), 68.
82
Canale, “Quest for the Biblical Ontological,” 16–19.
83
Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration, 38.
84
Gerhard F. Hasel and Michael G. Hasel, “The Unique Cosmology of Genesis 1 Against Ancient
Near Eastern and Egyptian Parallels,” in The Genesis Creation Account and its Reverberations
in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
2015), 10.
into existence of the world presupposes God’s preexistence and His in-
dependence of matter. He is not dependent on creation, but creation is
contingent on him.85 This is the reason behind the fervent appeal of “fear
God and give him glory” (Rev 14:7). God wants to restore the imago Dei
in His creatures. But they need to turn to Him in order to become what
they were intended to be.
The fact that God intervenes in the world through judgment re-
veals His immanence. The Sabbath, along with the sanctuary and the
incarnation, are a revelation of a “Person who relates with men and
women as He dwells with them throughout and within the flow of hu-
man history.”86 God is humanity’s Savior. This function is reflected in
the concept of judgment. Through judgment, God unveils His love.
Five traits characterize this revelation of love.87 First, God chooses to
act through judgment, extending salvation to His creatures: love is
volitional. Second, God expects human beings to answer His appeals. He
is not impassible: His love appraises human interaction. Third, God
is emotionally involved in restoring true worship. The metaphors
of “wrath” and “anger” reveal that His love is emotional (Rev 14:10).
Fourth, the Ten Commandments and the faithfulness of Jesus are em-
bodied in the Sabbath. The seventh day is presented as the seal of God in
Revelation. Similar to the Sabbath, the Ten Commandments and the
faithfulness of Jesus are a gift from God. Keeping the gift becomes a
condition of maintaining the divine-human covenant. This reflects the
foreconditional aspect of divine love. Fifth, God’s judgment is addressed
to humanity. But each individual is free to choose or reject the offer
of salvation. This indicates that God’s love is ideally reciprocal and not
a rigid determinism.
To the attribute of temporality, transcendence, immanence, and di-
vine love, immutability is added.88 God does not abrogate or change His
law when sin invades His creation; nor did He when Jesus died on the
cross. Rather, He warns humanity of the dreadful consequences of re-
jecting His law (Rev 14:10). The permanence of the law and its impor-
tant role in end-time events show that God is involved in a controversy
wherein His faithfulness is at stake. It also reveals the divine activities
of foreknowledge and predestination.89 God was not surprised by the
85
Peckham, The Love of God, 253.
86
Canale, “Doctrine of God,” 118.
87
These five traits are adapted from Peckham, The Love of God, 250.
88
For a broader discussion of these attributes, see Canale, “Doctrine of God,” 108–113.
89
Foreknowledge is understood here as “God’s cognitive activity regarding the world in gen-
fall. The existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil shows
that the Godhead took sin into account when they created the world.
This means that the external written law was designed with a latent po-
tential to counteract the effects of sin through its spiritual dimensions.
In the subsequent history, the various applications of the law present
God’s actions to redeem and restore Creation. The three angels’ messages
reveal the Creator’s presence in the world. He acts as its ruler, condemn-
ing evil and uplifting good. As Judge, God puts an end to evil through
His divine power, in order to restore it. The themes of creation, salvation,
and restoration sum up the divine salvific efforts. Therefore, the three
angelic pronouncements orient humanity’s salvation toward completion.
As a result, human beings are placed in the center of the divine interest.
The Three Angels’ Messages and the Doctrine of Humanity

Relationships are essential to the three angels’ messages and to an-
thropology.90 There are two levels on which these relations are present.
First, there is the vertical level. Humanity needs to relate with the meta-
physical realm. But this realm is caught in a cosmic controversy. There
are two competing forces: God and the devil. Each human being is
compelled to choose one side or the other. Second, there is the horizon-
tal level. In the end times, humankind is polarized in two major groups,
reflecting a specific set of characteristics: the followers of the Lamb and
the followers of the dragon.
The three angels’ messages embody the essential features of the real-
ity of human beings’ existence and their activities in relation to God and
others. As a reminder of creation, the angelic proclamations point first
to human createdness. By intertwining the imagery of creation with that
of the mark as an imprint, the three angelic proclamations forcefully re-
call that humanity bears the imago Dei, not imago bestiae. In the origi-
nal state, humanity was imprinted with the image of their Maker.91 In the
postlapsarian state, God’s image was marred. But through Christ, the
eral and free human actions in particular,” while predestination “refers to God’s volitive activity
(Eph. 1:5, 9, 11) in deciding the basic components and structure required to accomplish the re-
demption of humankind (1 Cor. 2:7)” (ibid., 115).
90
Artur A. Stele and Clinton Wahlen, “Biblical Anthropology: Introduction and Challenges,”
in “What Are Human Beings That You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the Third International
Bible Conference Nof Ginosar and Jerusalem, June 11–21, 2012, ed. Clinton Wahlen (Silver Spring,
MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015), 2, assert that “Biblical anthropology is based primarily
upon the concept of relationships.”
91
According to Richard M. Davidson, “The Nature of the Human Being From the Beginning:
Genesis 1–11,” in Wahlen, 18, this image was “both concrete (outward/physical resemblance) and
abstract (inward/spiritual/mental/moral resemblance) . . . indicating the person as a whole.”
Godhead makes the restoration of the divine resemblance possible. In

this sense, the three angels call human beings to accept the divine resto-
ration by refusing the image of the malefic adversary.
Second, the three angels’ messages indicate the temporal nature of
the human beings.92 The strong warning of the third angel runs against
the prevalent notion of the natural immortality of the soul. The future
of those receiving the mark of the beast is described in vivid language:
they “will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy
angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev 14:10). They are transformed
into ashes. As with the Old Testament cities that were destroyed forever,
“the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Rev 14:11).93
The third anthropological characteristic of the three angels’ mes-
sages is the equality of humanity. The first angel proclaims the gospel “to
every nation and tribe and language and people” (Rev 14:6). Nobody is
excluded or exempted. All stand on a level ground, being reminded
that they have equal value before their Creator. The angel does not
recognize the artificial barriers mounted by human beings. All individu-
als have the same right to hear the gospel proclamation.
Closely connected with equality stands human freedom. God re-
spects the right of each individual to choose. This contrasts with the
coercion that characterizes the beast and its followers. While the divine
appeal indicates the end of those accepting the mark of the adversary,
the beast threatens with the end those refusing its imprint. True freedom
manifests when coercion is the strongest. Those choosing to have their
divine resemblance restored oppose the beast even unto death. Those
refusing to bear the imago Dei accept the character of the beast.
Some of the major elements that circumscribe human identity
are embodied in the three angels’ messages: createdness, temporality,
freedom, and equality. All become central in the eschatological conflict
of the end time. By indicating them, the angelic proclamations reveal
human beings as the focus of the divine salvific efforts. Accepting God’s
appeal, humanity chooses salvation.
The Three Angels’ Messages and the Doctrine of Salvation

The central idea of salvation is that “God visits His people and deliv-
ers them from those problems or powers that imperil their existence.”94
As such, the doctrine of salvation is closely connected with the three
92
93
For a detailed explanation of this verse, see Stefanovic, 460–463.
94
Ivan T. Blazen, “Salvation,” in Dederen, Handbook, 271.
angels’ messages. Their content depicts God visiting His creation and
announcing the climax of the gospel proclamation. It is a cri de coeur
from God toward His Creation. Before putting a cosmic end to evil,
God urges human beings to recognize Him as their God and Savior. By
revering, glorifying, and worshipping God, humanity confesses that
He is trustworthy. Hence, the eschatological nature of the three angelic
proclamations is reinforced by their temporal nature. Once humanity
takes sides, God intervenes to save His people from the persecution
imposed by the beast and its followers.
Human allegiance is manifested through obedience to God’s law.
The acceptance of the Sabbath as God’s loyalty emblem reveals the dis-
position to trust God’s ability to provide what is necessary for individual
and collective salvation. Therefore, God’s seal becomes indicative of
conversion from self-dependence to divine-dependence. Only by pass-
ing though this conversion can humanity trust in God’s protective care
and leadership in the end times. Ceasing from his efforts, the human
being accepts God’s intervention. This results in an inner transformation:
God’s loyal followers are called “saints” (Rev 14:12). As such, the Sabbath
is related to sanctification. God bestows His holiness on humans, restor-
ing the imago Dei. As a result, human beings become imitatores Dei.95
Spiritual growth and maturation in Christ is closely intertwined with
Sabbath observance. In the final conflict, God’s people receive the
strength to endure privations and even the loss of life.
While the first angelic proclamation indicates that salvation is based
on God’s acts and not human works, the third angelic message indicates
that the judgment is according to works. This is the reason Sabbath ob-
servance is so important in the eschatological conflict. As a mark of
sanctification, it speaks of a complete surrender to God. The relation
between sanctification and judgment “is best understood in the Christo-
logical setting of the relationship between Jesus as Savior (stressing the
gift of God), and Jesus as Lord (stressing the claim of God). To magnify
His gift is to magnify His claim.”96 Given that the followers of the beast
have a dissimulated religious facade, a vindication of God’s true saints is
needed. Therefore, for all those professing to be followers of the Lamb, the
pre-advent judgment is “judicial, yet redemptive.”97 It reveals either real
or dissimulated allegiance to God.
95
This is taken from the Vulgate version of Ephesians 5:1: “Estote ergo imitatores Dei sicut filii
carissimi” [“Therefore you shall be imitators of God as most beloved sons”].
96
Blazen, “Salvation,” in Dederen, Handbook, 290.
97
Hasel, “Divine Judgment,” 845.
In addition to the anthropological perspective, salvation adds a

broader dimension. The three angels’ messages are brought from heaven
down to earth. The angels are involved in the completion of the plan of
salvation. The witness of heaven is alluded to through the imagery of
the angels in the Lamb’s entourage. They agree with the divine deci-
sions regarding the followers of the beast (Rev 14:10). This hints to the
cosmic dimensions of salvation. As on earth, the moral law, “expressed
to the different orders of created beings in specific precepts, is central to
the controversy that arose in the universe.”98 This controversy started in
heaven, in the very presence of God. Lucifer, the angelic ruler, started
to entertain thoughts of jealousy and pride. He developed a strong ha-
tred against Christ.99 Also, he questioned the limits of the created beings
and attacked God’s moral government.100 Acting as a judge, God ex-
pelled Satan and the fallen angels from heaven. This was the start of a
conflict later to be reflected in human history.101 The end of this conflict
is presented in the book of Revelation. The same malefic intelligence
is behind the satanic trinity, leading a global rebellion against God and
His people. But this brawny force encounters a growing resistance
movement: the remnant.
The Three Angels’ Messages and the Doctrine of the Church

Whether in the Old or in the New Testament, “where there are
people of God, there is the church.”102 This principle is also reflected in
the end time. Adventist theology recognizes the existence of a “uni-
versal church” that “is composed of all who truly believe in Christ”;
98
Holbrook, “The Great Controversy,” 973.
99
Ellen G. White, Early Writings (1882; repr., Review and Herald, 2000), 145, points out that the
first impulse of jealousy was in connection with humanity’s creation: “When God said to His
Son, ‘Let us make man in our image,’ Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted
concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy,
and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God.” The best explana-
tion for Satan’s envy against God is offered by Carsten Johnsen, when he states that Jesus mani-
fested Himself as an angel when relating with the angels. For this reason, Satan, seeing Christ
like himself, thought that he could take His place. For details, see the first chapter of Carsten
Johnsen, The Maligned God (Mezien: Untold Story, 1980).
100
Holbrook, “The Great Controversy,” 976.
Ministerial Association, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 113, states that “this world became the
101
arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated.”
102
Jiří Moskala, “The Concept and Notion of the Church in the Pentateuch,” in “For You Have
Strengthened Me”: Biblical and Theological Studies in Honor of Gerhard Pfandl in Celebration of
His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Martin Pröbstle, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Martin G. Klingbeil (St.
Peter am Hart: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2007), 4.
nevertheless, it summarizes its own ecclesiological identity through

the concept of the remnant: “But in the last days, a time of widespread
apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments
of God and the faith of Jesus.”103 The three angels symbolize the rem-
nant church, and their proclamation represent the church’s mission. The
universal church thus comprises a visible part—the remnant—and an
invisible part.104
In the historical flow, the three angelic proclamations point both
to the formation of the remnant and to the gathering of the whole church
of Christ under the same coat of arms: the Sabbath. The seventh day
unites the remnant in worship and mission. It also becomes an invita-
tion for others to join in. Therefore, “the church does not merely have a
mission”; “the church is mission.”105 The purpose of the three angels is
fulfilled when all true invisible believers forsake Babylon and step into
the visible realm, uniting themselves with the remnant church.
The church reveals that unity cannot be imposed or forced on peo-
ple. It becomes a reality when people come together to revere, glorify,
and worship their Creator. Only then can the church reflect the one-
ness that characterizes the Godhead. In contrast, the apparent unity of
Babylon under the mark of the beast is doomed to fail. The second an-
gel announces the fall of Babylon. In Revelation 18, the true nature of
Babylon is revealed: it is a “dwelling place for demons” who fought hard
to overthrow God’s authority on earth (Rev 18:2).
Opposed to everything Babylon stands for, the remnant obeys
God’s commandments through faith. By this, the church confesses
that it accepts the Bible as authoritative for each religious practice.
Accepting God’s Word as the cognitive foundation for its theology,
theremnant church recognizes the reality and identity of God. United
in worship, church members confess that there is only one body and a
sole head of the church: Jesus Christ (Col 1:18). Consequently, they reject
all other false heads that are put up by the dragon and its allies. The sea
beast attracts the attention of the whole world when it imitates the expe-
rience of Jesus Christ, receiving a “mortal wound” which is then healed
(Rev 13:3).106 But the imitation is tawdry as it does not reflect the char-
acter of the original. The amazement is turned into a manipulating tool:
all people are forced to receive its mark by the earth beast (Rev 13:12–17).
103
104
Rodríguez, “Concluding Essay: God’s End-Time Remnant and the Christian Church,” 224.
105
Raoul Dederen, “The Church,” in Dederen, Handbook, 549.
106
Stefanovic, 414.
The eschatological imposition of the mark of the beast is countered

by the proclamation of the three angels’ messages. These angels gather
the believers into a remnant church and send them to proclaim the
Sabbath, the judgment, the second coming, and the conditional immor-
tality of humanity as a part of God’s final message to the world. Hence,
the threefold angelic messages connect the church with the present,
through its temporal character, but also with the future restoration. Still,
before restoration, a final battle for human allegiance takes place. The
battle between God’s mark of loyalty and Satan’s imprint of defiance is
the denouement of the great controversy.
The Three Angels’ Messages and the Doctrine of Last Things

While it is true that the three angels’ messages cannot be fully pro-
claimed without being lived, they cannot be lived without being pro-
claimed. As the teleological goal of church’s identity, they circumscribe
the divine-human resistance movement. When human beings accept
the angelic proclamations, God’s rulership is restored in their hearts.
Accepting the seal of the living God (Rev 7:2), they become part of
the remnant, waiting for the final restoration.
The ecclesiological proclamation is not a serene mission. The
Bible portrays it as a fierce battle for human allegiance. Satan, the ma-
lefic force behind the fall coup, identifies his followers with his brand
(Rev 13:16–17). Imitating God’s seal of ownership, this apocalyptic im-
print designates the opposing values of the usurper. The Sabbath is a
specific period of time; the other is also a specific period, prophetically
and historically identified with Sunday.107 The seventh day is a remind-
er of God’s authority as Creator; the mark is a reminder of the rebel’s
authority. God’s day indicates freedom and equality; the beast’s imprint
reveals coercion and inequity. The day of rest redeems and restores; the
sign of unrest enslaves and crushes. One reflects love, and the other hate.
Honoring the Sabbath in the midst of a “nearly universal disregard of the
Sabbath among contemporary Christians” cannot avoid confrontation.108
By proclaiming the “imposing portfolio of meanings” embodied
in the Sabbath, the remnant church expresses its faithfulness in God.109
The seventh day is a sign of allegiance, revealing human loyalty. The
Sabbath recognizes “God as Creator and our willingness to do what He
For a detailed study on Sunday as the mark of the beast, see C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The Mark of
107
the Beast,” in Holbrook, Symposium on Revelation.

108
Kenneth A. Strand, “The Sabbath,” in Dederen, Handbook, 513.
109
Tonstad, Lost Meaning, 27.
says for His sake alone.”110 The human willingness to observe the seventh
day results from the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. Bearing
resemblance to Jesus, the “exact imprint [Gk. charaktēr]” of the divine
nature (Heb 1:3), the remnant confesses Christ’s faithfulness. As a result,
Sabbath observance becomes a means of restoring God’s reputation in
the great controversy.111 Understood as a revelation of God’s character,
the angelic proclamation of the Sabbath is extremely important in
the end time. The final eschatological battle between good and evil is
fought around what Sabbath signifies: worship. As with the marital re-
lationship, the covenantal relationship symbolized by the Sabbath is
exclusive. One cannot serve both God and His adversary. Therefore, each
human being must choose whom to worship. As the three angels re-
veal, the observance of the seventh day becomes the visible litmus test of
the end times.112
Up to the second coming, the three angel’s messages fulfill their te-
leological role. They orient human allegiance toward God through its
proclamation. By remembering creation, they invite humanity to wor-
ship the Creator. By announcing judgment, they entreat human beings
to receive their Savior. By indicating the end of evil, they exhort men
and women to enter God’s everlasting rest. When they accept the an-
gelic pronouncements, believers receive the power to keep God’s com-
mandments and have the faith of Jesus until the second coming. Even
if they go through the darkest hour of history, they have the promise of
restoration.
Conclusions
The Adventist theological system is a unified whole. The entire doc-

trinal structure is oriented toward the eschatological fulfillment, thus
having a missiological nature. This orientation is embodied in the three
angels’ messages. These constitute the teleological principle of Adventist
theology. Every other fundamental principle (cognitive, hermeneuti-
cal, and methodological) is informed by the three angelic proclamations.
Richard M. Davidson, A Love Song for the Sabbath (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
110
1988), 79.
For a detailed discussion about divine reputation in connection with Christ’s faithfulness, see
111
Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic
Narrative of Revelation, ed. Mark Goodacre, Library of New Testament Studies 337 (London:
T&T Clark International, 2006).
112
Davidson, Love Song, 65.
The threefold pronouncements encapsulate their teleological char-

acter in three features: the temporal frame of reference, the pre-advent
judgment, and the Sabbath. These features interconnect the themes of
creation, salvation, and future restoration in the metanarrative of the
great controversy. Given that the major categories of systematic theolo-
gy follow the ordo salutis of the biblical metanarrative, the three angelic
messages interact with every doctrinal category of Adventist theology,
creating a dynamic eschatological interconnectedness. As such, they distill
the ecclesiological raison d’être, becoming an indispensable organic part
of the church’s identity and mission. Given their importance, any treat-
ment of Adventist theology must integrate the teleological features of the
three angels’ messages as part of its systematic discussion.
CHAPTER 22
Theodicy And Contrasting

Eschatological Visions:
The Investigative Judgment
And the Problem Of Evil
Anthony MacPherson
The problem of evil is the most serious obstacle to belief in God. Why
does God, who is all-powerful and all-loving, allow evil when He has
both the power and motive to prevent it? In response to this, theologians
offer theodicies or justifications of divine action showing why God is
not unjust in allowing evil. Often these theodicies are concerned with
the origin of evil in the past or the problem of ongoing suffering in the pres-
ent. The purpose of this chapter is not to pursue these elements of theod-
icy per se, but to explore some of the theodicy questions that are specific
to the future and the area of eschatology.
Theodicy Questions for Eschatology
Eschatology is very important to theodicy.1 Eschatology is often seen

as the ultimate and final means of answering the problem of evil:2 evil
1
According to Christiaan Mostert, “Theodicy and Eschatology,” in Theodicy and Eschatology, ed.
David Neville and Bruce Barber (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2005), 116, “Christian theodicy cannot be
attempted without eschatology.”
2
“The world’s evil and suffering cannot make theological sense in any other framework; nei-
ther can it be incontrovertibly demonstrated other than eschatologically” (ibid., 116). Michael
L. Peterson, “Eschatology and Theodicy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L.
Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 518–519, writes, “Eschatology allows theodicists
and suffering may have emerged in the past and continue in the present,
but we hold out hope that, eschatologically, God will make everything
right in the future.3 Eschatology is therefore often called upon to solve
theodicy-related questions that are of great relevance to believers and
nonbelievers. These pressing questions include: 1) What is the final eter-
nal fate of unrepentant sinners? Is it an eternal hell? 2) What happens to
those who die having never heard the gospel? This is also known as the
question of “the fate of the unevangelized.” 3) What happens to believ-
ers whose lives are manifestly imperfect or sinful at death? How can they
enter heaven after death or see God? 4) If someone is eternally lost, then
hasn’t God ultimately failed? 5) What happens to the mentally ill and to
children who die in infancy? 6) How can we be sure that evil and suffering
will not arise again? Will God succeed? 7) What do all of these answers
say about God? Is God just, merciful, and fair?
Theologians feel keenly the force of these questions and put for-
ward a wide range of eschatological doctrines in response. While some of
them are bold and speculative, all claim to represent something in har-
mony with Scripture. This study seeks to lay out different eschatological
responses to these questions and contrast them with Seventh-day Adven-
tist eschatology. This survey is introductory and representative, but not
exhaustive.
Lack of Eschatological Consensus and Binary Options
A survey of the field of eschatology reveals a wide variety of an-

swers and a lack of consensus. One reason is the complexity of the task.
Eschatology must be consistent with all previous doctrinal decisions.
Additionally, when forming eschatological answers, theologians must
choose between multiple binary options. It is helpful to see what these
binary options are.
One binary option asks whether the offer of salvation is exclusive or
inclusive. In other words, is salvation only possible through an explicit
offer of the gospel (exclusivism), or is it possible for God to offer salva-
tion even when an explicit presentation of the gospel has not been made
(inclusivism). Often this is seen as people living up to the light of rev-
elation they have received, usually found in creation and conscience.
to make projections about the ultimate disposition of evils in the life to come and thus offers dis-
tinct advantages in reconciling those evils with God’s nature and purposes. This is eschatologies
clear connection to theodicy.”
3
Eschatology is “not a dispensable part. It affects proleptically every part of the story; no part can
be considered apart from it” (Mostert, 106).
Another binary option follows, concerning the issue of premortem ver-

sus postmortem opportunities for salvation. Is the opportunity for salva-
tion available only in this life, or also in the afterlife? This is a question
about when salvation is available. A third binary option involves the ques-
tion of purgatory. Does the afterlife include a purification process for
sinful human beings, or not?4 A fourth binary option concerns the ques-
tion of cosmic dualism. Will suffering and evil exist forever, or will they
be completely eliminated? Will God’s victory be manifest in the elimi-
nation of rebellion, or in a continual triumphing over it? A fifth binary
option is the question of universalism. Will everyone eventually be saved,
or will some refuse the offer of salvation? The final binary option that
all eschatologies must consider is that of anthropology. In a sense, this is
the foundational and first of all binary choices, but here it is placed last
as the climactic question. The anthropological issue is whether human
beings are naturally immortal with undying eternal souls, or whether they
are naturally mortal and only receive immortality on the condition that
God grants them eternal life through resurrection? The former position
is known as dualism, where a person is a composite of a mortal body and
an immortal soul. The latter position is known as wholism, which teaches
that a person is an indivisible unity of the physical and spiritual. This means
there is no element of a person that is capable of surviving after death
apart from all the other elements. A person is mortal and can only live
again if God reconstitutes the whole person.
Obviously these six binary options can be used in many different
combinations. Theologians have attempted to recombine these options
in the hope of providing the best answers to questions of theodicy. With
an awareness of these options, let us briefly outline some of the main
ways theologians have attempted to construct eschatologies to answer
some of the deepest questions of theodicy concerning death and the
afterlife. These eschatologies will not be critiqued in this section.
Eternal Heaven and Eternal Hell

The traditional and historically predominant answer Christianity has
given is that heaven awaits believers while an eternal burning hell is the
destiny of unbelievers. Opportunity for salvation is restricted to those
who, in this life alone, have been exposed to the explicit claims of the gos-
pel. This view claims to be faithful to Scripture and the claims of justice.5
4
If purgatory is possible, then a follow-up question is whether this purification is limited to sanc-
tification (change of character) or if it includes the possibility of salvation (change of destiny).
This reiterates the first binary option.
5
This has historically been the majority view within Christianity.
Reconciliationism
Strong criticisms have been made of the doctrine of an eternal tor-
ment in hell for sinners. Many traditionalists feel keenly the problem
of hell, and one creative attempt to soften this issue is found in a teach-
ing called reconciliationism, which denies that hell consists of eternal
sinners railing in hate against God. Instead it claims that the occupants
of hell see the justness of their punishment, are cognitively reconciled
to their fate, and do not eternally sin or engage in evil.6 This is a sinless
hell that has the advantages of rejecting the presence of eternal evil in
the universe and affirming a final universalism of sorts without claiming
that all are saved.
Catholic Purgatory
The Catholic eschatological position seeks to combine the tradition-
al view of hell with a number of softening features. One is the Catholic
Church’s adoption of a broad version of inclusivism.7 The other distinc-
tive feature is purgatory. While Catholicism teaches that the opportunity
for salvation is only in this life,8 believers who are still unholy and imper-
fect may experience a postmortem, yet non-salvic, purification process.9
Catholic doctrine asserts that sin has a double consequence.10 Sin, es-
pecially grave sin, separates us from God and requires eternal punishment;
the second consequence of sin is that it entails an unhealthy attachment
to creatures and deforms us.11 The first effect of sin is an eternal debt
that we cannot satisfy. Absolution for this sin is found only in Christ’s
death. The second consequence of sin and its corruption necessitates a
debt of temporal punishment, which can be worked off either in this life
or in the afterlife state of purgatory.12
6
Henri Blocher, “Everlasting Punishment and the Problem of Evil,” in Universalism and the Doc-
trine of God, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992) and Andy Saville, “Hell
without Sin: A Renewed View of a Disputed Doctrine,” Churchman 119, no. 3 (2005): 243–261.
This view can actually be traced back to the nineteenth century; see Andy Saville, “Reconcili-
ationism: A Forgotten Evangelical Doctrine of Hell,” Evangelical Quarterly 79, no. 1 (2007): 35–51.
7
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
2012), 847–848.
8
“Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine
grace manifested in Christ.” Catholic Church, 1021.
9
Catholic Church, Catechism, “The Final Purification, or Purgatory,” sec. III. Eastern Orthodox
Christianity allows for a purgatorial process but does not dogmatically define it.
10
Ibid., 1472.
11
Ibid.
12
Catholic Church, Catechism, 1472–1479. This is where the treasury of the merits of the saints
Protestant Purgatory
In more recent times, Protestants have argued for a different form
of purgatory that is more aligned with Protestant theology.13 The Catho-
lic purgatory is a satisfaction model that Protestants cannot accept.
However, a sanctification model of purgatory is acceptable to Protestant
theology.14 The main difference between the two is that in Catholic the-
ology salvation grants full pardon from sin’s eternal penalty but not its
temporal penalty (this distinction opens the way for its sacramental
system). In contrast, the Protestant sanctification model of purgatory
affirms that justification brings full pardon from all of sin’s debt and pen-
alty. It is only the remaining “power” or disposition to sin that needs to
be eliminated in a sanctifying afterlife.15 Purgatory is seen as a merciful
way for God to save and prepare imperfect believers for eternity.
Annihilationism
The last premortem salvation view is that of annihilationism. In this
view people are not inherently immortal. The wicked cease to exist af-
ter God’s judgment, while the righteous are resurrected to enjoy eternal
life. This means there is no eternal torment in hell. Sin and evil are perma-
nently eliminated.16
Last-Chance (Ad-Mortem) or Second-Chance (Postmortem)

Theologies
Eschatologies that focus on offers of salvation at death or after death
are here referred to as last-chance and second-chance eschatologies. Last-
chance theologies hold that salvation is only available in this life. However,
is operative. The Catholic Church possesses this treasury, distributing it to people through its
sacramental system and indulgences. See Samuele Bacchiocchi, Popular Beliefs: Are They Biblical?
(Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspective, 2008), 163–192, for a discussion and critique of purga-
tory from an Adventist perspective.
13
Prominent is Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory: A Protestant View of the Cosmic Dra-
ma (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2015). See also C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer
(London: Harcourt Brace, 1964), 106–111.
14
See Justin D. Barnard, “Purgatory and the Dilemma of Sanctification,” Faith and Philosophy 24
(2007): 311–330.
15
Neal Judisch, “Sanctification, Satisfaction, and the Purpose of Purgatory,” Faith and Philosophy
26, no. 2 (2009): 167–185, denies there is any real material difference between the two models.
16
As noted in Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, and Joshua W. Anderson, eds., Rethinking
Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014), proponents of
annihilationism include Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Arnobius, John Stott, John
Wenham, Michael Green, Clark Pinnock, Edward Fudge, E. Earle Ellis.
some theologians suggest that those who have not received an opportu-
nity to hear the gospel during their lifetime will get a final chance either
before17 or at the moment of death.18 How this happens is not clear; God
may send an angel or grant a dream.19
Second-chance theologies subscribe to some form of postmortem
opportunity for salvation.20 How this happens is also unclear; often a new
creative form of purgatory is proposed.21 In the afterlife further oppor-
tunities for salvation are given and purification of character is possible.
Not all will accept the offers of salvation in this life or the afterlife, but
the opportunity is there—especially for those who did not receive an
opportunity during their lifetime.
Universalism
The last view is a postmortem eschatology asserting that not only
will there be ongoing opportunities for salvation in the afterlife, but that
eventually everyone will be saved.22 It claims that no one is able to eter-
nally hold out against the relentless efforts of divine love. Even Satan will
finally be reconciled back to God. Cosmic history goes through a grand
cycle that turns back to the beginning when all were at one with God.
17
This is the idea of universalism evangelism. Proponents include Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Jacobus
Arminius, Norman Geisler, Earl Radmacher, J. Oliver Buswell, and Robertson McQuilken. See
La Verne P. Blowers, “Are They Really Lost? What Is the Status of the Unevangelized?” 6, http://
www.bethelcollege.edu/assets/content/mcarchives/pdfs/v7n1p127.pdf (accessed March 21, 2018).
18
This is also known as “universal opportunity.” Proponents include John Cardinal Henry New-
man (1801–1890), Ladislaus Boros, and Roger Troisfontaines. See ibid., 7.
19
There is also a “middle knowledge” version of last-chance theologies. In this view God judges
people on the basis of what they would have done if they had been exposed to the gospel. Pro-
ponents include Donald Lake, George Goodman, Luis de Molina, and William Lane Craig. See
ibid., 8.
20
See Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of
Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 168–175. Gabriel Fackre, “Divine Perseverance,”
in What About Those Who Have Never Heard? ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
sity, 1995), 71–95. Proponents include Melito, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Franz Delitzsch, C. E. B. Cranfield, Wayne Grudem, Joseph Leckie, Gabriel Fackre,
George Lindbeck, Donald Bloesch, Richard Swinburne, Carl Braaten, Clark Pinnock, Stephen
Davis, G. R. Beasley-Murray, and Jerry Walls. See Blowers, 9.
21
Walls, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory? 205, states, “I would suggest that postmortem repentance
is a theological proposal that deserves serious consideration. Indeed, I would propose that the
doctrine of purgatory be amended to include this claim.”
22
See Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014). Other univer-
salists include Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, G. C. Berkouwer, J. A. T.
Robinson, Paul Knitter, and John Hick. See also Richard Bauckham, “Universalism: A Historical
Survey,” Themelios 4, no. 2 (1978): 47–54.
This is a profoundly optimistic, albeit controversial, view. Obviously, it has

great appeal when dealing with issues of theodicy.
Figure 1: Dualism and Judgment: Range of Speculated Afterlife

Options in Dualistic Eschatology
This Life Death The Afterlife
Heaven
PURGATORY?
Satisfaction or Sanctification
U S
N A
Individual I L
DEATH SECOND V V
DEATH NEW E A
(No Second Second Chance COMING R T
Where? Why?
EARTH?
Chance)
How?
S I
When? A O
L N
?
Hell
Reflections on Dualistic Eschatology

Before looking at the Seventh-day Adventist alternative, here are sev-
eral observations about the positions we have just considered. First, all
of these positions, except that of annihilationism, are based on anthro-
pological dualism and its idea of an immortal soul. Anthropology is
the defining issue. A wholistic anthropology appears to give rise to a
simpler eschatology. It is characterized by less speculation. Conversely,
dualistic anthropology seems to give rise to considerable speculation
and very diverse, even contradictory, opinions.
Secondly, in dualistic views, death—not the second coming—is
the key transition point. In Scripture the opposite appears to be the case.
From the divine perspective, death is a metaphorical sleep that will be
obliterated by Christ at His return. From a human perspective, Scrip-
ture depicts death as our enemy. It is the end of our life and our hopes;
only God can break its power. But in both human and divine perspec-
tives, Scripture presents death as an end, not as a transition. Only the
life-giving, resurrecting action of Christ at the second coming transitions
us to a new stage of life. Death may end suffering, but it does not transi-
tion to another stage. Hope is only in the advent of Christ. Only wholistic
anthropology preserves this dynamic. In contrast, dualism reduces the

significance of the second coming by making it virtually redundant to
one’s destiny. In dualistic views destiny is either decided at death or in some
postmortem event or process. The second coming is reduced to rewards
and connecting bodies back to souls, and not a great deal more.
From this we note a third observation: that all of these dualistic es-
chatologies have an individualistic focus on the journey of the soul/spirit.
We shall return to this when we see that the Adventist perspective only
sees the individual within the collective-communal, which itself is within
the larger cosmic activity of Christ.23
The Seventh-day Adventist Position: More Than Annihilationism
What, then, is the Seventh-day Adventist eschatological response to

theodicy questions? An initial answer may be that Adventists are annihi-
lationists.24 This is true, but so are some other Christians. Annihilationism
is an essential part of a bigger answer, but on its own, it does not say every-
thing that a biblical doctrine of judgment and eschatology needs to say in
the face of challenging theodicy questions.
Seventh-day Adventist theology places annihilationism and its ac-
companying wholistic doctrine of anthropology within a much wider two-
fold theological framework: The first framework is the history of God
as a narrative of Him working out His eternal purposes in the face of a
cosmic war waged by Satan against those purposes. This is also known
as the great controversy.25 Due to this understanding, eschatology must
address cosmic ideological challenges that threaten not only the fate of
sinners, but God’s eternal purposes. There is need for a salvation world-
view to be placed into a bigger cosmic controversy worldview.26 The sec-
ond framework is that the disclosure of God’s plan to redeem creation is
23
We could add a fourth observation that the millennium plays a minor or nonexistent role
in many dualistic descriptions of the afterlife. The afterlife is an otherworldly spiritual matter
and the millennium is symbolical of the Christian era (amillennialism). Dispensationalism is
different. While the millennium is mainly about an earthly rule of Christ, it does feature major
judgments affecting the eternal destiny and afterlife of people. The Adventist position has an
important role for the millennium in eschatological judgment that is neither spiritualized away
nor literalized to an earthly reign.
24
Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, “Death: Origin, Nature, and Final Eradication,” in Handbook of Sev-
enth-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000),
314–346 and Aecio E. Cairus, “The Doctrine of Man,” in Dederen, 205–232.
25
Frank B. Holbrook, “The Great Controversy,” in Dederen, 980–1009.
26
See the discussion in Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Prolegomena (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 387–453.
revealed in the Old Testament sanctuary and its services.27 Seventh-day

Adventists understand that the biblical teachings on the sanctuary reveal
one unified, integrated picture of God’s work in atonement and judg-
ment. Instead of theology seeking to patch together separate models and
metaphors of salvation and judgment, the sanctuary is seen as a divinely
revealed, unifying framework for all biblically based metaphors or mod-
els of atonement.28 God’s process of salvation is based in the incarnation,
death, and resurrection of Christ, and then continues in His heavenly
work as interceding High Priest, final Judge, and returning King.29 This
is one unbroken unified work by Christ.
For Seventh-day Adventists, if a salvation model, theory of judgment, or
eschatological speculation does not take into account the cosmic controversy
and does not fit within the sanctuary service, then it is not an adequate
representation of God’s revealed plan. A fully biblical eschatology is neces-
sarily a sanctuary eschatology. Eschatologies concerned with only crea-
turely salvation—neglecting divine cosmic governance, or reducing the
saving work of God to one element of the wider process—are incomplete.
Outlining Sanctuary Judgment Eschatology

This study will not outline the entire salvation and judgment process
as revealed through Scripture and the sanctuary doctrine. In Scripture,
judgment is a process that leads to the simultaneous salvation/deliver-
ance of God’s people and the judgment/destruction of God’s enemies.30
27
For treatments of the sanctuary doctrine, see Roy Adams, The Sanctuary: Understanding the
Heart of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1993); Fernando Canale,
“Philosophical Foundations and the Biblical Sanctuary,” Andrews University Seminary Studies
36 (1998): 183–206; Richard M. Davidson, “Cosmic Metanarrative for the Coming Millennium,”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11 (2000): 102–19; Frank B. Holbrook, The Atoning
Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1996); Ángel
Manuel Rodríguez, “The Sanctuary,” in Dederen, 375–417; and A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R.
Lesher, eds., The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981).
28
Richard M. Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology,” in Symposium on Revelation: Book 1, ed. Frank
B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 1992). The sanctuary is an incredibly rich and multivalent theological revelation.
Truth is encoded in the building, the rhythm of daily and yearly ministry, the calendar of feasts,
the ministry of the priests, and the historical sanctuaries and their experiences (the heavenly
sanctuary, Edenic temple, Mt. Sinai, wilderness tabernacle, Solomonic temple, the second
temple, body temple of Jesus and the believer, the ecclesiological temple of the church, and the
final new Jerusalem temple).
29
See Holbrook, Atoning Priesthood.
30
James M. Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway, 2010).
Salvation and judgment are intimately linked.31 The focus here is not on
the incarnation, cross, and resurrection, although everything is built on
these atoning realities. This study will focus on the final eschatological
elements of the work of Christ.32 But before doing so, we need to under-
stand that God’s final judgment follows the pattern of divine judgment
found throughout Scripture. Before God judges a collective group or par-
ticular period, He engages in an investigative judgment, which is then
followed by the execution or implementation of the decisions of judgment.
The biblical pattern is investigation/evaluation followed by execution.
This pattern—seen in the very first judgments in Scripture of Adam and
Eve, Cain, the flood, Babel, and Sodom—continues through the Penta-
teuch, into the Prophets, and on to the climactic judgment of Judah and
the fall of Jerusalem.33 After the completion of each process of judgment
comes the end of a historical period or a group of people. In a greater
way, the final investigative and executive judgment brings all of fallen
human history to an end.
While many passages of Scripture and classical prophecy mention
the day of the Lord and the final judgment, it is the apocalyptic prophe-
cies that show an interest in the sequencing, timing, and order of the final
judgment.34 This is the picture that emerges when the apocalyptic descrip-
tions of the final judgment are put together: Daniel 7 reveals a heav-
enly judgment that happens after four world kingdoms and during the
continuing history of the little horn kingdom.35 This judgment happens
while history continues and before the arrival of Christ’s kingdom. It is a
Jiří Moskala, “The Gospel According to God’s Judgment: Judgment as Salvation,” Journal of the
31
Adventist Theological Society 22, no. 1 (2011): 28–49.

32
For a more comprehensive picture of judgment in both its pre-cross and post-cross dimensions,
see Jiří Moskala, “Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment: A Celebration of the Cross
in Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a Theocentric-Christocentric
Approach),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 1 (2004): 138–165. Our discussion
focuses on the last four judgments that Moskala identifies.
33
See Gerhard F. Hasel, “Divine Judgment,” in Dederen, 819–826; Richard M. Davidson, “The
Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 21 (2010): 45–84; William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982), 1–28; and Eric C.
Livingston, “Investigative Judgment: A Scriptural Concept,” Ministry, April 1992.
34
Called the “periodization of history.” See John J. Collins, Daniel: With an Introduction to Apoca-
lyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 11. The author of this chapter rejects the
application of ex eventu prophecy to biblical prophets.
35
In Daniel 7 the four kingdoms are Babylon (lion), Medo-Persia (bear), Greece (leopard), Impe-
rial Rome (beast), and Christian Rome (little horn), which endures to the fifth and final kingdom
of Christ. See Shea, 111–153.
pre-advent judgment.36 When this judgment ends, earthly kingdoms end

and are replaced by the final heavenly kingdom.
After the second advent of Christ, another heavenly judgment takes
places that parallels that of Daniel 7. This new judgment is the millennial
or post-advent judgment (Rev 20).37 It shares striking similarities to that
of Daniel 7. Both feature the setting up of thrones (plural), the examining
of books, and the involvement of creatures with God in judgment (angels
in Dan 7:10 and the saints in Rev 20:4–6). This post-millennial executive
judgment38 also ends in a way that is strikingly similar to the second com-
ing. This could justifiably be called the “third coming of Christ.” Both the
second and third advents of Christ take place on earth and involve res-
urrections, a dominant divine throne, the giving of eternal life or eternal
death, and a fire that destroys evil.39
God’s final judgment process is orderly and logical. He judges His
people before judging unbelievers (1 Pet 4:12). We see this sequence in
the final judgment: God judges His people in the pre-advent judgment
(Dan 7). He does this by distinguishing the true from the false among
His professed people. Christ then returns to resurrect and reward the
righteous.40 The wicked (angelic and human) are then judged by Christ
and the saints (1 Cor 6:2–3) in a heavenly post-advent judgment during
the millennium. God gives His people and the universe a long period of
time to survey all of history and gain a full understanding of the story
of sin and His saving response. When this judgment is finished, the wicked
are resurrected to experience an earthly execution as a consequence ac-
cording to their works. In this final moment of judgment, after the sec-
ond resurrection, the wicked (angelic and human) see all that God has
done for them. It is this revelation of the evidence of God’s comprehen-
sive mercy and their culpability that cause the wicked to freely confess the
righteousness of God (Phil 2:10–11). Figure 2 brings out the symmetry,
structure, logic, and order of the final judgment in the Adventist per-
spective.41 The two heavenly works of pre- and post-advent judgment
36
Hasel, 833.
Ibid., 846. For an exegetical study of Revelation 20, see Ekkehardt Mueller, “Microstructural
37
Analysis of Revelation 20,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 37, no. 2 (1999): 227–255.
38
Hasel, 847.
39
See Matthew 24:30–31; 26:64; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10; Revelation 6:16; 20.
40
The wicked alive at this time are destroyed by Christ’s glory at the second coming. This is not
their final reward. It is a death due to the effect of Christ’s glory. It is only at the end of the millen-
nium that all the wicked are fully judged and experience the second death.
41
In Adventist theology the final judgment outlined in figure 1 is seen as the fulfillment of the
antitypical Day of Atonement. See Rodríguez, 394–401.
parallel each other. The second millennial work builds on, furthers, and
completes the first pre-advent judgment. The same can be seen with the
two earthly executive judgments of Christ. They parallel but also prog-
ress God’s work in dealing with sin. The heavenly works also prepare and
make possible the ensuing earthly work. God’s executive actions issue
from heavenly judgment and are completed in earthly elimination of evil.
Heavenly vindication moves to earthly cleansing.
Figure 2: The Final judgment as Two-Stage Investigative Judgment

Evaluation/ Evaluation/
Revealing Revealing
Pre-Advent Post-Advent
Judgment Judgment
Investigative Millennial
Judgment of believers Investigative Judg-
by Christ involving ment of unbelievers
angelical witnesses involving Christ and
the saints
- In Heaven
- thrones (pl) - In Heaven
- books - thrones (pl)
- judgment - books
- judgment
(Dan 7) Execution/Reward (1 Cor 6:2–3; Rev 20) Execution/Reward

Second Advent/Pre- “Third” Advent/
Millennial Advent Post-Millennial
Advent
Executive Judgment
with deliverance Executive Judgment
by resurrection or with deliverance
destruction by from and destruc-
divine glory tion of sin, sinners,
Satan, evil, death by
-on earth divine glory
-first resurrection
-throne of power/ -on earth
glory -second resurrec-
-eternal life tion
-fire destroys -great white throne
-second death
(Matt 24:30–31; -fire destroys
26:64; 1 Thess
4:13–18; 2 Thess (Rev 20)
1:7–10; Rev 6:16)
Judgment of Professed Believers Judgment of Impenitent Unbelievers
Individualistic Versus Collective Visions
When the Adventist vision of eschatological judgment is laid out, it

is easier to see how it contrasts with other eschatological alternatives. The
two diagrams (fig. 1 and 2) reveal two very different pictures. The first
is highly individualistic and focuses on the fate of the individual disem-
bodied soul or spirit. There is also a noticeable preference and tendency
to significant speculation. In contrast, the Adventist eschatological vision
is of a vast unified, cosmic, collective, open, and integrated judgment pro-
cess by God that leads to a definitive, complete, and final resolution of sin.
This vision subsumes the individual within the corporate.42
In the Adventist position, eschatological judgment deals with all
of angelic and human history as a totality, through one connected se-
quential process. It is comprehensive and collective. In the investigative
judgments people and events are seen in the light of other people and
events and their total impact in history. Sin is a cosmic controversy—
a problem that God’s judgment deals with as a whole. It is not an issue
of isolated acts of individual souls at separate points in time. People
live in a web of relationships, and the final judgment considers all of
humanity, and even the angelic and heavenly world. Its scope is the en-
tirety of cosmic history. God’s dealings with sin tell a dual story of
creaturely culpability and divine mercy. Only in the light of the end of this
history can the whole be understood.
In dualistic eschatology judgment at death is atomistic and individ-
ualistic. Dualism splits judgment itself into a particular judgment of the
lone individual soul, which happens immediately after death, followed
by a general judgment of all people at the end of history. Particular judg-
ment does not take place in the revealed light of a completed and uni-
fied history. Individuals are judged without their full legacy playing out.
Additionally, this splitting of particular and general judgment forces us to
ask: what is the point of the final judgment? After all, no new decisions
are made, and no new outcomes eventuate in the general judgment. Souls
are connected to bodies and the already-decided heavenly or hellish
fates are intensified as bodily experiences.
42
Judgment that decides the fates of people is usually pictured not as individualistic but corporate
(of which individuals are a part). “The Lord will judge his people” (Heb 10:30). Jesus’ parables
depict corporate judgments (Matt 25).
Multiplying Places and States Versus a Unified Creation
The individualism of dualism and its fragmented account of human

nature appear to be manifested in the multiple and conflicting speculative
eschatological outcomes proposed for the postmortem soul. After death,
individual souls exist in an intermediate state in numerous possible plac-
es. Some are in heaven, some in hell, and some in purgatory. Some have
second chances, and some do not. Some progress in purification while
others do not. This is a picture of the cosmological and judicial fragmenta-
tion that arises from dualism, which is not found in wholistic approaches.
If we take each dualistic eschatological position on its own terms,
we still see dualism’s diverse fragmenting effects. For example, no escha-
tology, except universalism, can escape the problem of cosmic dualism.
In cosmic dualism evil never ends; it is permanent. Hell preserves an
eternal domain where sin never stops. God’s universe is eternally frag-
mented. Even reconciliationism’s “sinless hell” features separation from
God, along with endless suffering and pain. Creation’s wounds are nev-
er healed. In contrast, wholism allows for the full, final, and permanent
elimination of evil through the annihilation of sin. God’s judgment pro-
cess involves the participation of all creatures—human and angel, fallen
and unfallen—and results in a genuine universal reconciliation and con-
fession of God’s justice.
In purgatorial eschatologies, either satisfaction or sanctification takes
place in the afterlife. Dualism’s fragmenting effects are revealed in mul-
tiple states and places in the afterlife. Consider the issue of existent states.
Embodied imperfect people die and become disembodied imperfect spir-
its, who spiritually progress to disembodied perfected spirits, who will
eventually become reembodied perfected persons when the resurrec-
tion takes place. Here are no less than three to four different states. These
multiple states multiply the number of postmortem places. Redeemed
immortal souls or spirits move from an earthly realm to a purgatorial
realm and then eventually to a heavenly life—three different places. But
if we add hell and a new earth, distinct from heaven, we have five places.43
In contrast, wholistic anthropology affirms that a person only exists in
one state of bodily existence or not at all. Death is not a state; it is the
loss of existence. Re-existence to bodily existence only takes place through
resurrection. For all of this there is only one interconnected place: the
created cosmos. The cosmos has a heaven and an earth but they exist as
43
In some dualistic theologies there are even more: limbo, paradise as somewhere other than
heaven, and Hades as somewhere other than hell.
spaces within the one place. Hell is not a place and neither is purgatory.
In summing up this section, we can see that dualism multiplies places
and states in the afterlife and leaves the cosmos a permanently fragmented
place. Adventism’s wholistic view of judgment ends with a perfectly uni-
fied creation. A wholistic anthropology underlies a wholistic eschatology.
Splitting Salvation
Another split dualistic eschatology introduced into theology is frag-
menting the process and way of salvation. Dualism splits off the where,
when, and how of salvation from this world, its history, and from its neces-
sarily embodied existence. Salvation is reimagined as a postmortem pos-
sibility in a disembodied otherworldly afterlife, abstracted from earthly
history and the body. Salvation and sanctification are conceived of as
pre- and postmortem possibilities, but the two worlds are vastly different
and virtually opposites. This is highly speculative and stands in tension
with the whole tenor of Scripture and its descriptions of sanctification
and the gospel.
Scripture reveals that the plan of salvation unfolds through the work
of Christ and His Spirit in history. Today is the day of opportunity. Christ
acts in creation and conscience, in type, shadow, and fulfillment, and in
proclamation as the saving light that guides every individual who comes
into this world (John 1:9). Scripture reveals nothing of a salvation that
operates outside of this world and this life. What would a salvation offer
(or sanctification process) even look like in the disembodied realms of
dualism?44 And who would resist an offer without the passions and lusts
of the flesh, without the lure of the world, without the temptations of
the devil, and without the cares of life? These postmortem speculations
are not even remotely like the salvation offer revealed in Scripture.45
44
One also has to ask how salvation and sanctification could take place without a body.
45
Even if, for argument’s sake, we allow for a dualistic interpretation of the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) and an intermediate state, it does not help postmortem salva-
tion or universalism. The parable is clear that the rich man’s fate is fixed. There is, for the rich
man, an unpassable chasm, which means he can never cross over to salvation in the afterlife. It
is also clear that the rich man’s brothers must make their salvation decision before death (pre-
mortem) based on the revealed truth they possess during their probationary life, and not on
some miraculous revelation. Interestingly, second-chance or postmortem salvation involves a
miraculous-style revelation analogous to that which the rich man requests for his brothers. After
all, consider dying and finding oneself in a disembodied state in another realm and hearing the
gospel. Would that not be miraculous? Further, consider experiencing dreams and visions, or
seeing angels, and it seems even more so. Would that not be miraculous—comparable to resur-
rection from the dead? The parable is not to teach us the geography of the afterlife, but to tell
us that this life is the time of opportunity for salvation. Death will fix fate. For a non-dualistic
interpretation of Luke 16:19–31, see Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of
Investigative Judgments Versus Non-Investigative Judgments

It is clear that dualistic-based judgments are not investigative. The
argument is usually that God knows who will be saved and so there is no
need for an investigation.46 Judgment is primarily either declarative and
punitive (hell, reconciliationism, satisfaction-based purgatory) or, if it in-
volves a second stage or a second chance at salvation or sanctification, it
is also purifying (postmortem, sanctification-based purgatory, universal-
ism). The focus is the fate of the individual soul and its salvation status.
Individual souls who do not progress to salvation remain condemned to
eternal punishment. This way the universe is eternally split between the
souls who are saved and the ones who are not. God’s main concern in the
judgment of these cases is not investigation but salvation or punishment.
In Adventism judgment is first investigative. This means that while
judgment is declarative, it is primarily an exercise in revelation, disclosure,
instruction, and learning for the universe.47 In it Christ reveals the hid-
den things of man and of God. Because God involves others, judgment is
irreducibly corporate and communal. It is not that creatures are in the
place of God as judges; Christ alone decides everyone’s fate. However,
God involves His created beings in the judgment process so they may
understand His character and wisdom in a deeper way. Judgment leads
to reflection and discovery. The clarity brought about by a revelatory in-
vestigative judgment is not only the basis of final declaration and vindi-
cation; it is also a public, cosmic-sized reaffirmation and celebration of
Christ’s work on the cross that is experienced by faith.
Only when the deeper revelation found in the investigative judgment
is finished does the execution of reward or punishment take place. Punish-
ment is not endlessly retributive, but rather eliminative. Judgment ends
evil. There is no need for an ongoing hell as a deterrent to sin. The full
revelation of Christ’s saving work disclosed in judgment achieves that. The
universe is not permanently split in cosmic dualism because the focus is
not the salvation of individual souls. Instead the focus is on the restora-
tion of all of creation (individual salvation being a part of this) to God and
the freedom from sin. Elimination of sinners only takes place after the in-
vestigative process. Investigative judgment is a theodicy-resolving judg-
ment. Theodicy questions will be answered by the investigative judgments.
Jesus: Gehenna, Hades, the Abyss, the Outer Darkness Where There Is Weeping and Gnashing of
Teeth (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 111–135.
46
See Livingston, 11.
47
Note there are questions relating to the eternal fate of infants who die at birth and the mentally
ill that this article does not attempt to answer, except to say the judgment will make known how
and why God will act in a particular way toward these people (ibid.).
We should note what this means for reconciliation. Apart from uni-
versalism, dualistic eschatologies do not end with a universe reconciled
to God.48 Contrast this with Adventist teaching. At the end of the millen-
nium the wicked are judged by all of their works recorded in the books
(Rev 20:12–13). This divine review highlights to the wicked all that God
has done for them. In view of this tangible evidence, they freely confess
that God is just and Christ is Lord (Phil 2:9–11). This is a genuine form
of unforced reconciliation and it is universal. All, even Satan, are of one
opinion that God is just and they are without excuse. However, unlike
reconciliationism, the Adventist millennial doctrine also makes clear that
while the wicked freely admit this with the evidence in front of them, it
is only temporary. The insanity of rebellion returns and, despite having
acknowledged God’s justice, they still violently revolt against Him and
attack the Holy City (Rev 20:7–9). God then eliminates sinners as it is ap-
parent to all that there is now no other option. The justness of execution
is a universally acknowledged truth, appreciated by the righteous as righ-
teous.49 This is a biblical version of reconciliationism and universalism.
Creaturely Psychology and Sociology

The final point to note about the investigative judgment is that it is
empirically in harmony with the psychological and sociological under-
standing of human and corporate nature. People and communities need
time to make decisions, and to learn about and come to terms with dif-
ficult issues such as theodicy. The pre-advent and millennial judgments
are all about giving angels and the redeemed time to talk, reflect, and learn.
People also need evidence, data, and the opportunity to ask questions
and study answers. In response to these, the investigative judgments are
48
Reconciliationism does not avoid this criticism. In this view the minds of reprobates are rec-
onciled with their fate, but their bodies remain in punishment forever. The reconciliation of the
mind here is perpetually negated by the ongoing punishment of the body. This is a very strange
dualism. Why would God keep this up? God appears to be unjust and eternally punitive.
49
The righteous will praise God for His annihilating judgment because they see there is no other
option and they see God’s longsuffering justice and mercy on behalf of even the wicked. They
will take no delight in the wicked’s destruction, but only in God’s justness. Compare this to the
traditional view expressed by Trevor C. Johnson, “Seeing Hell: Do the Saints in Heaven Behold
the Sufferings of the Damned (and How Do They Respond),” (M.A. Thesis, Reformed Theologi-
cal Seminary, 2004), 113, that the righteous will delight and “look into hell, see its ferocity and
rejoice over it as an immensely glorifying spectacle to the glory of God given to them for their
eternal benefit.” Johnson quotes Jonathan Edwards, who says that when the saints in heaven see
and “hear their [the lost] dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the meantime are
in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how will they rejoice!” This is a
disturbing eschatological view of God and the righteous.
communal events with books or records, as well as participants and eye-

witnesses, available as evidence. Their availability and freedom to talk
indicates openness and transparency on God’s part. With this kind of
open judgment, truth is not locked away in the inaccessible reaches of
God’s mind, nor are people’s final fate a result of some hidden, inscru-
table divine decree. The millennium is thus a truly biblical purgatory. It
is not the purifying of the redeemed from sinfulness but rather it is a pe-
riod of one thousand years that allows the collective universe to purify
their minds from any ignorance, doubts, and previously fallen ideolo-
gies or patterns of thought that could provide a platform for future falling
away or potential misunderstanding of God.
There are additional reasons why dualistic afterlife states seem psy-
chologically problematic. How could any being or soul psychologically
and mentally survive eternal suffering and torment? In this life human
beings eventually break down physically and psychologically when sub-
ject to extreme mental distress or torture.50 Hell’s horrors infinitely exceed
anything that happens in this life. In an eternal hell (and reconciliation-
ism) the created mind would surely break down, becoming psychologi-
cally incapacitated and mad. What, then, would be the point of tormenting
the incapacitated? The alternative is that God endlessly sustains the repro-
bates’ mental faculties so they might suffer. But what kind of God would
do such a thing?51
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study argues that the Adventist eschatological vi-

sion of investigative judgment, based in a wholistic anthropology, offers
a singular, unified response to theodicy issues that reveals a biblical ver-
sion of second chances, purgatory, hell, eschatological reconciliation, and
universalism. Present probationary existence is the time for first, second,
50
It could be argued that the occupants of hell are eternally capable and conscious because im-
mortal souls are naturally and eternally resilient. Then why do the psychological faculties of
immortal souls break down in this life? Is it due to sin? Then won’t “sinners” in hell psychologi-
cally break down and go mad? What, then, would be the point of hell? Sheer retribution on a
mentally incapacitated, embodied person? Is it due to the soul having a body? If so, this means
the immortal soul is never truly mad or incapacitated, but only appears so because the body
is not functioning properly. Hell conflicts with everything we know empirically about human
psychology (anthropology).
51
Universalism has its own problems with human psychology in the realm of freedom, will, and
character. In universalism humans are free enough to choose sin but never free enough to reject
righteousness. All will be saved. God’s love functions like a coercive, irresistible force. Universal-
ism conflicts with everything we know empirically about human psychology (anthropology).
third, fourth, and last chances. If someone can be saved, God is ca-
pable of saving them in this life by the extensive work of Christ and the
Spirit. This life is also the purgatorial time for a sanctification model of
suffering and spiritual growth. The investigative judgments (pre- and
post-advent/millennial) offer a broader, more biblical doctrine of purga-
tory.52 Here God does not work to remove the penalty, power, or presence
of sin. This is accomplished in the cross, new birth, sanctification, and
resurrection. Instead, God removes the very potential for sin. In partic-
ular, the millennial investigative judgment is where the corporate mind
of the created community is fully informed and purified of any area of
ignorance or misunderstanding that may be due to past sin or the pre-
vious perverse accusations of Satan against God.53 Creaturely apprecia-
tion of God is eternally and infinitely deepened.54 Additionally, the last
act of God at the end of this judgment process reveals a truly biblical
doctrine of reconciliation and universalism. The cosmos is reconciled to
the truth about God and freely acknowledges His righteousness. This then
leads to the biblical doctrine of hell as an event of annihilation, rather
than an eternal place of suffering, sin, and rebellion.
This view of eschatology has a number of theodicy-resolving advan-
tages over dualistic eschatologies. Due to the process God undertakes
(and especially its open, investigative, evidential, revealing nature) the
entire universe answers the theodicy question in God’s favor! All are rec-
onciled to the truthfulness of the truth by a free, universal confession.
The Adventist view of wholistic anthropology aligns with what is
known about the psychology of human beings. We see this in the need
for time, evidence, and conversation to learn, heal, and affirm. This view
also avoids the incoherence of eternal suffering without psychological
breakdown. The suspect psychology of universalism regarding freedom,
character, will, and love is also avoided.
This eschatological vision is less speculative. It follows the biblical pat-
tern of investigation and execution. Individualistic eschatology is avoided.
52
The idea of the millennium as a kind of biblical purgatory is indebted to conversations with the
author’s friend Christopher Stanley.
53
It is possible on an individual level that during the millennium the redeemed will unlearn many
things (doctrinally and ethically) and grow and heal from the effects of sin. However, given the
humble teachableness that arises due to their forgiven, redeemed, and resurrected state, this will
hardly take long. The long length of one thousand years is to deal with the vastness and complex-
ity of cosmic history in all its dimensions and the issues raised in the great controversy.
54
Instead of a satisfaction or sanctification model of purgatory for individual souls, this is a seal-
ing/security model for God’s cosmos. The work that God has accomplished is eternally sealed
and secured and the potential for rebellion is eternally gone.
It does not multiply existent states and cosmic places in order to cater to
individual immortal souls. There is one God, dealing with one creation,
by one process. The individual is dealt with within the corporate. It does
not divide the possibility of salvation between vastly different premortem
and postmortem worlds. Above all, the universe is not left in a divided,
unhealed condition. God completely resolves the issue of sin and elimi-
nates evil. The universe is not eternally fragmented, marred, or polluted
by perpetual suffering and sin. There is no cosmic dualism. In this escha-
tology, theodicy becomes final reality.
CHAPTER 23
“The Footsteps Of An
r
Approaching God”: Reflections
On Ellen G. White’s End-Time
Eschatology
Alberto R. Timm
The winds of the Cold War were still blowing, and there was much
fear and uncertainty about the future. In 1970, Hal Lindsey’s book The
Late, Great Planet Earth came off the press, suggesting the United States
would “cease being the leader of the West,” the Russian confederacy
would play a crucial role in the then-expected near Armageddon, and
the Vatican would be out of the overall picture.1 That book became
an absolute best seller and contributed significantly to the rise of the
so-called “apocalypse industry.”2 It is no wonder that even some
Seventh-day Adventist preachers tried to “enrich” Ellen G. White’s
eschatology with some of Lindsey’s speculations.3
1
Hal Lindsey with C. C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1970), 59–71, 95, 167, 184–185, etc.
2
Jerry Lembcke, “The Apocalypse Industry,” CounterPunch, November 13, 2013, https://www.
counterpunch.org/2013/11/13/the-apocalypse-industry (accessed February 18, 2020) and Paul
Boyer, “Apocalypticism Explained: America’s Doom Industry,” Frontline, PBS, https://www.pbs.
org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/doomindustry.html (accessed May 15,
2018). See also Cortney S. Basham, “Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth and the Rise
of Popular Premillennialism in the 1970s” (master’s thesis, Western Kentucky University, 2012)
and Erin A. Smith, “The Late, Great Planet Earth Made the Apocalypse a Popular Concern,”
Humanities, Winter 2017, https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2017/winter/feature/the-late-great-
planet-earth-made-the-apocalypse-popular-concern (accessed February 18, 2020).
3
See, e.g., Cesar Augusto Costa, Como Afinal Será o Fim? Revisão Analítica da Escatologia
Yet, as time went by, the political influence of the Vatican increased
significantly, even playing a crucial role with the United States in the
disruption of the Soviet Union.4 In November 1978, less than a month af-
ter the election of Pope John Paul II, the former Jesuit scholar Malachi
Martin (1921–1999) wrote an insightful article titled “John Paul II: How
He Will Surprise Us—and the Reds.”5 Martin suggested that the new pope,
as a Polish citizen, would play a crucial role in undermining both com-
munism and capitalism. Twelve years later, in his 734-page book The Keys
of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul
II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West,6 Martin would confirm
and expand on his earlier predictions. Indeed, the world scenario was
movingslowly away from Lindsey’s military speculations and closer to
what Ellen G. White had described back in the nineteenth century.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the formal dissolution
of the Soviet Union (1991), the author of this study wrote a personal
letter to Hal Lindsey, explaining that he had written his master’s thesis
on his dispensational-futuristic eschatology,7 and asking, “How do you
harmonize your own previous view on the decline of the United States
and the strengthening of communism (Russia and the Soviet Union) with
the recent collapse of communism and the strengthening of the United
States as a unique political super-power in the world?”8 Lindsey’s secre-
tary acknowledged having received the letter, but Lindsey never responded
to the question. Perhaps this author was expecting too much! At any
rate, many Adventists inquire today, to what extent are Ellen G. White’s
own eschatological views still accurate and relevant for those who live
more than a century away from her time?
Apocalíptica (Sorocaba: Cesar Augusto da Costa, 2000). Cf. Alberto R. Timm, “Resenha crítica do
livro Como Afinal Será o Fim? de Cesar Augusto da Costa,” Parousia (Brazil), 1, no. 2 (2nd semes-
ter 2000): 3–30.
4
Bret Baier with Catherine Whitney, Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the
Soviet Empire (New York: William Morrow, 2018), 302–305.
5
Malachi Martin, “John Paul II: How He Will Surprise Us—and the Reds,” New York Daily News,
November 12, 1978, 7, 33.
6
Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John
Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).
7
Alberto R. Timm, “Uma análise crítica da escatologia dispensacionalista de Hal Lindsey” (mas-
ter’s thesis, Instituto Adventista de Ensino, 1988). See also Samuele Bacchiocchi, Hal Lindsey’s
Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle: Five Predictions That Failed (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives,
1985).
8
Alberto R. Timm to Hal Lindsey, February 13, 1992 (emphasis original). See also W. Ward
Gasque, “Future Fact? Future Fiction?” interview with Hal Lindsey, Christianity Today, April 15,
1977, 40.
Reflections on Ellen G. White’s End-Time Eschatology 479
This study provides a general overview of end-time biblical escha-

tology as described by Ellen G. White. After highlighting some major
end-time philosophical and religious challenges, the discussion deals
specifically with White’s views of the great cosmic controversy between
good and evil, the cataclysmic “signs” of Christ’s second coming, the
conditional imminence of His appearing, the end-time scenario that
culminates with that glorious event, and God’s absolute and final victo-
ry over sin and all impenitent sinners, eradicating them completely and
forever from the universe. A clear understanding of White’s eschatologi-
cal expositions can help us better appreciate God’s triumphant leading
of human affairs and His loving care for each person.
Major End-Time Challenges
Ellen G. White began her prophetic ministry in 1844, a crucial time

when God and His Word were being severely challenged by humanis-
tic ideologies.9 Coincidence or not, that very same year Charles Darwin
finished the basic sketch of his “species theory” by natural selection.10
For him, the Old Testament portrayed a “manifestly false history of the
world.”11 In the same year, Karl Marx wrote his Economic & Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844 (also known as The Paris Manuscripts), proposing
that God should be left out of the capital-labor-wages discussions, “for
the more man puts into God, the less he retains for himself.”12 In June
1844, the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith Jr. (1805–1844) was imprisoned
in Carthage, Illinois, and then killed by an armed mob. For Smith, the
ancient faulty Bible needed to be superseded by his own modern and
more reliable inspired writings.13 In May 1844, Báb, the forerunner of
9
See Jerome L. Clark, 1844, 3 vols. (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1968).
10
Charles Darwin, The Foundations of the Origin of Species: Two Essays Written in 1842 and 1844,
ed. Francis Darwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909). Cf. C. R. Darwin to Emma
Darwin, July 5, 1844, Darwin Correspondence Project, University of Cambridge, https://www.
darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-761.xml (accessed February 18, 2020).
Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882: With Original Omissions
11
Restored (London: Collins, 1958), 85.

12
Karl Marx, Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, trans. Martin Milligan (Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1959; translated in 1956 and corrected by Matthew Carmody in 2009), 29,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manu-
scripts-1844.pdf (accessed February 18, 2020).
13
Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Taking from His Ser-
mons and Writings in the History of the Church and Other Publications (Salt Lake City, UT: De-
seret News, 1924), 9–10, 310; Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News, 1904), 52, https://archive.org/details/historyof-
Baha’u’llah, the founder of the syncretic Baha’i Faith, announced that

he was the Bearer of Divine Knowledge to transform the spiritual life of
humanity.14
Also in 1844, two very influential individuals were born in Germany.
One was the biblical scholar and orientalist Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918),
who questioned the authorship of the Pentateuch through his famous
“documentary hypothesis.”15 He raised the historical-critical reread-
ing of the Old Testament to its full expression. The other individual was
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), who surpassed all previous philoso-
phers in trying to “rescue the honor of the devil”16 and blaming God as
“the father of evil.”17 At the early age of twelve, he concluded that the
Trinity was comprised of God-Father, God-Son, and God-Devil (German
Gott-Teufel). This, he claimed, was the beginning of his philosophizing.18
In his last book, titled Ecce Homo, Nietzsche even stated sacrilegiously,
It was God himself who at the end of his day’s work lay down
as a serpent under the tree of knowledge: thus he rested from
being God. . . . He had made everything too beautiful. . . . The devil
is merely God’s idleness on that seventh day.19
Nietzsche died in 1900, but his nihilist postulates left a profound and
lasting influence on Western thought.
churcho02robe (accessed February 18, 2020). A helpful comparison between the Bible and the
Book of Mormon is provided in Marvin W. Cowan, Mormon Claims Answered, rev. ed. (n.p.,
1989), 27–76.
14
“The Life of the Báb,” What Bahá’ís Believe, The Bahá’í Faith, http://www.bahai.org/the-bab/
life-the-bab (accessed February 18, 2020). For a more in-depth study of the meaning of the year
1844 for the Baha’i Faith, see, e.g., William Sears, Thief in the Night, or The Strange Case of the
Missing Millennium (Oxford: George Ronald, 1961) and John Able, Apocalypse Secrets: Baha’i
Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (self-pub, 2011), 31–40.
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1883),
15
published in English as Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan
Menzies (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1885).
16
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale (New
York: Vintage, 1968), 524 (par. 1015). See also Ernst Bertram, Nietzsche: Attempt at a Mythology,
trans. Robert E. Norton (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 121–133.
Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, trans. Carol Diethe (New York: Cambridge
17
University Press, 2006), 4–5.

18
Friedrich Nietzsche, NF-1884, 26[390], in http://www.nietzschesource.org/#eKGWB/NF-1884,26
(accessed on May 22, 2018).
Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What One Is & The Antichrist: A Curse on
19
Christianity, trans. Thomas Wayne (New York: Algora, 2004), 80.

In 1848, while the Sabbatarian Bible Conferences were taking place in

New England and upstate New York,20 modern spiritualism was starting
in the house of the Fox family in Hydesville, New York. At the Hydesville
Memorial Park (the site of the Fox home), one can see a foundation
stone with the inscription “The birthplace and shrine of modern
Spiritualism.”21 Since that small beginning, Spiritualism and mysticism
have grown astronomically, assuming many different forms and tak-
ing over much of the entertainment industry of the Western world.
We could enrich our list with many more contemporary incidents.
But these examples help us realize how, in the 1840s, anti-biblical po-
litical, philosophical, and religious concepts were reshaping Western
culture. Within that challenging context, the Adventist preaching of
the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14:6–1222 began to warn the
world, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment
has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and
springs of water” (Rev 14:7).23 In addition, God called Ellen Harmon
(later White) as a prophetic voice to keep us faithful to God and His
abiding Word.24
The Great Controversy Framework
In the unstable and unsafe world in which we live (2 Tim 3:1–8; 4:3–4),
many people are trying to understand the meaning of time,25 the flow
of history, the purpose of life, and especially the problem of evil. As
insightful as some attempts have been,26 no other non-canonical author
20
See Gordon O. Martinborough, “The Beginnings of a Theology of the Sabbath among Ameri-
can Sabbatarian Adventists, 1842–1850” (master’s thesis, Loma Linda University, 1976), 122–151;
Alberto R. Timm, The Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages: Integrating Factors in the Devel-
opment of Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 5
(Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1995), 62–63; and Merlin D. Burt, “The
Historical Background, Interconnected Development, and Integration of the Doctrines of the
Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849”
(PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002), 352–363.
21
The significance of the 1848 Fox sisters’ experience for modern Spiritualism is acknowledged, e.g.,
in Centennial Book of Modern Spiritualism in America (Chicago, IL: National Spiritualist Associa-
tion, 1948), 8–12.
22
Timm, Sanctuary and the Three Angels’ Messages, 37–48, 79–87, 174–196.
23
24
Alberto R. Timm, “Ellen G. White: Prophetic Voice for the Last Days,” Ministry, February 2004,
18–21.
25
See Scientific American 27, no. 2 (Summer 2018), special edition on “A Matter of Time.”
26
See, e.g., Gregory A. Boyd, God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
has ever developed those matters so perceptively as does Ellen G. White

in the five volumes of her “The Conflict of the Ages” series.27 Actually,
the great controversy motif flows throughout all her writings, providing
the basic framework to understand reality in all its expressions.28
As mentioned elsewhere,29 the great controversy is a currently on-
going cosmic conflict that had a beginning and will have an end. Its
mysterious beginning in the heavenly courts was foreseen but not or-
dained by God, who “made provision to meet the terrible emergency.”30
After losing his gratitude to God and becoming increasingly jealous of
Him (Isa 14:12–14; Ezek 28:12–17), Lucifer began to spread his apostasy
in the heavenly courts. “God in His great mercy bore long with Lucifer,”31
but there came a time when the rebellion was consolidated, and Lucifer
(who became Satan) and his angels were “cast to the earth” (Rev 12:7–9).
With the fall of Adam and Eve (Gen 3), earth became the battlefield
Academic, 1997) and Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare
Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).
27
Ellen G. White’s first major exposition of the great cosmic-historical controversy between
good and evil was published in her book Spiritual Gifts [vol. 1]: The Great Controversy between
Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels (Battle Creek, MI: James White, 1858). She
expended significantly the subject first in her series titled The Spirit of Prophecy, 4 vols. (Bat-
tle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association and Review
and Herald, 1870–1884), and finally in the following five volumes of her “The Conflict of
the Ages” series: Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, as Illustrat-
ed in the Lives of Patriarchs and Prophets (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1890); E. G. White, The
Story of Prophets and Kings as Illustrated in the Captivity and Restoration of Israel (Mountain
View, CA: Pacific Press, 1917); E. G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1898); E. G. White, The Acts of the Apostles in the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911); E. G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ
and Satan during the Christian Dispensation (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1888, revised 1911).
28
Helpful analyses of the great controversy theme in Ellen G. White’s writings are provided by
W. E. Read, “The Great Controversy,” in Our Firm Foundation: A Report of the Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Conference Held September 1–13, 1952, in the Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church,
Takoma Park, Maryland, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1953), 237–335; Joseph
J. Battistone, The Great Controversy Theme in E. G. White Writings (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University Press, 1978); Richard Rice, “The Great Controversy and the Problem of
Evil,” Spectrum, Winter 2004, 46–55; Herbert E. Douglass, comp., The Heartbeat of Adventism:
The Great Controversy Theme in the Writings of Ellen White (Nampa ID: Pacific Press, 2010);
and Alberto R. Timm, “The ‘Great Controversy’: Perspectives of H. L. Hastings and Ellen
G. White,” in The Great Controversy and the End of Evil: Biblical and Theological Studies in
Honor of Ángel Manuel Rodríguez in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerhard Pfandl
(Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015), 109–116.
29
The content of the following paragraphs is based on Alberto R. Timm, “The Battle Is On:
Understanding the Great Controversy,” Adventist World, May 2010, 20–21.
30
E. G. White, The Desire of Ages, 22.
31
E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 495.
between good and evil. But what distinguishes the Seventh-day Ad-
ventist understanding of that controversy from all other religious and
philosophical explanations of it? It is precisely that the whole cosmic
controversy gravitates around God’s character and law.
God’s unselfish, other-centered, self-sacrificing love is expressed in
His moral law, which can be summarized as “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and
“Love your neighbor as yourself ” (Matt 22:34–40, NIV). This stands
in sharp contrast to sin as utter selfishness. No wonder that through-
out history Satan developed different strategies to distort people’s
understanding of and relationship with that law. In Old Testament
times, up to the Babylonian exile, God’s people were always tempted
to transgress the law by idolatry. After the exile, the pendulum swung
to the opposite extreme of legalism, when the law was considered an
end in itself for salvation. On the cross of Calvary, God manifested
His saving grace to humanity (John 3:14–18) and condemned Satan
(John 19:30; Rev 12:10–11). “It was because the law was changeless,
because man could be saved only through obedience to its precepts,
that Jesus was lifted up on the cross. Yet the very means by which Christ
established the law Satan represented as destroying it.”32 So, in the post-
apostolic period, the cross began to be regarded as having abolished
God’s moral law. Meanwhile, the unconditional commitment to the law
by God’s end-time remnant people places them under the special fury
of Satan (Rev 12:17).
The end-time preaching of the “everlasting gospel” to the whole world
(Rev 14:6) will eventually polarize humanity into those who worship
“the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on
his hand” on one side, and “those who keep the commandments of
God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:9–12) on the other side. Meanwhile,
Satan tries to convince God’s people that “the requirements of Christ
are less strict than they once believed, and that by conformity to the
world they would exert a greater influence with worldlings.”33 But in
his final attempts to deceive humanity, “Satan himself will personate
Christ,”34 and demons will “personate” the apostles of Christ, disclaim-
ing the New Testament teachings.35 “Through the two great errors, the
32
33
E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, 4:339–340.
34
35
E. G. White, 557.
immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the
people under his deceptions.”36
No wonder that after the close of probation and prior to the sec-
ond coming, God will vindicate His own law in a supernatural way. A
heavenly hand will appear holding against the sky “two tables of
stone” with the precepts of the Decalogue, so plainly written “with a
pen of fire” that all can read them.37 Then, at the end to the millennium
(Rev 20), Christ will be coronated in the presence of all the human be-
ings and demoniac hosts who ever existed. He will hold in His hands the
tables of the divine law, so that all the wicked can see “the statutes
which they have despised and transgressed.”38
The pagan theory of natural immortality of the soul, accepted today
by most Christians, as well as by many other religions, suggests that sin
had a beginning but will never come to an end. By contrast, the Bible
teaches that sin and sinners will finally be destroyed, and the universe
will be restored to its original perfection and harmony. Through God’s
timely design of the plan of salvation (Gen 3:15; Rev 13:8), Christ’s
triumph over Satan, sin, and death (John 12:31; 14:30; 19:30; Rev 1:18) is
assured. This great controversy will be concluded with the final destruc-
tion of Satan, his angels, and all the wicked (Mal 4:1; Jude 5–7).
Right now, all humanity is involved in a great controversy be-
tween Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His
sovereignty over the universe. According to Paul, “we have been made a
spectacle [Gk. theatron] to the whole universe [Gk. kosmos], to angels as
well as to human beings” (1 Cor 4:9, NIV). Ellen G. White adds, “The world
is a theater; the actors, its inhabitants.”39 “Our little world is the lesson
book of the universe.”40 “The whole universe is watching with inex-
pressible interest the closing scenes of the great controversy between
good and evil.”41
36
37
Ibid., 639. About the expected end-time finding of the Ark of the Covenant, see 2 Mac-
cabees 2:1–8 and R. L. Odom, “The Ark of the Covenant: Will It Be Found?” (n.p., 1962;
Washington, DC: Ellen G. White Estate, 1989), http://ellenwhite.org/content/file/ark-covenant-
df-232?numFound=45&collection=true&query=ark20of20the20covenant&curr=8&sqid=1
304995111#document (accessed February 18, 2020).
38
E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 668–669.
39
E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 27.
40
41
E. G. White, Prophets and Kings, 30.
The Cataclysmic Signs
Some of the most significant moments in salvation history are pre-

ceded by earthquakes and cosmic signs in the sun, moon, and stars.
For example, just before Christ offered His atoning sacrifice on the cross,
the sun refused to shine (Matt 27) and, without any “eclipse or other
natural cause,” there was complete darkness “as midnight without moon
or stars.”42 And shortly after, when He cried out, “It is finished!” a mighty
earthquake shook the ground and many saints were raised from the
dead, as witnesses of His divine power (Matt 27:50–54). Actually, “an
earthquake marked the hour when Christ laid down His life, and anoth-
er earthquake witnessed the moment when He took it up in triumph.”43
Similar signs also occur prior to Christ’s glorious second coming
(Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24–26; Luke 21:15; Rev 6:12–17). Seventh-day Adven-
tists have seen those signs as already fulfilled in the Lisbon earthquake
of November 1, 1755; the Dark Day of May 19, 1780, followed by the
night when the moon looked like blood; and the meteor shower on
November 13, 1833.44 Some scholars question the validity of these iden-
tifications for being now too distant from the second coming.45 But
42
43
Ibid., 780.
44
Classical Seventh-day Adventist expositions of the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century
occurrences of those cosmic signs appear, e.g., in Uriah Smith, Thoughts, Critical and Practical,
on the Book of Revelation (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing
Association, 1865), 107–117 and E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 304–309, 333–334. See also W.
A. Spicer, Our Day in the Light of Prophecy and Providence (Oshawa: Canadian Watchman, 1930),
79–102; Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, rev. ed. (Washington,
DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 5:502, 7:779; C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 2, The Message
of Revelation for You and Your Family (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985), 193–202; Richard P. Lehm-
ann, “The Second Coming of Christ,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul
Dederen, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000),
903–908; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical
Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines, 2nd ed. (Silver Spring, MD: Ministerial Association, 2005),
378–380; and Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation,
2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 249. See also Desmond Ford, Cri-
sis!, vol. 2 (Newcastle, CA: Desmond Ford, 1982), 375–380.
45
Donald Casebolt, “Is Ellen White’s Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy Final?” Spectrum, June
1982, 2–9; Ki Kon Kim, The Signs of the Parousia: A Diachronic and Comparative Study of the Apoca-
lyptic Vocabulary of Matthew 24:27–31, Korean Sahmyook University Monographs Doctoral Dis-
sertation Series 3 (Seoul: Korean Sahmyook University, 1994); Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Under-
stand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible: The Biblical-Contextual Approach (Sarasota, FL: First
Impressions, 1997), 51–52; LaRondelle, “The Application of Cosmic Signs in the Adventist Tradi-
tion,” Ministry, September 1998, 25–27 (several critical reactions to this article appeared in Ministry,
December 1998, 3, 29); and Graeme Bradford, More Than a Prophet, Biblical Perspectives, vol. 18
William H. Shea points out that in the book of Revelation, some cos-
mic signs will occur during the seven last plagues (Rev 16:8–11, 17–21),
but the sequence of the great earthquake, the darkening of the sun,
and the falling of the stars is related to the opening of the sixth seal
(Rev 6:12–14) and cannot be restricted to the second coming.46
In her classic book The Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White relates the
fulfillment of those cosmic signs with the end of the 1260 days of papal
persecution in 1798. She states, “At the close of the great papal persecu-
tion, Christ declared, the sun should be darkened, and the moon should
not give her light. Next, the stars should fall from heaven.”47 Even in the
1911 edition of The Great Controversy, published almost eight decades
after the falling of the stars, Ellen G. White confirms the above-mentioned
events48 as heralds of the impending “time of the end” (Dan 8:17, 19, 26)49
and the pre-advent investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary
(Dan 7:9–14; 8:9–14).
In regard to the statement “This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled” (Matt 24:34, KJV; cf. Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32),
Ellen G. White says, “Christ has given signs of His coming. He declares
that we may know when He is near, even at the doors. He says of those
who see these signs, ‘This generation shall not pass, till all these things
be fulfilled.’”50 According to the Sanctuary Review Committee, this quo-
tation from Ellen G. White implies that “these special signs were all to
occur within the lifetime of a generation.”51
There is an obvious distinction in Ellen G. White’s writings between the
cosmic signs (cf. Luke 21:25) announcing the time of the end and the cos-
mic rearrangements (cf. Luke 21:26) for the pre-millennial second coming
and for the post-millennial coming down of the new Jerusalem to this earth
(Rev 21:2). In a vision she received on December 16, 1848, she saw that
(Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2006), 137–150.

46
William H. Shea, “Cosmic Signs Through History,” Ministry, February 1999, 10–11.
47
48
E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 304–308, 333–334.
49
For further study of the expression “time of the end” in the book of Daniel, see Gerhard
Pfandl, The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation
Series 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992).
50
51
Sanctuary Review Committee, “Questions and Answers on Doctrinal Issues,” Ministry, October
1980, 30.
the powers of heaven will be shaken at the voice of God. Then

the sun, moon, and stars will be moved out of their places. They
will not pass away but be shaken by the voice of God. Dark,
heavy clouds came up and clashed against each other. The
atmosphere parted and rolled back; then we could look up
through the open space in Orion, whence came the voice of God.
The Holy City will come down through that open space.52
In an allusion to the seventh bowl of God’s wrath (Rev 16:17–21)

just prior to the second coming, Ellen G. White declares,
It is at midnight that God manifests His power for the deliver-

ance of His people. The sun appears, shining in its strength.
Signs and wonders follow in quick succession. […] Everything
in nature seems turned out of its course. The streams cease to
flow. Dark, heavy clouds come up and clash against each other.
[…] There is a mighty earthquake, “such as was not since men
were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.”
The firmament appears to open and shut. The glory from the
throne of God seems flashing through. The mountains shake
like a reed in the wind, and ragged rocks are scattered on every
side. There is a roar as of a coming tempest. The sea is lashed
into fury. There is heard the shriek of a hurricane like the voice
of demons upon a mission of destruction. The whole earth
heaves and swells like the waves of the sea. Its surface is break-
ing up. It’s very foundations seem to be giving way. Mountain
chains are sinking. Inhabited islands disappear. The seaports
that have become like Sodom for wickedness are swallowed up
by the angry waters. […] Great hailstones, everyone “about the
weight of a talent,” are doing their work of destruction.53
From the previous statements, we conclude that the second com-

ing will be preceded not by a mere repetition of the above-mentioned
cosmic signs, but rather by cosmic rearrangements and cataclysmic events
of an unprecedent scope and magnitude.54
52
Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1945), 41.
53
E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 636–637.
54
Cf. Spicer, 102; Maxwell, 2:214.
The Conditional Imminence
The New Testament speaks of a literal and visible second com-

ing of Christ to occur in the near and not-so-near future.55 From the
near perspective, Christ states, for instance, that “you will not have gone
through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matt 10:23),
“there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the
Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt 16:28; cf. 2 Pet 1:16–18),
“this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place”
(Luke 21:32), and “‘surely I am coming quickly’” (Rev 22:20). The apos-
tle Paul reflects the same view in the inclusive expression “we who are
alive and remain until the coming of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15).
From the not-so-near perspective, Jesus mentions some general signs
of the times, and then warns, “But the end is not yet” (Matt 24:4–6).
To this He adds, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in
all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come”
(Matt 24:14). In a similar tone, the apostle Paul states that the second
coming will occur only after the great “apostasy” and the manifestation
of “the man of lawlessness” and “the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:1–12,
NASB).
Several scholars—including Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer—
suggest that Christ intended to return still in the apostolic era, but
His plans were frustrated and, consequently, His coming was delayed.56
But this theory is loaded with serious theological implications. If this
view is right, then we have to admit that Jesus made a promise to His
disciples “that He did not keep.”57 And more, if Jesus was mistaken
about the central purpose of His own mission, then it is difficult also
“to understand how the other elements in his religious message remain
trustworthy.”58 But this is not the case!
55
The content of the following paragraphs is based on Alberto R. Timm, “Longing for His Ap-
pearing,” Ministry, July–August 2015, 6–9.
56
Johaness Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans. Richard H. Hiers and David
L. Holland (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971), 73, 85, 86 and Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the
Historical Jesus, trans. W. Montgomery (Mineola, NY: Dover, 2005), 356–358, 363. See also Don
F. Neufeld, “‘This Generation Shall Not Pass,’” Adventist Review, April 5, 1979, 6; Desmond Ford,
Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion,
1980), 92–102, 307–345.
57
Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology, vol. 4, The Church and the Last Things (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 2016), 494.
George E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids,
58
MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 125.

White harmonizes the previously mentioned near and not-so-near

statements by means of a twofold understanding of the kingdom of
God. She points out that the expression “kingdom of God” is employed
in the Bible to designate both the kingdom of grace and the kingdom
of glory. The proclamation “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is
at hand” (Mark 1:15) refers to the kingdom of grace “established by the
death of Christ” and characterized by “the work of divine grace upon the
hearts of men.” But the kingdom of glory (see Matt 25:31–32) is yet future
and will not be installed before the second coming of Christ.59 So God’s
children are still in the world without being of the world (John 17:14–16).
In Christ, they already dwell “in the heavenly places” (Eph 2:6)60 and
experience “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4; cf. 2 Cor 5:17;
Gal 1:4; Col 1:13–14).
Christ was neither mistaken nor ignorant about His own mission
and the establishment of His kingdom. As He foretold about His future
death on the cross (Matt 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19; John 3:14; 12:23–24; etc.),
He also warned His disciples that He would not return before all the ex-
pected signs were fulfilled (Matt 24:6; Luke 21:33). White explains that
between the two major eschatological events asked about by the disci-
ples—the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming (Matt 24:3)—
Christ foresaw “long centuries of darkness, centuries for His church
marked with blood and tears and agony. Upon these scenes His dis-
ciples could not then endure to look, and Jesus passed them by with a
brief mention.”61
And what about the time element in regard to the second coming?
Was that event delayed? Based on the time prophecy of the 70 weeks
of Daniel 9:24–27, as related to Christ’s first coming (cf. Gal 4:4), White
affirms that “like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path,
God’s purposes know no haste and no delay.”62 But she did not say the
same in regard to the second coming. For her, all major time proph-
ecies ended with fulfillment of the 2300 evenings and mornings of
Daniel 8:14 in the autumn of 1844, after which there could be “no defi-
nite tracing of the prophetic time.”63 Consequently, Christ’s second
59
E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 346–347. The wording goes back to the 1888 edition.
60
For a further study of the meaning of the expression “in the heavenly places,” see Carme-
lo Martines, “Una re-evaluación de la frase ‘en los lugares celestiales’ de la carta a los Efesios,”
DavarLogos 2, no. 1 (2003): 29–45.
61
E. G. White, The Desire of Ages, 630–631.
62
63
E. G. White, Last Day Events (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1992), 36.
coming could not have taken place before the end of the 1260 years of
papal supremacy in 1798.64 But that event could have occurred some-
time after 184465 and even after 1888.66 Since Christ did not return on
any of those occasions, Ellen G. White could speak of a “delay” of the
second coming (cf. Matt 25:5).67
Thus, for Ellen G. White, God knows the time of the second coming
(Matt 24:36), but that knowledge is quite dependent on human behav-
ior. She emphasizes a healthy imminence without any time settings.68
In her own words, “Christ’s coming is nearer than when we believed.
Every passing day leaves us one less to proclaim the message of warning
to the world.”69 “Every day that passes brings us nearer the end. Does
it bring us also near to God?”70
With this in mind, we turn now to a few reflections on the end-time
scenario as described by Ellen G. White.
The End-Time Scenario
Our appreciation of Ellen G. White’s eschatological writings should

be guided by some foundational principles. One of them is that al-
though the language used by Ellen G. White is occasionally time-and-place
conditioned, the basic concepts carried are still valid and relevant.71 In
the Scriptures, the end-time scenario is portrayed largely in apocalyptic-
symbolic narratives, as evident in the books of Daniel and Revelation.
Yet, Ellen G. White decodifies that pictographic language into histori-
cal or prophetic concrete descriptions. Obviously, she uses the language
of her own day to describe future developments. For instance, echoing
Isaiah 54:17 (“No weapon formed against you shall prosper”), she
states, “Some are assailed in their flight from the cities and villages; but
the swords raised against them break and fall powerless as a straw.”72
64
65
E. G. White, Evangelism (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 695.
66
E. G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 362–363.
67
See E. G. White, Evangelism, 694–697.
68
Some of Ellen G. White’s most important warnings against time settings for the second coming
are found in E. G. White, Selected Messages, 1:185–192.
69
E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 5:88.
70
Ibid., 9:27.
71
See Alberto R. Timm, “Divine Accommodation and Cultural Conditioning of the Inspired Writ-
ings,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 19, nos. 1–2 (2008): 161–174.
72
E. G. White, Early Writings, 284–285.
Although the kind of assault weapons to be used may change consider-

ably, the concept of persecution remains.
Another important principle is that our appreciation of Ellen G.
White’s end-time scenario is largely shaped by our hermeneutical lenses.
For instance, if someone reads her writings from a historical-critical per-
spective, without any room for God’s supernatural revelation, then her
descriptions of the end-time scenario seem to be just a blend of nine-
teenth-century cultural elements with human conjectures about the
future. In this line, Jonathan Butler claims that Ellen G. White’s “predic-
tions of the future appeared as projections on a screen which only en-
larged, dramatized and intensified the scenes of her contemporary world,”
characterized by a strong anti-Catholic spirit. For him, her eschatology
envisioned only “the end of her world.”73
It is apparent that Butler’s rationalistic view differs radically from
the persuasion of those who still believe that God exists, that He reveals
Himself through His prophets, and that Ellen G. White was a genuine
noncanonical prophet. From this perspective, we realize that in a vision
“all world history passes before his [the prophet’s] spirit like a film,”74
and that the same happens in regard to the future. We can also rec-
ognize Ellen White’s eschatology as a trustworthy expression of God’s
absolute—but not causative—foreknowledge.75 Ellen G. White’s prophetic
expositions shed light on our path and help us better understand the
overall flow of history.
Some reliable studies outline the end-time events as presented by
Ellen G. White,76 and there is no need to replicate them here. Even so, here
are some glimpses from her writings that we should take into consider-
ation in our contemporary eschatological assessments.77 For instance,
73
Jonathan Butler, “The World of E. G. White and the End of the World,” Spectrum, August 1979,
10 (emphasis original), restated in similar terms in Butler, “Second Coming,” in Ellen Harmon
White: American Prophet, ed. Terrie D. Aamondt, Gary Land, and Ronald L. Numbers (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 186.
74
Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, vol. 2 (New York: Harper
and Row, 1965), 313.
75
Alberto R. Timm, “A Presciência Divina—Relativa ou Absoluta?” O Ministério Adventista, No-
vember–December 1984, 13–22.
76
See esp. Ellen G. White, Last Day Events: Facing Earth’s Final Crisis (Boise, ID: Pacific Press,
1992). See also Fernando Chaij, Preparation for the Final Crisis (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1966) and Gerhard Pfandl, The Gift of Prophecy: The Role of Ellen White in God’s Remnant
Church (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2008), 88–95.
77
Some issues involved in contemporary Adventist eschatological debates are addressed in Jiří
Moskala, “Misinterpreted End-Time Issues: Five Myths in Adventism,” Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society 28, no. 1 (2017): 92–113.
in 1884, a time when North American Protestants and Evangelicals

still nourished a strong anti-Catholic and anti-Spiritualist spirit, Ellen
White had already predicted that
through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and
Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his de-
ceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism,
the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. Protestant-
ism will yet stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of
Spiritualism; she will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with
the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold
union, our country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling
on the rights of conscience.78
Two years later, Ellen G. White would explain that this religious
union will occur not because of “a change in Catholicism; for Rome never
changes. She claims infallibility. It is Protestantism that will change. The
adoption of liberal ideas on its part will bring it where it can clasp the
hand of Catholicism.”79
Noteworthily, the Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogues are not in-
tended for the so-called “Mother Church” to compromise her own dogmas
and embrace the Protestant, Evangelical, or Orthodox postulates. Those
dialogues should actually bring all separated churches “back” to full
fellowship with her. So, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
(1962–1965) was aimed at restoring “unity among all Christians,” for
“Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only,” and
the full blessing of salvation can be obtained “only through Christ’s
Catholic Church.”80 And the Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity
and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church adds,
Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists

in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and
by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which,
while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic
Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds,
78
E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, 4:404–405.
79
Ellen G. White, “Visit to the Vaudois Valleys,” Review and Herald, June 1, 1886, 338.
80
Second Vatican Council, “Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis redingratio,” November 21, 1964,
para. 1, 3, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_de-
cree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (accessed February 18, 2020).
that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true

particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is pres-
ent and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack
full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not
accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according
to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exer-
cises over the entire Church.81
A joint statement from the Lutheran World Federation and the

Pontifical Council includes a 2016 statement by both Pope Francis
and Bishop Munib A. Younan, then President of the Lutheran World
Federation, affirming that the goal of their ecumenical endeavors
was eventually to have the members of their respective communities
“receive the Eucharist at one table, as the concrete expression of full
unity.”82 The ecumenical movement is actually assuming more and more
the overall configuration foreseen by Ellen G. White.
A third foundational principle in our appreciation of Ellen G. White’s
eschatological writings is that we should emphasize the larger picture,
without falling into a “newsletter approach” of trying to see her writings
as being fulfilled in all single events around us. James White cautions,
But in exposition of unfulfilled prophecy, where the history is

not written, the student should put forth his propositions with
not too much positiveness, lest he find himself straying in the
field of fancy. There are those who think more of future truth
than of present truth. They see but little light in the path in which
they walk, but think they see great light ahead of them.83
And Gerhard F. Hasel adds, “In regards to unfulfilled prophecy, there

is always the danger for the interpreter to speculate or to subtly become
a prophet himself.”84
81
Joseph Ratzinger, “Declaration ‘Dominus Iesus’ on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of
Jesus Christ and the Church,” August 6, 2000, par. 17, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/con-
gregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html (accessed
February 18, 2020).
82
“Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promot-
ing Christian Unity on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the
Reformation, 31st October 2017,” http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/
pubblico/2017/10/31/171031a.html (accessed February 18, 2018).
83
James White, “Unfulfilled Prophecy,” Review and Herald, November 29, 1877, 172.
84
Gerhard F. Hasel, “Foreword,” in Hans K. LaRondelle, Chariots of Salvation: The Biblical Drama
A fourth foundational principle is that we should take into consid-

eration and try to harmonize the different nuances of a given topic. Over
the years, a lack of balance has characterized many Adventist discussions
about the so-called “Last Generation Theology” (LGT). Largely influenced
by M. L. Andreasen, the proponents of this view usually believe that
the second coming will occur only when God’s remnant people fully
vindicate His character to the universe (1 Cor 4:9, NIV) by living a life
of sinless perfection (Matt 5:48; cf. Luke 6:36).85 For Andreasen, the stage
of “perfection to which Paul said he had not attained” (cf. Phil 3:12–15)
will be finally reached by the 144,000 (Rev 7:1–8; 14:1–5).86 By contrast,
others argue that this ideal will never be fully reached until the sec-
ond coming, “when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this
mortal has put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53).87 Even so, there are differ-
ent emphases within the overall discussion. In this context, one might
ask where Ellen G. White actually stands on these controversial matters.
Avoiding the “either-or” approach, we should recognize that, on one
side, Ellen G. White emphasizes a special preparation for translation. She
sees both Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5)88 and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–11)89 as
types of the final generation that will be taken to heaven without facing
of Armageddon (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1987), 7.

85
E.g., M. L. Andreasen, “The Last Generation,” chap. 21 in The Sanctuary Service, 2nd ed.
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1947); Herbert E. Douglass, “Men of Faith–The Showcase
of God’s Grace,” in Herbert E. Douglass et al., Perfection: The Impossible Possibility (Nashville, TN:
Southern Publishing, 1975), 9–56; C. Mervyn Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” in Douglass et
al., 137–200; Herbert E. Douglass, Why Jesus Waits: How the Sanctuary Doctrine Explains the
Mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976);
Douglass, Faith: Saying Yes to God (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1978); and Douglass, The
End: Unique Voice of Seventh-day Adventists about the Return of Jesus (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1979).
86
M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1948), 467.
87
E.g., Hans K. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism: A Dogmatic-Ethical Study of Biblical
Perfection and Phenomenal Perfectionism, Andrews University Monographs 3 (Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 1971); Edward Heppenstall, “Let Us Go on to Perfection,” in
Douglass et al., 57–88; Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Biblical Idea of Perfection,” in Douglass et
al., 89–136; Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Theology of the Last Generation and the Vindication of the
Character of God: Overview and Evaluation,” in The Word: Searching, Living, Teaching, ed. Artur
A. Stele (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2015), 205–228; Jiří Moskala and John Peckham,
eds., God’s Character and the Last Generation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018); and George
R. Knight, End-Time Events and the Last Generation: The Explosive 1950s (Nampa, ID: Pacific
Press, 2018).
88
E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 85–86 and E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 2:121–122.
89
E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 227–228; E. G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1952), 59; and E. G. White, Gospel Workers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1915), 270.
death (1 Cor 15:53). She declares, “God is leading out a people who are
peculiar. He will cleanse and purify them, and fit them for translation.
Every carnal thing will be separated from God’s peculiar treasures un-
til they shall be like gold seven times purified.”90 And she adds, “Are we
hoping to see the whole church revived? That time will never come. There
are persons in the church who are not converted, and who will not unite
in earnest, prevailing prayer.”91
She also warns,
Sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of

a lifetime. It is not gained by a happy flight of feeling, but is the re-
sult of constantly dying to sin, and constantly living for Christ. . . .
So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, beset-
ting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no
stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully
attained. Sanctification is the result of lifelong obedience. None
of the apostles and prophets ever claimed to be without sin. Men
who have lived the nearest to God, men who would sacrifice
life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act, men whom
God has honored with divine light and power, have confessed
the sinfulness of their nature.92
In this case, what can we say about the end-time vindication of God’s
character? Undeniably, every converted individual is a “spectacle” of
God’s transforming grace to the universe (1 Cor 4:9, NIV), and we should
not expect less from the final generation of God’s remnant people. But
we should never forget that “we have only one perfect photograph of
God, and this is Jesus Christ.”93 This means that the supreme vindi-
cation of God’s character should always remain Christ-centered and
cross-centered (John 12:32; Gal 6:14), and never anthropocentric or fi-
nal-generation-centered (cf. Luke 18:9–14). After all, “the cross of Christ
will be the science and the song of the redeemed through all eternity.
In Christ glorified they will behold Christ crucified.”94
90
91
E. G. White, Selected Messages, 1:122.
92
E. G. White, Acts of the Apostles, 560–561.
93
E. G. White, “Laborers Together with God,” Ms 70, 1899.
94
The Victorious Outcome
Why do many alleged Christians distort and even deny the reality
of heaven? Several reasons could be mentioned, but a very foundational
one has to do with how someone views reality. From a dichotomic per-
spective, a real and tangible heaven does not make much sense for those
who see heaven as a mere spiritual and unmaterial place to where un-
bodied souls flee after death. And as stated by Ellen G. White, “a fear of
making the future inheritance seem too material has led many to spiri-
tualize away the very truths which lead us to look upon it as our home.”95
From a biblical perspective, heaven is much more than the Elysium
of Greek mythology or the utopic Tibetan Shangri-La of James Hilton’s
novel Lost Horizon.96 Heaven is, indeed, as real and concrete as this
world, but without the presence of sin that degenerates things, and with
a new dimension of time that will no longer wear out our existence.
Peter says, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we
made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”
(2 Pet 1:16). And Paul warns, “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ,
we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19, NRSV). As early as
spring 1845, Ellen G. White was taken to the new earth, where she saw
literal trees, flowers, grass, rivers, animals, and people, and most glorious
houses.97
Furthermore, heaven is not a place of loneliness and amnesia. Ellen
G. White explains with the following touching words:
In the Bible the inheritance of the saved is called “a country.”

There the heavenly Shepherd leads His flock to fountains of liv-
ing waters. The tree of life yields its fruit every month, and the
leaves of the tree are for the service of the nations. There are
ever-flowing streams, clear as crystal, and beside them waving
trees cast their shadows upon the paths prepared for the ran-
somed of the Lord. There the wide-spreading plains swell into hills
of beauty, and the mountains of God rear their lofty summits.
95
96
James Hilton, Lost Horizon (London: Macmillan, 1933).
97
Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter from Sister Harmon,” The Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 31–32. Cf.
Merlin Burt, “Appendix B—Ellen G. White and Religious Enthusiasm in Early Adventist Experi-
ence,” in The Ellen G. White Letters & Manuscripts with Annotations, vol. 1, 1845–1859 (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 2014), 923.
On those peaceful plains, beside those living streams, God’s

people, so long pilgrims and wanderers, shall find a home.98
On our family ties and social life in heaven, Ellen G. White affirms
that “little children are borne by holy angels to their mothers’ arms.
Friends long separated by death are united, nevermore to part.”99 “The
redeemed will meet and recognize those whose attention they have di-
rected to the uplifted Saviour. What blessed converse they will have with
these souls!”100 And the guardian angels will unveil to each of us many
unexplained life events and circumstances of our lives in this sinful
world.101 But the supreme privilege is to behold God Himself (Matt 5:8;
1 John 3:3; Rev 22:3–4). Ellen G. White states, “And what is the happiness
of heaven but to see God? What greater joy could come to the sinner
saved by the grace of Christ than to look upon the face of God and
know Him as Father?”102 In reality, “heaven is worth everything to us, and
if we lose heaven we lose all.”103
Conclusion
In Ellen G. White’s writings, there is an overall balance between the

warnings about the final events and the end of our own lives on one
side, and the joyfulness of living a life of full surrender to Christ and His
cause on the other side. Among the warnings, one can see, for instance,
the following meaningful statement:
I saw that all heaven is interested in our salvation; and shall we

be indifferent? Shall we be careless, as though it were a small
matter whether we are saved or lost? Shall we slight the sacrifice
that has been made for us? Some have done this. They have tri-
fled with offered mercy, and the frown of God is upon them.
God’s Spirit will not always be grieved. It will depart if grieved
a little longer. After all has been done that God could do to save
men, if they show by their lives that they slight Jesus’ offered
mercy, death will be their portion, and it will be dearly purchased.
98
99
Ibid., 645.
100
E. G. White, Gospel Workers, 518.
101
E. G. White, Education, 305.
102
103
E. G. White, Sons and Daughters of God (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1955), 349.
It will be a dreadful death; for they will have to feel the agony
that Christ felt upon the cross to purchase for them the redemp-
tion which they have refused. And they will then realize what
they have lost—eternal life and the immortal inheritance. The
great sacrifice that has been made to save souls shows us their
worth. When the precious soul is once lost, it is lost forever.104
But such warnings as these do not mean that she advocated a so-called
“theology of fear” (Theologie der Angst).105 Actually, she has a solid the-
ology of hope and assurance in Christ (cf. 1 John 5:12), as evident in her
classic books Steps to Christ and The Desire of Ages. In 1887, she stated,
Live the life of faith day by day. Do not become anxious and
distressed about the time of trouble, and thus have a time of
trouble beforehand. Do not keep thinking, “I am afraid I shall
not stand in the great testing day.” You are to live for the pres-
ent, for this day only. Tomorrow is not yours. Today you are to
maintain the victory over self. Today you are to live a life of
prayer. Today you are to fight the good fight of faith. Today you
are to believe that God blesses you. And as you gain the victory
over darkness and unbelief, you will meet the requirements of
the Master, and will become a blessing to those around you.106
And the nearness of the second coming and our preparation for
that glorious event are stressed in the following words:
The coming of the Lord is nearer than when we first believed.

The great controversy is nearing its end. Every report of calam-
ity by sea or land is a testimony to the fact that the end of all
things is at hand. Wars and rumors of wars declare it. Is there a
Christian whose pulse does not beat with quickened action as
he anticipates the great events opening before us? The Lord is com-
ing. We hear the footsteps of an approaching God to punish the
world for their iniquity.107
104
Cf. Thomas R. Steininger, Konfession und Sozialisation: Adventistische Identität zwischen Fun-
105
damentalismus und Postmoderne (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1993), 94ff.

106
E. G. White, “The Light of the World,” Signs of the Times, October 20, 1887, 625.
107
E. G. White, “Preparing for Christ’s Return,” Review and Herald, November 12, 1914, 22.
How can a Christian sleep in such an age as we are now living

in? Knowledge is increased, and facilities are increased for
attaining great results for God and humanity. Then we see so
many harvest-fields of labor opening before us, inviting those of
strong faith and hope and courage to enter them. To sleep now
is a fearful crime. The Lord is coming. We are appointed to pre-
pare the way for his coming by acting our part to prepare a people
to stand in that great day. Is there one Christian whose pulse
does not beat with quickened action as he anticipates the great
events already opening before us? We hear the footsteps of an
approaching God to punish the world for their iniquity.108
Actually, “we should watch and work and pray as though this were
the last day that would be granted us. How intensely earnest, then, would
be our life. How closely would we follow Jesus in all our words and
deeds.”109 Therefore, let us not only prepare ourselves for the second
coming and/or the end of our own lives, but be prepared every day and
every moment for heaven, which has to be the main purpose of our
whole existence!
108
E. G. White, Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers, Series A, no. 11, 29.
109
CHAPTER 24
The Flexibility And Fixedness Of

The Parousia In Ellen G. White’s
Writings1
Denis Kaiser
Belief in the imminent second coming of Jesus is at the core of

Seventh-day Adventism’s self-identity and an integral part of their mes-
sage and mission. As descendants of the Millerite movement, Adventists
long for the materialization of that joyous event. While the Millerites
proclaimed that the end of the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14
marked the time of Christ’s second coming on October 22, 1844, early
Sabbatarian Adventists redefined that date as the beginning of His
Day-of-Atonement ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. As they con-
tinued to look for the imminent second coming, preceded by particular
prophetic last-day events, they continually opposed the setting of days
for that glorious event. As years gave way to decades and decades gave
way to more than one and a half centuries, many Adventists are now
weary of talking about the imminence of Christ’s return. Some Adven-
tist writers and speakers employ statements from Ellen G. White to
stress that Christ’s second coming has been delayed due to the church’s
spiritual condition and that His coming was effectively dependent on the
demonstration of the believers’ perfection of character.2 Other Adventist
1
The author of this study is indebted to his graduate assistant, Tyler Elliot Buford, for help in
researching this subject.
2
See, e.g., Reinhold L. Klingbeil, “Can God Depend on You?” Review and Herald, December
31, 1953, 12; Dennis E. Priebe, Face-to-Face with the Real Gospel (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985),
68–80; Herbert E. Douglass, Why Jesus Waits: How the Sanctuary Message Explains the Delay
in the Second Coming (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2001), 63–70, 91–92; and Herbert E. Douglass,
writers emphasize the sovereignty of God and the church’s inability to

control the timing of Jesus’ return.3 These differing perspectives seem
to pose the question of whether God is waiting for the church or the
church is waiting for Him. This study analyzes White’s statements on the
flexibility and fixedness of the second coming of Christ.4
The Flexibility of the Second Coming
In her writings, Ellen G. White frequently stresses the nearness of

Jesus’ coming. She says that the church could and should engage as
much as possible in proclaiming the gospel to the whole world to hasten
His coming, and that a number of factors may hinder His people from
accomplishing that task. Her remarks suggest a tension between the
spreading of iniquity in the world and the efforts to spread the gospel
message to save as many people as possible. The different factors in-
volved in and the reasons for the hastening and/or delay of the second
coming need further exploration.
An Active Expectancy Speeds up the Gospel Proclamation

Commenting on the time left before Christ returns, White says
that “time” has always been presented to her “as very short.”5 Quoting
from 1 Peter 4:7, she frequently emphasizes that “the end of all things
is at hand.”6 Similarly, alluding to Matthew 24:33, she stresses that the
God at Risk: The Cost of Freedom in the Great Controversy Between God and Satan (Roseville,
CA: Amazing Facts, 2004), 197–237, 372–385. Although Paul Evans examined M. L. Andreasen’s
final generation theology and its theological antecedents, he did not address the aspect of
the delay of the second coming. See Paul M. Evans, “A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the
Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2010).
3
See, e.g., James J. Londis, “The Hermeneutics of Disappointment: What Does the ‘Delay’ of
Jesus’ Coming Do to the Adventist Story?” Spectrum, Fall 2014, 20.
4
This subject has been ably treated in Ralph E. Neall, “The Nearness and the Delay of the
Parousia in the Writings of Ellen G. White” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1982). Six years
later, his findings were published in a popularized book and also succinctly summarized in a
five-page article. See Ralph E. Neall, How Long, O Lord? (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1988) and Neall, “Have We Delayed the Advent?” Ministry, February 1988, 41–45. Neall seems to
be the only writer who has examined White’s seemingly contradictory statements concerning
the nearness and delay of Christ’s second coming. The author of this study pursued his re-
search independently of Neall’s work but arrived at similar conclusions.
5
Ellen G. White, “Suppression and the Shut Door,” Ms 4, 1883 (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White
Estate).
6
Ellen G. White, “Talk at the Ministers’ Meeting,” Ms 4, 1889. A search of this phrase in the
published writings of White results in 322 hits. All biblical quotations are from the KJV, unless
otherwise indicated.
The Flexibility and Fixedness of the Parusia in Ellen G. White’s Writings 503
second coming of Christ is at the door.7 She further remarks that “He
is nearer now than when we first believed.”8 In fact, she perceives in
the experience of the apostles the same sense for the shortness of time
(1 Cor 7:29–30; Rom 13:12; Rev 1:3; 22:6–7). She notes, however, that “the
promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional.”9
Advancing the Coming of God’s Kingdom

White makes clear that Christ did not reveal “the day and the hour
of His coming.” There would be no need to “maintain an attitude of
constant expectancy” if Christ had revealed that time.10 Since Christ’s
people do not know the time of His second coming, they are to watch
and wait for it in active expectancy (Luke 12:37).11 She calls to mind that
believers throughout the ages have prayed, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will
be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). These words reflect the
personal attitude of all who pray them in sincerity.12 That attitude is simi-
larly manifested by asking God daily, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do?”13 White drew a parallel between modern-day believers and John
the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples. They proclaimed the message, “The king-
dom of God is at hand.”14 She states that believers are to show that they
are waiting for “a better country, even a heavenly [one],” and “that their
home is not in this world.”15 She stresses that “we must act like men
and women who believe” that “the message for this time is . . . of the
deepest importance.”16 Believers are not merely to wait and look for the
second coming of Christ, but this active expectancy would be seen in the
7
White, “Talk at the Ministers’ Meeting.” See also, e.g., Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church,
vol. 9 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 20; White, “Extracts from the Testimonies,”
General Conference Bulletin, April 1 1897, 78; White, “The World to Be Warned,” Review and
Herald, July 28, 1904, 7; White, “Even at the Door,” Review and Herald, November 22, 1906,
19–20; and White, “Looking for that Blessed Hope,” Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, 370.
8
White, “Talk at the Ministers’ Meeting.”
9
White, “Suppression and the Shut Door.”
10
Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1898), 632–633.
11
Ibid., 634.
12
Ellen G. White, “The Lord’s Prayer,” Signs of the Times, October 28, 1903, 2 and White, Thoughts
from the Mount of Blessing (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1896), 109.
13
Ellen G. White, “Liberality the Fruit of Love,” Review and Herald, May 16, 1893, 305.
14
Ellen G. White, “The Two Great Principles of the Law,” Ms 34, 1903 and White, “The Lord’s
Prayer,” 1. Here, Ellen White uses the wording in Mark 1:15 (kingdom of God) but alludes to the
passages in Matthew 3:2 and 10:7 (kingdom of heaven).
15
White, Testimonies for the Church, 2:194.
16
Ellen G. White, “The Blessed Hope,” Review and Herald, November 13, 1913, 1110.
proclamation of the gospel and the warning message to the whole world.
Therefore she wrote,
As we give ourselves to God, and win other souls to Him, we

hasten the coming of His kingdom. Only those who devote
themselves to His service, saying, “Here am I; send me” (Isa 6:8),
to open blind eyes, to turn men “from darkness to light and from
the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgive-
ness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified”
(Acts 26:18)—they alone pray in sincerity, “Thy kingdom come.”17
“In harmony with the truth which they believe,” those who watch
and wait are to proclaim “by word and action . . . to all [that] the end
of all things is at hand.”18 Alluding to 2 Peter 3:12 and Matthew 24:14, she
suggests that “by giving the gospel to the world” we could “hasten our
Lord’s return.”19 Focusing on the wording in that biblical passage, she
specifies that “the kingdom will not come until the good tidings have
been carried to all the earth.”20
The gospel of the kingdom is, in fact, the message proclaimed by
John the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world” (John 1:29).21 The book of Revelation “contains the mes-
sage for the last days,” and it should be explained by the ministers, thus
bearing “aloft the lamp of life in the dark places of the earth and hasten
the coming of our King.”22 She refers in particular to the truth about
the final test that will determine whether people receive the mark of
the beast or the seal of God.23
17
White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 108–109.
18
Ellen G. White, “Visit to Copenhagen,” July 1886, Ms 15b, 1886.
19
White, The Desire of Ages, 633. See also White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Oakland, CA: Pacific
Press, 1900), 69; White, “The Lord’s Prayer,” 2; Ellen G. White to Brethren and Sisters, December
23, 1893, Lt 4, 1893; White, “The Two Great Principles of the Law” and White, “Visit to Copen-
hagen.”
20
White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 108–109 (emphasis supplied) and White, “The
Lord’s Prayer,” 2.
21
White, “The Lord’s Prayer,” 2. See also White, “The Two Great Principles of the Law.”
22
Ellen G. White, “The Work in Oakland and San Francisco,” December 26, 1906, Ms 105, 1906.
Ellen G. White, “Lessons from the Sending Out of the Spies,” General Conference Bulletin,
23
March 30, 1903, 9.

Ways to Advance the Kingdom

The gospel message can be advanced in various ways.24 A couple
examples may suffice. White mentions the evangelistic work in the
great cities in the United States. Laying aside everything that hinders
ministers and workers from engaging in that work, they will advance
in faith, angels will prepare their way, “the salvation of God will be re-
vealed,” “prosperity will attend their efforts,” “the name of God will
be magnified, and the coming of Christ will be hastened.”25 Church
members might visit “from house to house” and explain the Bible to
those who fail to understand it.26 Many opportunities present themselves
to us and
demand our offerings of time and intellect and money, gifts large
and small, as God has prospered us, to make a way for the truth in
the dark places of the earth, to set up a standard of righteousness,
and to advance the interests of the kingdom of God.27
White states that God has given a surplus of means to His people
to advance the work. Each person has been entrusted with financial
means to be brought to the treasury, which, in turn, allows a more
rapid advancement of God’s cause to win many souls, and thus “the day
of Christ’s coming will be hastened.”28 She further points out that those
who wait in active expectation will be “temperate in eating and dressing.”
All their actions will be characterized by “humility and simplicity.”29
The Holy Spirit Accelerates the Success

White emphasizes that some factors can, like nothing else, accelerate
the spreading of the gospel to the whole world. Those factors are direct-
ly related to the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of the believers. Knowing
that Christ’s coming is near and a great work still needs to be done,
they should purify “their souls by obedience to the truth” and cooperate
with the Holy Spirit “in working for the salvation of souls” by proclaim-
ing the gospel message and final warning to the whole world.30 The
24
Ellen G. White to James Edson White and Emma White, November 14, 1894, Lt 84, 1894.
25
Ellen G. White, “A Call to Consecrated Effort,” January 29, 1910, M 43, 1910.
26
White, Lt 84, 1894 and White, “Liberality the Fruit of Love,” 305.
27
White, “Liberality the Fruit of Love,” 305.
28
Ellen G. White, “The Work in Washington,” June 4, 1904, Ms 38, 1904.
29
White, “Visit to Copenhagen.”
30
White, The Desire of Ages, 633–634.
reception of the Holy Spirit will provide them with “wisdom to work
with their ability and their means to save souls that are perishing.”31
She stresses that as the believers “receive the Spirit of Christ—the Spirit
of unselfish love and labor for others”32—the fruit of the Spirit, which is
“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,
[and] temperance” (Gal 5:22–23), will be grown and brought forth. She
equates the fruit of the Spirit with the character of Christ, and defines
true perfection as other-focused love manifested in deep, unselfish care
for others, sharing the gospel of salvation with them. The more the fruit
of the Spirit is manifested in the lives of believers, the more the gospel
seed will be sown in the world, bringing about a harvest that Christ will
come to gather (Mark 4:29).33 Like in the time of the apostles, the preach-
ing of the message of Christ’s second coming should be accompanied
by a living power.34 Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the preaching
of the third angel’s message will swell into a loud cry.35 Similarly, she
says that
the Spirit and the power of the coming One will be imparted in
large measure to those who are preparing to stand in the day
of God, who are hastening the second advent of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. To these faithful ones Christ gives spe-
cial communications. He talks with them as He talked with His
disciples before leaving them. The Spirit of truth will guide them
into all truth. God has lines of communication with the world
today.36
In the context of “abounding iniquity” and “apostasy,” the truth “will

shine brighter and brighter” until Christ comes.37 Encouraging minis-
ters and church workers in Australia to give themselves fully to Jesus, she
says in a similar vein,
The Lord invites us to look to Him, to trust in Him, to walk with

Him, to talk with Him, to keep step with Him. Then duty will
31
White, “Liberality the Fruit of Love,” 305.
32
White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 68.
33
White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 68–69.
34
White, “The Blessed Hope,” 1110.
35
Ellen G. White, “The Medical Missionary Work,” May 10, 1899, Ms 177, 1899.
36
Ellen G. White, “Christian Integrity in the Ministry,” Ms 15, 1886.
37
Ibid.
be clear before us. The Lord can use pure, unselfish, holy hearts
to His own name’s glory. While your meeting was in session
in Melbourne, it was presented before me that there needed to
be a cleansing of the soul and spirit before the Holy Spirit could
mold and fashion mind and character. There must be more
of Christ, all of Christ, and none of self. Then there will be pa-
tience, longsuffering, gentleness, and love for one another. This
pulling apart will not be. We have need of patience, that af-
ter we have done the will of God, we shall receive the promise,
looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God.38
Factors That Hinder the Gospel Proclamation

White was nevertheless convinced that the second coming of Christ
had, in fact, been delayed. An example for such remarks is found in her
reply to A. C. Long’s criticism in 1883. Long was a minister of the Marion
Party, an offshoot of Seventh-day Adventism in the early 1860s. He had
argued that her statements on the near completion of Jesus’ high-priestly
ministry more than thirty years earlier were proof that her testimonies
were false. Talking about the situation right after the disappointment in
the fall of 1844, White stated that Christ would already have come had the
Millerites held on to their faith and received the new insights of the third
angel’s message, the seventh-day Sabbath, and the sanctuary message,
proclaiming them to the world. Since most Millerites gave up their faith
and began to oppose those who proclaimed these new insights (pres-
ent truth), the work was nevertheless hindered and the world was left in
darkness. She concluded, “It was not the will of God that the coming of
Christ should be thus delayed,” comparing it to the forty years of Israel’s
wilderness wanderings (Heb 3:19).39
Procrastination in Proclaiming the Gospel

She applies that reproof not only to the post-Disappointment
Millerites but also to Christians in general and Seventh-day Adventists
in particular.40 In a possible allusion to the holding of the winds in
Revelation 7, White suggests that “judgment and wrath were to be re-
pressed only for a little space until a certain work was done.”41 She further
38
Ellen G. White to A. T. Robinson and Sr. Robinson, November 16, 1898, Lt 94, 1898.
White, “Suppression and the Shut Door.” These remarks are reflected in Ellen G. White, The
39
Great Controversy (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1911), 458.

40
Ellen G. White to Percy T. Magan, December 7, 1901, Lt 184, 1901.
41
Ellen G. White, diary entry, February 9, 1895, Ms 59, 1895.
states that “the whole world would before this have been warned and
the Lord Jesus would have come to our earth in power and great glo-
ry,” “had the church of Christ done her appointed work” in sharing
the gospel.42 Had the church proclaimed the gospel—the message of
mercy—to the whole world, Christ would have come back to the earth
and the saints would have been received into the heavenly Jerusalem.43
At this time in our world’s history, “as the day of the Lord is right at
hand,” it was “not safe for us to delay His coming.”44 Talking about the
heavy opposition to the message of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones at
the Minneapolis General Conference Session in 1888, she notes that
by exciting that opposition, Satan succeeded in shutting away

from our people, in a great measure, the special power of the Holy
Spirit that God longed to impart to them. The enemy prevented
them from obtaining that efficiency which might have been theirs
in carrying the truth to the world, as the apostles proclaimed it
after the day of Pentecost.45
White also remarks that the work given to Adventists was “years
behind” because it had been delayed “through dilatory action.” Since
only a few voices had accepted God’s call of “Whom shall I send?” she
concludes that, as a result of that “neglect, many souls will lose the
opportunity the Lord desired to give them.”46 Describing the situation in
1903, she writes,
I know that if the people of God had preserved a living con-

nection with Him, if they had obeyed His Word, they would
today be in the heavenly Canaan. Oh, how sad it makes me to
see the way hedging up before us, and to know that it is becom-
ing more and more difficult to carry the message to the people!
We have not done a hundredth part of the evangelical work
that God desires us to do among our neighbors and friends.47
42
White, The Desire of Ages, 634 and White, “The Blessed Hope,” 1110. See also White, Lt 84, 1894
and White, “A Stirring Appeal,” [Australasian] Union Conference Record, October 15, 1898, 104.
43
White, The Desire of Ages, 633–634.
44
White, “Talk at the Ministers’ Meeting.”
45
Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, June 6, 1896, Lt 96, 1896.
46
Ellen G. White to William Ings, January 8, 1893, Lt 77, 1893.
47
White, “Lessons from the Sending Out of the Spies.”
Five years later, after commending the recent progress in the mission
field, White notes that there is still much left to be done because
we have not been as diligent as we ought to have been in seek-

ing to save the lost. Precious opportunities have been allowed to
pass by unimproved. This has delayed the coming of our King.
Had the people of God constantly preserved a living connection
with Him from the beginning of the great advent movement,
had they obeyed His word and advanced in all His opening
providences, they would today be in the heavenly Canaan. We
have done only a small part of the evangelical work that God
desires us to do among our neighbors and friends.48
Competition with the Proliferation of Iniquity

The idea of the delay of Jesus’ coming demands an explanation. In
The Desire of Ages, White reflects on the condition of the world at the
time of Noah (Gen 6:5; Matt 24:37–39) and before the fall of Jerusalem
in AD 70. She explains that iniquity and wickedness abounded in those
times, calling for judgment and destruction. As iniquity abounded, the
gospel was nevertheless preached to “every creature which is under heaven”
(Col 1:23). In her view, Jesus’ “prophecy [in Matthew 24:12–14] will again
be fulfilled.” Revelation 14:6, 14 notes accordingly that the “everlasting
gospel is to be preached ‘to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people.’”49 Failure to advance the preaching of the gospel would there-
fore hinder the achievement of that goal and allow iniquity to abound
even more. Thus, the second coming would be deferred. White describes
a group of believers in the second coming whose hearts, words, and
actions exhibit the attitude of the person who says, “My lord delayeth
his coming”50 (Matt 24:48; Luke 12:45). Those people relish a false safe-
ty, look for the “earthly prosperity and glory” of the church, unite “with
the world in pleasure seeking,” and “banish from the minds of others the
conviction that the Lord is coming quickly.”51 Further, she says that “the
last message of warning and mercy has been retarded in doing its work
by the selfish love of money, the selfish love of ease, and the unfitness
48
Ellen G. White, “An Appeal: To Ministers and Church Officers,” Lake Union Herald, November
19, 1908, 1.
49
White, The Desire of Ages, 633.
50
Ibid., 634–635.
51
Ibid., 635.
of man to do a work that needs to be done.”52 She sees the primary

cause for the delay not in God’s unalterable timing, but rather in the
“insubordination” of His people. They had “great light,” yet they “did
not have corresponding piety, sanctification, and zeal in working out
God’s specified plans.” Spiritual deficiencies (Mic 6:8) led to a gap in the
advancement of the proclamation of the truth.53 Citing Hebrews 3:19, she
stresses that like ancient Israel, modern Israel has not yet entered the
heavenly Canaan due to the prevailing unbelief, murmuring, rebellion,
hatred, worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among them.54 If the nat-
ural heart were to bring “its own tainted, corrupting principles into the
work of God,” and “the power of Satan” were to “come into the very
temple of God and manipulate things as he pleases,” the principles of
the faith would be concealed, and the time of preparation would be
prolonged.55
There was “so much weakness and so little of the real, genuine work-
ing of the Spirit of God in our churches” because God’s people allowed
Satan to arouse “dissension and strife.”56 The neglect to proclaim the
gospel message to the whole world resulted, therefore, from spiritual
deficiencies that led God to delay or postpone the second coming. White
suggests that it was “deferred in mercy, because if the Master should
come, so many would be found unready. God’s unwillingness to have
His people perish has been the reason for so long delay” (cf. 2 Pet 3:9).57
White therefore suggests that God’s people could hasten the second
coming by proclaiming the gospel to the whole world and delay Christ’s
coming by failing to advance the gospel proclamation. The preaching
of the gospel counteracts the proliferation of iniquity and wickedness
in the world, and aims at saving people from perishing. A discussion of
her remarks on the flexible timing of the second coming is neverthe-
less insufficient if her statements on God’s knowledge of the timing are
ignored. The following section will therefore deal with the latter aspect.
52
Ellen G. White, diary entry, November 9, 1895, Ms 61b, 1895.
53
White, Lt 184, 1901.
54
White, “Suppression and the Shut Door.”
55
Ellen G. White to O. A. Olsen, May 22, 1896, Lt 83, 1896.
56
White, Lt 94, 1898.
57
White, Testimonies for the Church, 2:194. See also White, “Liberality the Fruit of Love,” 305.
The Fixedness of the Second Coming
Ellen G. White’s emphasis on the flexibility of Jesus’ second coming

is complemented by statements on the fixedness of that glorious event.
Thus, she indicates that even in 1844 God knew the day and the hour of
the second coming. She further stresses the reality of God’s foreknowl-
edge and His ability to give specific prophecies, in particular those relating
to the first and second comings of Christ.
The Time of the Second Advent Revealed but Not Remembered

Ellen Harmon’s first vision, in December 1844, was a full-body
experience. She walked with the saints toward the heavenly city as she
“heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the day and
hour of Jesus’ coming.” While the wicked interpreted God’s voice as a
“thunder and an earthquake,” the saints, among them Ellen Harmon,
“knew and understood the voice.” She states that “when God spoke the
time,” the saints were especially filled with the Holy Spirit. By that time,
they were already sealed and were all “perfectly united.”58 In a subse-
quent vision, she defines the circumstances of that event more precisely.
God’s pronouncement of “the day and the hour of Jesus’ coming” was
preceded by the attempt of the wicked to kill the saints during the time
of trouble and the complete turmoil of the natural powers on earth and
in the heavens.59 In 1882, those statements were reprinted in the book
Early Writings,60 attracting criticism from members of the Marion party
because Jesus Himself points out in Matthew 24:36 that no man knows
“that day and hour, . . . not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”
In reply, White stated that those statements
contain all that I have ever been shown in regard to the definite
time of the Lord’s coming. I have not the slightest knowledge as to
58
Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter from Sister Harmon,” Day-Star, January 24, 1846, 31; Harmon, To
the Little Remnant Scattered Abroad, Broadside, April 6, 1846; Ellen G. White, “To the Remnant
Scattered Abroad,” Review and Herald, July 21, 1851, [2]; and White, Spiritual Gifts: My Christian
Experience, Views and Labors in Connection with the Rise and Progress of the Third Angel’s
Message, vol. 2 (Battle Creek, MI: James White, 1860), 31–32.
59
Ellen G. White, A Vision, Broadside, April 7, 1847; White, A Sketch of the Christian Experi-
ence and Views of Ellen G. White (Saratoga Springs, NY: James White, 1851), 17–18; and White,
“To the Remnant Scattered Abroad,” [3]. With some variation in White, Spiritual Gifts,
1:205–206.
60
Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1882), 15, 34, 285.
the time spoken by the voice of God. I heard the hour proclaimed,
but had no remembrance of that hour after I came out of vision.61
Thus, it seems that although God has a fixed time for the second
coming of Christ, He is not interested in making that time known to
the believers prior to the time of Jacob’s trouble.
Divine Foreknowledge
At different times, White affirms her belief in God’s foreknowledge
and ability to foresee events.62 Accordingly, He “knows the end from
the beginning.”63 She stresses that “all the events foretold in prophe-
cy have their appointed time for fulfillment.” Certain events occurred
“in their heaven-appointed order” because God caused them “by His
power” in order “to accomplish certain ends.”64 Nevertheless, she does
not say that all events had been directed and orchestrated by God. She
points out that God’s foreknowledge and prophecies do not collide
with human free will. Thus, she explicitly opposes the idea that “a
foreknowledge of events would deprive man of free moral agency.”65
She explains that “prophecies do not shape the characters of the men
who fulfill them. Men act out their own free will, either in accordance
with a character placed under the molding of God or a character
placed under the harsh rule of Satan.” Christ’s efforts “to soften hard
hearts” give people an opportunity to receive or resist those efforts,
resulting either in the change of their hearts or the hardening of
their hearts.66 She states further that the Holy Spirit “inspired the
prophets to foretell” and “trace in prophetic declarations” events and
developments that would take place. As a result, no opposing force
and influence arose to counteract God’s work that “He ha[d] not
foreseen” and “not prepared for.”67
61
Ellen G. White to Sister, August 11, 1888, Lt 38, 1888.
62
Ellen G. White, “Walk in the Light,” Review and Herald, November 13, 1900, 721 and White,
“Robbing God—No. 1,” Review and Herald, December 3, 1901, 777.
63
White, The Great Controversy, 393.
64
Ellen G. White to Brother Zelinsky, March 9, 1902, Lt 31, 1902.
65
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan: The Death, Resurrection and
Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3 (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press
of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1878), 44–45.
66
White, “Walk in the Light,” 721.
67
Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 11–12.
White refers to specific events that met their fulfillment as they

had previously been predicted. She states that “like the stars in the vast
circuit of their appointed path, God’s purposes know no haste and no
delay.”68 God had predicted to Abraham that his descendants would
sojourn in a foreign land and be there in bondage for four hundred
years. After that period, they would “come out with great substance”
(Gen 15:14). Despite all of Pharaoh’s efforts to subvert God’s design, “on
the self-same day’ appointed in the divine promise, ‘it came to pass, that
all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt’ (Exod 12:41).”69
The Appointed Time of Christ’s First Advent

Similarly, she suggests that “in heaven’s council the hour for the
[first] coming of Christ had been determined.” He was sent “when the
fullness of time was come” (Gal 4:4). The “movements of nations and
the tide of human impulse and influence” had been directed by divine
providence in certain ways, “until the world was ripe for the coming of
the Deliverer.” Circumstances in the Roman Empire allowed for and fa-
cilitated a wide dissemination of ideas. Greek was the lingua franca. Jews
living in the diaspora traveled to Jerusalem to attend the annual festivals.
As they returned, they could take with them and share with others the
message of the Messiah’s coming. White adds that many Gentiles were
longing for “a knowledge of the living God,” “some assurance of a life
beyond the grave,” and “a religion that could satisfy the heart.”70 There-
fore God had perfectly orchestrated the circumstances and had chosen
well the timing of Christ’s first coming.
The Appointed Time of Christ’s Second Advent

Finally, White states that God knows the time of Christ’s second
coming. In her view, that time is linked to the culmination of two spe-
cific developments: when the gospel message has been proclaimed to the
whole world and the wickedness of humanity has reached a breaking
point. In harmony with Matthew 24:14 and Revelation 14:6, 14, White
emphasizes that the second coming of Christ will be ushered in by the
proclamation of the gospel to all nations, tongues, and people.71 She
writes, “The Lord has a time appointed when He will bind off the work;
but when is that time? When the truth to be proclaimed for these last
68
69
Ibid.
70
71
Ibid., 633 and White, “The Blessed Hope,” 1110. See also White, Lt 84, 1894.
days shall go forth as a witness to all nations, then shall the end come.”72
Referring to Acts 17:31, she stresses that God has appointed the time of
His judgment.73 The proclamation of the everlasting gospel neverthe-
less competes with the proliferation of iniquity and wickedness in the
world. All sins and disobedience against God’s commandments are
recorded in the books of heaven. White notes,
The figures of guilt rapidly accumulate, yet the judgments of

God are tempered with mercy, until the figures have reached
their appointed limit. God bears long with the transgression of
human beings and continues through His appointed agencies
to present the gospel message until the set time has come. God
bears with divine patience with the perversity of the wicked; but
He declares that He will visit their transgressions with a rod.
He will at last permit the destructive agencies of Satan to bear
sway to destroy.74
Those who in their pride and insolence continue to disregard God’s

law, who feel safe and trusted that divine forbearance has no limits, will
finally realize that He who “has been strong to save will be strong to
destroy.” White highlights that “when God’s appointed time comes to
send retribution,” nothing can save and preserve them from destruction.75
An Attempt to Resolve the Tension
Ellen G. White’s statements concerning the hastening of Christ’s

second coming, the delay of His coming, and God’s foreknowledge and
fixing of its time present a tension. Her remarks on the first two aspects
suggest that the time of the second advent can be both sped up and
impeded by human efforts. White herself makes a number of statements
that might help in resolving that tension.
An Apparent Delay
Most of her statements about the delay or hastening of the second
coming are linked with reproof and prompting to invest all energies,
72
White, Lt 83, 1896.
73
White, The Desire of Ages, 633. See also White, Lt 84, 1894.
74
Ellen G. White, “The United States as an Asylum for Religious Liberty,” January 1904, Ms 17,
1906, emphasis supplied.
75
Ellen G. White to A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, and Dr. Hare, February 15, 1904, Lt 83, 1904.
finances, and time in the proclamation of the gospel message. White

alludes to Habakkuk 2:3 when she explains that “the apparent tarrying
is not so in reality, for at the appointed time our Lord will come.”76
She would expound on this aspect nine years later, with the following
surprisingly positive remarks about the delay:
We have been perfectly reconciled to the apparent delay of the

Lord’s coming, for we see the goodness and the mercy of our
Lord in His word, “though it tarry, wait for it; because it will
surely come, it will not tarry” Habakkuk 2:3. But first the
warning must come to all places of the world. The people per-
ishing in their sins must hear the message of the truth from the
Word. We are to reach the people in every part of our world
where there are settlements. . . . We sorrowed much in being
disappointed in our expectations of the Lord’s coming at the time
expected, but we see now the great goodness of God. We may
now use our every capability to present the Word of God to
all parts of the world. Our missionaries are occupying new
territory, for we are not to confine the truths to a narrow compass.
All the features of our faith are to be given in foreign fields.77
Here she indicates that the delay is, in fact, an “apparent delay.”
Although Adventists had expected Jesus’ coming at an earlier time, it is
actually wonderful to share the gospel with more people—an opportu-
nity that should be utilized by all means. She stresses that at the end, we
will “bitterly . . . regret the waste of the time that we could have given
to the saving of souls ready to perish.”78 In fact, White urges believ-
ers “to cry to God for the angels to hold the four winds [Rev 7:1, 3] until
missionaries shall be sent to all parts of the world, and shall have pro-
claimed the warning against disobeying the law of Jehovah.”79 Adventists
should pray fervently and take decided efforts to preserve liberty of
conscience so that God can hold the winds, pour out His Spirit, and
permit their light to shine.80
76
White to Sister, Lt 38, 1888 (emphasis supplied).
77
Ellen G. White, “Medical Missionary Work in Cooranbong,” September 8, 1897, Ms 181, 1897,
emphasis supplied.
78
Ellen G. White to Friends in Australia, July 15, 1903, Lt 146, 1903.
Ellen G. White, “The Approaching Crisis,” Review and Herald, December 11, 1888, 5. See also
79
White, Testimonies for the Church, 5:717–718 and White, “David’s Prayer,” Review and Herald,
December 18, 1888, 786.
80
White, Testimonies for the Church, 5:713–715.
Active Efforts Versus Feverish Activism

She further states that although the proclamation of the gospel
work has been slowed down and the second coming therefore delayed,
one should not start taking on “many lines of work and carry them un-
til [one] become[s] so wearisome that it breaks [one’s] strength.” It is
certainly necessary for the people of the church to act “in their strength,
with capabilities, talents, and means, carrying the work, reaching
higher and broader in capacity to stand before the world in the power of
invincible truth,” and the few acting at this point to close the gap “must
make haste slowly,” otherwise no one could fill their place when they
burn out.81 Evil powers are counteracting the work of the gospel proc-
lamation and believers should do “all they can to advance His [Jesus’]
cause and hasten His coming.” The more we approach the coming of
Christ, the more firmly and earnestly we should work. Yet, we need
faith and courage “born of genuine faith,” and not “feverish excitement.”
We should cling to “the arm of infinite Power,” encourage one another,
and refrain from voicing discouragement because God is our helper.82
Divine Control and Power

White points to Ezekiel’s vision of the divine wheel (Ezek 1) as she
remarks on the discouraging situation that many church members wit-
ness as they look at the events in the world and the condition in the
church. She stresses God’s sovereignty when she adds the following
encouraging words:
This is to teach God’s servants that it is divine power that gives

success. Those whom God employs as His messengers are not
to feel that His work is dependent on them. Finite beings are
not left to carry this burden of responsibility. He who slumbers
not, who is continually at work for the accomplishment of His
designs, will carry forward His work. He will thwart the pur-
poses of wicked men and will bring to confusion the counsels of
those who plot mischief against His people. He who is the King,
the Lord of hosts, sitteth between the cherubim, and amidst
the strife and tumult of nations He guards His children still.
When the strongholds of kings shall be overthrown, when the
81
White, Lt 184, 1901.
82
Ellen G. White, “The Canvassing Work and the Scandinavian,” March 5, 1901, Ms 26, 1901.
arrows of wrath shall strike through the hearts of His enemies,

His people will be safe in His hands.83
Summary and Conclusion
This discussion of the flexibility and fixedness of the second coming

of Jesus has shown that an emphasis on its flexibility increases human
responsibility, whereas an emphasis on the fixedness of His coming
highlights the responsibility of God. It cannot be stressed enough that
our assurance of salvation is found in God’s sovereignty and what He
has done. Yet Ralph Neall correctly notes that “taking either stream of
Ellen White’s thought by itself poses dangers.”84 To ignore one part over
the other has detrimental results. Focusing solely on human efforts
could give the impression that God would be surprised by human
actions, and would therefore not be all-knowing. Putting the stress
entirely on God’s foreknowledge and sovereignty, however, could
give the impression that Christians have no responsibility in shar-
ing the gospel to the whole world. Ellen G. White’s statements on God’s
foreknowledge exclude the possibility of Him being surprised by hu-
man actions. Although divine foreknowledge does not prevent
human free will, changes in or lack of human efforts in proclaiming the
gospel will certainly have been foreseen by Him. His foreknowledge of
the time is not affected by anything humans do or fail to do.
White describes the dilemma of the swift proliferation of iniquity
and wickedness in the world, leaving people to perish for want of a
knowledge of the message of salvation. In her view, it is the responsibility
of the church to spread the gospel message to the whole world, and
Christ will come once that task has been accomplished (Matt 24:14).85
She stresses that this task could not really be accomplished, however,
without the Holy Spirit’s help. In fact, it is through the reception of
the Holy Spirit that the fruit of the Spirit is manifested in the lives
83
Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1917), 176.
84
Neall, “Have We Delayed the Advent?” 43.
85
This reasoning is captured well in Reinhold L. Klingbeil, “Does Jesus Delay His Coming?”
Review and Herald, June 8, 1867, 9. After discussing the need to proclaim the gospel to the
whole world, Klingbeil writes, “Our worldliness and the consequent delay on the part of a
merciful God are rapidly producing a state of tension beyond which it is impossible for God
to go. When the world shall have reached the limits of its sin and also of God’s mercy, when
the band shall have been stretched to its utmost capacity, then execution of justice will
inevitably follow. Within these limits of divine appointment, God’s people are able to hasten or
to delay His coming. Our God both yearns over the sinner and loathes the sin he commits. It
is the existence of these two factors in God’s nature that creates both haste and delay.”
and characters of God’s people, a circumstance that will accelerate

the spreading of the gospel message to the world. Interestingly, while
White sees a correlation between the manifestation of the fruit of the
Spirit in the lives of the believers and the time of Jesus’ second coming,
she does not seem to perceive that manifestation of Christian perfec-
tion86 as the effectual cause of the second coming—as is suggested by some
Adventist writers.87
Every day iniquity proliferates in the world and people perish
for want of a knowledge of the gospel. Our gratefulness for the gift of
salvation should translate into a desire to share and advance the knowledge
of the gospel at home and abroad. The diverse planning and activities of
the church should have the primary goal of spreading the gospel mes-
sage to the whole world. It is impossible to accomplish that task merely
with human strength, skills, and resources, which highlights our individ-
ual need to receive the Holy Spirit in our lives. As we actively spread the
gospel and manifest the fruit of the Spirit in our interactions with
others, we trust in God’s providence and knowledge of the proper time.
86
For more information on White’s progressive understanding of perfection, see Woodrow W.
Whidden, “Perfection,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, ed. Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon, 2nd
ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2013), 1021–1024.
87
See n. 2 as well as M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1947), 314–321; M. L. Andreasen, Book of Hebrews (Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1948), 58–60; Herbert E. Douglass, God at Risk, 27, 107, 110–117, 226, 382–385, 391–392,
396–404, 439–446; Larry Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close: Last Generation Theology in 14 Points
(Highland, CA: GCO Press, 2005), 85; and Dennis Priebe, “Will the Great Controversy End
Soon?” https://www.dennispriebe.com/free-documents/will-the-great-controversy-end-soon (ac-
CHAPTER 25
The Theological Necessity of

The Investigative Judgment:
Albion Ballenger And His Failed
Quest To Subvert The Doctrine
Darius W. Jankiewicz
The investigative judgment doctrine has always been an intrinsic

part of Seventh-day Adventist soteriology. According to this theology,
the investigative judgment forms the first phase of the eschatological
judgment, having commenced in 1844 at the end of the prophetic pe-
riods of the 1260 years of Daniel 7 and the 2300 years of Daniel 8. The
proceedings of this judgment were inaugurated by the triumphal entry
of Christ into the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary.1
Throughout the history of Seventh-day Adventists, however, the
investigative (or pre-advent) judgment has been one of the most con-
troversial doctrines, challenged and questioned more than any other
Adventist belief. One of the reasons for the doctrine’s controversial
nature may lie in the fact that it is directly related to the doctrine of
salvation, the means of which have been hotly debated throughout the
history of Christianity.
1
C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment: Its Early Developments,” in Doctrine of the
Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research
Institute, 1989), 119–157; cf. Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Theology of Divine Judgment in the Bible:
A Study of God’s Past, Present, and Future judgments and Their Implications for Mankind,”
https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/judgment20in20bible.pdf
(accessed February 25, 2020).
Various interpretations of the way humans are redeemed have led

to conflicting opinions about the investigative judgment. For many—
especially those coming from within the Seventh-day Adventist
denomination—this doctrine is indispensable, as it is irrevocably
related to the human response to God’s plan of salvation. Those outside
of Adventism, however, regularly challenge the doctrine, at times
proclaiming Seventh-day Adventism as a heretical sect that teaches a
legalistic understanding of salvation. A salvation scheme involving the
investigative judgment doctrine thus becomes contrasted with salva-
tion understood as sola gratia et fides (“by grace and faith alone”).2 A
perusal of various critical evaluations of Adventism found in print and
online, and especially those associated with modern evangelicalism,
results in the impression that Adventism is all about investigative judg-
ment and salvation by works. True and honest believers, it is believed,
need to be rescued from the manipulative grip of cultic Adventism and
introduced to the true evangelical faith, which eschews human works
as the means of salvation.
It is not surprising, therefore, that under growing external pressure
some Adventists have abandoned the doctrine of investigative judg-
ment, considering it a relic of the past and an embarrassment. For others,
this doctrine has been the catalyst for abandoning the Adventist faith.3
Evangelical criticism of the investigative judgment doctrine gen-
erally centers around four main objections. First, it is often argued
that historicism—a method of interpretation that has been normative
among Seventh-day Adventists—is no longer viable. Various weak-
nesses are often highlighted in contemporary literature, substantiating
that claim. Most critics of historicist methodology highlight its practi-
tioners’ tendency toward speculation and conjecture, and their inabil-
ity to furnish a uniform interpretation of symbols. Moreover, spurred by
contemporary ecumenical climate, some detractors object to the histori-
cist insistence on identifying the Antichrist, Babylon, and the beast of
Revelation 13 with modern Roman Catholicism and the papacy.4 A
2
Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging
Religion (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 84.
3
See, e.g., Jerry Gladson, Out of Adventism: A Theologian’s Journey (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
2017).
4
Ovid Need, Death of the Church Victorious (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace, 2004), 431; cf. An-
thony Charles Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation,
vol. 1 (Camano Island, WA: Spirit and Truth, 2004), 120–122; C. Marvin Pate, Reading Revela-
tion: A Comparison of Four Interpretive Translations of the Apocalypse (Grand Rapids MI: Kregel,
2009), 9; cf. Mark Hichcock, The End: A Complete Overview of Bible Prophecy and the End of Days
The Theological Necessity of the Investigative Judgment 521
historicist approach to prophetic interpretation, it is often claimed, is

not relevant to a postmodern worldview. In response to these criticisms,
Adventist writers such as LeRoy Froom, Kenneth Strand, Jon Paulien,
Richard M. Davidson, Ranko Stefanovic, and others defend the valid-
ity of the historicist approach as the norm of prophetic interpretation.5
Second, critics contend that the doctrine of the investigative judg-
ment cannot be “sustained from the biblical text.”6 One theologian writes
that the investigative judgment “is the most colossal, psychological,
face-saving phenomenon in religious history.” He goes on to say that he
does “not believe that there is a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sus-
tain such a peculiar position.”7 In response to claims such as these,
Adventist scholars including Mervyn Maxwell, Jan Paulsen, Marvin
Moore,8 and others have mounted a vigorous defense of the biblical
foundation underlying the doctrine of the investigative judgment.
Third, critics claim that the doctrine has a detrimental effect on the
assurance of salvation. It is often perceived by critics that forgiveness is
not true forgiveness if a person’s life is subject to review. “Taken at face
value,” one critic asserts, “the investigative judgment robs a person of
(Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2012), 40. While strongly affirming historicism, Ranko Stefanovic,
Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2002), 11, writes that “the historicist approach is sometimes problematic be-
cause of the effort to fit every detail of the text into a historical fulfillment. The exposition of
the text for many historicists is based primarily on the allegorical method, rather than on
adequate Old Testament background. Also, the explanation of symbols employed in the books
is often derived from newspaper articles and history books, rather than from the Bible.”
5
LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1950), 17–34; Kenneth Strand, “Two Aspects of Babylon’s Judgment Portrayed in Revelation 18,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Spring 1982): 53–60; Kenneth A. Strand, “Foundational
Principles of Interpretation,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book I, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Dan-
iel and Revelation Committee Series 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992),
3–34; Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism: Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical
Apocalyptic: Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 15–43;
Paulien, “The End of Historicism: Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyp-
tic: Part Two,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17 no. 1 (2006): 180–208; Richard M.
Davidson, “Biblical Principles for Interpreting Apocalyptic Prophecy,” in Prophetic Principles:
Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical, & Practical Insights, ed. Ron du Preez (Lansing: MI:
Michigan Conference, 2007), 52–55; and Stefanovic, 10–12.
6
Gladson, 116.
7
Raymond F. Cottrell, quoted in Gladson, 115.
8
Maxwell, 119–157; Jan Paulsen, “Sanctuary and Judgment,” in Symposium on Revelation: Book 2,
ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 7 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992), 275–294; Marvin Moore, The Case for the Investigative Judgment: Its
Biblical Foundation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2010).
any real assurance about personal standing with God.”9 Writers such as
Jiří Moskala, Richard Davidson, Woodrow Whidden, and Gordon Kainer
address this objection.10
Fourth, critics assert that the investigative judgment doctrine
“jeopardizes the Biblical teaching that we are saved by grace alone.”11
A careful and unbiased reading of Ellen G. White’s Steps to Christ,12
Faith and Works,13 and other writings on justification by faith14 should
dispel the mistaken notion that Adventists believe in salvation by works.
The meaning of the phrase “grace alone” and how it can be interpreted
according to different theological paradigms will be addressed in the
final part of this study.
Finally, critics argue that the doctrine of the investigative judgment
is theologically redundant and should be discarded. The only purpose
of this “unique theory,” writes Adventist critic Walter Martin, is “to
discipline Christians by the threat of impending judgment and condem-
nation upon those whose cases are decided upon unfavorably by our
Lord.”15 The doctrine, Martin asserts, “cannot be substantiated by ex-
egesis but rest[s] largely upon inference and deduction drawn from
theological applications of their own design.”16 Adventists, he suggests,
“needlessly subscribe to a doctrine that neither solves their difficulties
9
Gladson, 94; cf. Anthony A. Hoekema, Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1974), 80.
10
Jiří Moskala, “Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment: A Celebration of the Cross in
Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a Theocentric-Christocentric
Approach),” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 15, no. 1 (2004): 152–155; Moskala, “The
Gospel According to God’s Judgment: Judgment as Salvation,” Journal of the Adventist Theologi-
cal Society 22, no. 1 (2011): 28–49; Richard Davidson, “Assurance in the Judgment,” in Salvation:
Contours of Adventist Soteriology, ed. Martin Hanna, Darius Jankiewicz, and John Reeve (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018), 395–416; Woodrow Whidden II, The Judgment
and Assurance: The Dynamics of Personal Salvation (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2012);
and Gordon Kainer, Judgment: Great News or Dreaded Dilemma? (self-pub., 2014).
11
Hoekema, 84.
12
Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1956).
13
Ellen G. White, Faith and Works (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1979).
14
Ellen G. White, “Justification by Faith,” in Selected Messages, vol. 1 (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 1986), 389–398; cf. A. G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness: A Study of the Prin-
ciples of Righteousness by Faith as Set Forth in the Word of God and the Writings of the Spirit of
Prophecy (Washington, DC: Ministerial Association, 1941).
15
Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Bloomington, MN: Bethany, 1997), 581.
16
Walter Martin, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1960), 176.
nor engenders peace of mind.”17 Martin thus concludes that Advent-

ism would be well served, and perhaps gain greater acceptance among
evangelicals, if the doctrine were discarded. Similar attitudes toward
the doctrine of the investigative judgment may be found even among
evangelical critics sympathetic toward Seventh-day Adventism. This last
objection—that the sola gratia et fides principle makes the investiga-
tive judgment doctrine redundant—is the primary focus of this study.
A perusal of books and online materials critical of the investiga-
tive judgment doctrine reveal similar reasoning and argumentation
repeated over and over again. It would appear that much of the theologi-
cal opposition to the investigative judgment, especially that of former
Adventists, finds its source in Albion Fox Ballenger, an ex-Adventist
minister who died in 1921. His arguments—whether he is mentioned
by name or not—continue to resurface in anti-investigative judgment
polemic, both in print and online.
Thus, in order to understand the contemporary critique of the
investigative judgment doctrine, it is helpful to first explore the theo-
logical context of Ballenger’s critique. This study will begin with a brief
biography of Ballenger. It will then explore traditional Adventist teach-
ings of the investigative judgment in order to flesh out what Ballenger was
most opposed to. This will be followed by an abridged exposition of
Ballenger’s soteriology and his critique of the investigative judgment
doctrine. The study will conclude with a theological analysis of the critique
of the doctrine advanced by Ballenger and his evangelical followers.
A Short Biography of Albion Fox Ballenger
Albion Fox Ballenger (1861–1921) was arguably one of the most im-
portant players in the theological war over the investigative judgment in
Adventist history. While working as a minister in the United Kingdom
in the early 1900s, his Adventist beliefs were challenged by former Ad-
ventist evangelists who had abandoned the faith. He thus decided to study
the doctrine of the atonement and sanctuary for himself, ultimately re-
sulting in his reinterpretation of these teachings.18 A denominational
17
Martin, Kingdom, 587 and Martin, Truth, 218, 227, 236. Donald Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day
Adventists Christians?” Eternity, September 1956, 44, writes about this doctrine of the inves-
tigative judgment: “To me, [it] is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon
in religious history!” Cf. Ruth A. Tucker, Another Gospel, Cults, Alternative Religions, and the
New Age Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 16.
18
Calvin W. Edwards and Gary Land, Seeker After Light: A. F. Ballenger, Adventism, and American
Christianity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000), 77. This book is strongly
inquiry during the 1905 General Conference Session found his teachings
incongruent with Seventh-day Adventist theology, and Ballenger was
asked to refrain from propagating his views. His refusal led to the re-
moval of his ministerial credentials, and his working association with the
Seventh-day Adventist Church ceased.19
In his writings, however, Ballenger continued to argue against the
Adventist positions on the atonement, sanctuary, and investigative judg-
ment, especially while he was editor of the Gathering Call (1913–1921).
In particular, he labeled the investigative judgment doctrine as unbiblical
and anti-gospel.20 After his death in 1921, his brother E. S. Ballenger, also
an ex-Adventist minister, took over the paper and continued Albion’s
quest. It was from his pen that the harshest criticisms of the doctrine of
the investigative judgment were issued.21 Today, Albion Ballenger’s
teachings against the investigative judgment form the foundation upon
which much of the contemporary criticism of the doctrine is built.
In his attempt to undermine the investigative judgment doctrine,
Ballenger had first attempted to reinterpret Adventist teachings on the
atonement. He believed that a reinterpretation of this doctrine would
provide a sound foundation for rejecting the investigative judgment. As
will become evident, however, Ballenger failed in his quest because the
theological meta-paradigm of his choice would not allow for it. What
follows is a description and analysis of Ballenger’s attempt to eliminate
the investigative judgment within the context of his soteriology, as well
as a discussion of the reasons why it was not possible for him to abandon
the doctrine, despite his rhetoric.
recommended for anyone interested in Albion Fox Ballenger and the history of his conflict
with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
19
Ibid., 131–143.
20
Arnold V. Wallenkampf, “A Brief Review of Some of the Internal and External Challenges to
the Seventh-day Adventist Teachings on the Sanctuary and the Atonement,” in The Sanctuary
and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 591, writes, “Ballenger . . . studied and thought
through the SDA teachings on the investigative judgment and decided that [he] could not
find a personally satisfactory biblical foundation for them.” Roy Adams, “The Doctrine of
the Sanctuary in the Seventh-day Adventist Church: Three Approaches” (ThD diss., Andrews
University, 1980), 136, agrees, but correctly observes that Ballenger’s repudiation of the in-
vestigative judgment occurred gradually, as he was developing his interpretation of the
sanctuary doctrine.
21
See Albion’s brother, E. S. Ballenger, Important Facts About the Seventh-day Adventist Creed that
Need Attention (Riverside, CA: Private Press, n.d.), 18, who writes, “The doctrine of the investiga-
tive judgment, is one of the cardinal pillars in the creed of the SDA’s. It is entirely devoid of any
Biblical proof. In fact, it is altogether contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”
In order to understand and evaluate Ballenger’s anti-investigative

judgment position—and thus much of contemporary evangelical criticism
of the doctrine—it is first necessary to define and describe the ideas he
was opposed to. This study thus begins with a brief description of early
Adventist notions of the investigative judgment, particularly those
of Uriah Smith and Ellen G. White, followed by a description of
twentieth-century Adventist understandings of the topic. This will be
followed by an exposition of Ballenger’s teachings on sin, atonement, and
the investigative judgment, all of which ultimately led to his rejection
of Adventism.
A Brief Review of the Seventh-day Adventist

Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment
Uriah Smith
Uriah Smith, a foremost theologian of early Adventism, is often
credited with developing a systematic doctrine of the sanctuary and the
investigative judgment. In his understanding, the investigative judgment
is part of a greater antitypical fulfillment of the sanctuary services of the
Old Testament. The first-apartment ministry in the earthly sanctuary
points to Christ’s work as High Priest on behalf of His people, from His
ascension to 1844. The second-apartment ministry, the typical Day of
Atonement, points to Christ’s work in the Most Holy Place in the heav-
enly sanctuary. According to a prophetic interpretation of Daniel 7 and 8,
this phase of Christ’s ministry began in 1844 and formed the initial
work of the judgment that precedes His second coming.22 Just as the
sanctuary in the Old Testament is cleansed on the Day of Atonement,
in the same way, during the antitypical Day of Atonement, the heavenly
sanctuary is cleansed and the sins of God’s professed people are blotted
out. But according to Smith, in order for this process to be completed,
there must be an examination of the lives of God’s people. “Every in-
dividual of every generation from the beginning of the world, who has
ever become interested in the work of Christ, thus passes in review
before the great tribunal above.”23
Smith’s understanding of this review was based on his interpreta-
tion of what happened on the cross. Rather than being “atonement for
sins,” Christ’s death on the cross was only an “offering for sin.”24 As an
22
Uriah Smith, “The Great Central Subject,” Review and Herald, November 22, 1881, 328.
23
Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus (Chicago, IL: Review and Herald, 1898), 224.
24
Uriah Smith, “The Atonement,” Review and Herald, January 30, 1894, 70.
“offering for sin,” Christ acted for the whole world. In His capacity as
High Priest, however, which began after His ascension to heaven,25 He
acts only for His people.26 As such, it is necessary for God to review
the lives of all His people. If it can be shown that they had maintained
Christian lives, then their sins will be blotted out, their “names . . . retained
in the Lamb’s book of life,” and the Savior will confess “their names to
the Father as those who have accepted of salvation through him.”27
Ellen G. White
Similarly, for Ellen G. White the typical Day of Atonement signi-
fies the closing work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. On the Day of
Atonement, the work of the first apartment ceased and the ministra-
tion of the second apartment began. The High Priest entered the Most
Holy Place in order to present before God the blood of the sin offering
that washed away the sins of those Israelites who had “truly repented
of their sins.”28
In the same way, in the antitypical Day of Atonement, which be-
gan in 1844, Christ began the next phase of His ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary, where He pleads “His blood before the Father in behalf of
sinners.”29 Christ’s ministry in the Most Holy Place signifies the begin-
ning of the examination of the heavenly records of those who claim to be
followers of Christ. When they are “accounted worthy,” the atoning blood
of Christ is applied, their sins are blotted out from the book of life, and
they shall share the kingdom of God.30
Thus, according to White, the work of the investigative judgment
consists of the examination of the life records of only those who claim to
believe in Christ. The judgment of the wicked is “a distinct and separate
25
Uriah Smith, “The Atonement,” 70.
26
Smith, “The Great Central Subject,” 328. Smith, “The Atonement,” 70, writes, “Therefore,
though he bore on the cross the sins of all the world, that is, made a sacrifice which would be
of sufficient merit to cover and cancel all the sins of every person who has ever lived, or is to
live, on this earth, it does not follow that all will be saved; for all will not come to him that they
might have life. . . . But for all who will come to him and seek and accept his pardon, he will
grant it on the strength of his sacrifice, and make atonement for their sins.”
27
Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, 223. Smith, Daniel and Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub-
lishing, 1949), 641–642, compares the closing work of the sanctuary to the examination of the
guests from Jesus’ parable of Matthew 22, “to see who have on the wedding garment.
Consequently, until this work is finished, it is not determined who are ‘ready’ to go in to the
marriage.”
28
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (DeLand, FL: Laymen for Religious Liberty, 1990), 428.
29
White, 429.
30
Ibid., 428, 482.
work, and takes place at a later period.”31 True followers of Christ, how-
ever, whose lives show genuine repentance, have nothing to fear in
judgment because they have Christ as their advocate, pleading their
cases with His blood before God.32 During the twentieth century, the
doctrine of investigative judgment was further refined in publications
such as Questions on Doctrine and the Daniel and Revelation Committee
and Biblical Research Institute Committee Series.
Questions on Doctrine
The book Questions on Doctrine33 was the result of Adventist-
evangelical discussions conducted in the 1950s. This volume represents
the work of several Adventist scholars who desired to present the evan-
gelical world with a clear exposition of Seventh-day Adventist teachings.34
The authors went to extensive lengths to explain some of the more
controversial doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism, including the investi-
gative judgment, and to present them in a positive light.
Questions on Doctrine represents a nuanced shift in Adventist think-
ing in regards to the atonement. In contrast to Uriah Smith’s teachings,35
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is understood as providing complete
atonement for sin, available to the entire human race.36 But His work,
accomplished on Calvary, also involves “the application of the atoning
sacrifice of Christ to the seeking soul. This is provided for in the priest-
ly ministry of our blessed Lord, our great High Priest in the sanctuary
above.”37 It is made clear, however, that Christ’s atoning work on the cross
can only benefit human beings as they surrender their lives to Him and
experience new birth.38
31
White, The Great Controversy, 480. Ibid., 428, finds support for this view in 1 Peter 4:17, where
the apostle asserts that the judgment is to begin “with the family of God.” She also finds support
for the investigative judgment in Jesus’ parable of marriage in Matthew 22.
32
Ibid., 482.
33
Questions on Doctrine (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957).
34
Ibid., 7.
35
The authors are clearly apologetic when they acknowledge that, in the past, some authors “ex-
pressed themselves as indicating that the atonement was not made on the cross of Calvary, but
was made rather by Christ after He entered upon His priestly ministry in heaven” (ibid., 348).
36
In this, the authors of Questions on Doctrine followed Ellen G. White’s lead when she wrote
in Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 29, “Christ’s sacrifice in behalf
of man was full and complete. The condition of the atonement had been fulfilled. The work for
which He had come to this world had been accomplished.”
37
Questions on Doctrine, 347.
38
Ibid., 350.
How does this understanding of the atonement affect the investiga-

tive judgment doctrine? While it is true that humanity is saved by grace
alone, this grace must be manifested in a visible way in the life of a
Christian,39 since “it seems . . . abundantly clear that the acceptance
of Christ at conversion does not seal a person’s destiny.”40 God, through
the work of the investigation of the records, determines “who are truly
His Children.”41 The authors of Questions on Doctrine, however, make
it clear that God, being omniscient, does not need the investigative
judgment. The proceedings of this judgment benefit the inhabitants of
the universe, to whom God’s love, justice, and mercy are vindicated.42
Thus, while the doctrine of the investigative judgment has a slight-
ly adjusted emphasis in Questions on Doctrine as compared to earlier
Adventist writings, it nonetheless still represents a process of examina-
tion of the lives of professed followers of Christ, in order to determine the
sincerity of their profession of faith.
Daniel and Revelation Committee and Biblical Research

Institute Committee
The volumes produced by the Biblical Research Institute and the
Daniel and Revelation Committee43 signify the most recent official Ad-
ventist attempt to address the issues surrounding the doctrine of the
investigative judgment. Following the lead of Questions on Doctrine,
the authors of these volumes seem to accept that complete atonement
was made on the cross.44 This, however, does not do away with the need
for the investigative judgment. As Arnold Wallenkampf explains, the need
for the investigative judgment does not lie in the fact that God’s forgive-
ness is provisional and believers need to be definitively cleared of guilt.
39
Questions on Doctrine, 417.
40
Ibid., 420.
41
Ibid., 422.
42
Ibid., 421.
43
Frank B. Holbrook, ed., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, 7 vols. (Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, 1986–1992).
44
Arnold Wallenkampf, “Challengers to the Doctrine of the Sanctuary,” in Holbrook, Doctrine
of the Sanctuary, 201 n. 17, states, “Today Seventh-day Adventists do teach that complete sacrifi-
cial atonement was made at the cross…Uriah Smith emphatically stated their consensus in his
book Looking Unto Jesus when he wrote that ‘Christ did not make the atonement when He
shed His blood upon the cross. Let this fact be fixed forever in the mind.’ ([Battle Creek, 1898],
237). J. H. Waggoner expresses the same view when he wrote that ‘there is a clear distinction
between the death of Christ and the atonement’ (The Atonement [Battle Creek, MI, 1872], 110).”
Instead, it finds its explanation in the fact that there is a difference be-
tween actual sin and the record of sin. Wallenkampf thus concludes,
The Scriptures do teach that sins can be forgiven although the

record of sin remains. The record of sin is not destroyed at the
time sin is forgiven. Ezekiel apparently has this in mind when
he says: “But when a righteous man turns away from his righ-
teousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable
things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the
righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered…”45
Thus, while the sin is forgiven, the record remains. And in the
case of the relapsed sinner, the guilt is returned to him in full. Accord-
ing to Wallenkampf, the process of the investigative judgment does not,
however, determine a person’s destiny; rather, it serves as a verification
or confirmation of liquidated debts.46 While the role of the judgment is to
vindicate the saints, “the pre-advent heavenly audit will mean condem-
nation to such who once were in Christ Jesus but chose not to remain
in the faith relationship.”47 There is a need, therefore, to review the lives
of the people of God, and to vindicate those who are true followers of
God. In this way, the investigative judgment will also “vindicate and for-
ever establish both God’s justice and mercy” before the entire universe.48
This brief review shows that while the doctrine of investigative judg-
ment was refined over time, a common thread remained—namely, that
just prior to the second coming of Christ, a review of the lives of
God’s people is necessary. It is this point—the review of the lives of be-
lievers—that became a bone of contention for Ballenger. Such a review,
he argues, is unbiblical and anti-gospel.
To understand the depth of Ballenger’s opposition toward the inves-
tigative judgment doctrine, we must examine his understanding of the
fall, the atonement, and the role of personal choice in the process of
salvation.49
45
Wallenkampf, “A Brief Review,” 598.
46
Ibid., 597.
47
Ibid.
48
Wallenkampf, “A Brief Review,” 598–599.
49
It must be remembered, however, that Ballenger’s writings constitute a response to Adventist
teachings on the sanctuary and the atonement as outlined in the writings of Uriah Smith.
Sin and Atonement in the Writings of Ballenger
Sin and Its Results

God created Adam as a perfect being who was free to choose to
follow God or to reject Him. Confronted by Satan, Adam made a conscious
decision to disobey God’s law. This decision had immediate consequenc-
es. By his disobedience, Adam became alienated from God, and thus
subject to death. As a result of his sin, Adam, in whom all humanity was
present, gave rise to a race of sinners, who inherited his sinful tenden-
cies and continued to be alienated from God.50 This alienation meant that,
from that point on, human beings were not capable of choosing righ-
teousness and life for themselves. But while the whole of humankind was
present in Adam, and while a sinful nature was passed on through the
laws of heredity, Adam’s posterity was not responsible for sin. Ballenger
thus writes,
The children of Adam did not make themselves sinners. I did

not make myself a sinner. Adam made me a sinner, and I have
sinned because I was born a sinner. My sins did not make me a
sinner. Crab-apples on a crab-apple tree do not make the tree a
crab-apple. . . . It bore crab-apples because it was a crab-apple
tree. So your sins did not make you a sinner, but you sinned
because you were born [a] sinner.51
Your sinning did not make you a sinner. Reader, you sinned be-
cause you were born a sinner. . . . We were sinners before we
sinned. We were sinners because we were born of sinful seed,
because we sprang from the root of Adam.52
These statements indicate that Ballenger embraces a broad view of

sin. Accordingly, sin is not limited to just disobedience, but extended to
the state into which humans are born. While such a position per se is not
biblically incorrect,53 Ballenger uses it as a platform to develop a novel
understanding of the atonement, intended to sound a death knell to the
doctrine of the investigative judgment.
50
A. F. Ballenger, “Not Under the Law but Under the Grace,” Gathering Call, February 1917, 2.
51
A. F. Ballenger, The Proclamation of Liberty and the Unpardonable Sin (Riverside, CA: self-pub.,
1915), 57.
52
Ibid., 158.
53
For an in-depth discussion on sin and its nature, see Hanna, Jankiewicz, and Reeve, 91–171.
The Atonement
The fall of Adam was the point where God, who loved the world
and saw the hopelessness of humanity, decided to intervene and offer the
world the gift of righteousness and life, which was “as free to the human
race as Adam’s gift of carnality and death had been.”54 Thus, according
to Ballenger, at the moment of Adam’s fall, in order to rescue the human
race from death, God appointed Jesus Christ as the sin-bearer, who was
to suffer the penalty for sin and, through His death, reconcile the world
to Himself.
Through His death, Christ atoned for the sin of humanity, paid the
penalty required by the law, and redeemed all humankind from the curse
of the law.55 The words of Christ on the cross—“It is finished!”—signified
the completed, once-for-all atonement. The proof for this claim is found,
according to Ballenger, in the fact that God raised His Son from the
dead and set Him at His right hand, thus accepting His death as an
atonement for the sins of those for whom He died, which included the
whole world.56 The immediate, subjective result of the death of Christ
on the cross was that God reconciled all humanity to Himself.57 Through
this single act of Christ, God “had reached down and put his arms
around the fallen world, and lifted it right back up to the place where it
was before it fell off the platform of the garden of Eden.”58 In this way,
through His death, Christ “created a new race of righteous men.”59
The essential element of this transaction, in Ballenger’s theology, is
that just as Adam’s posterity had no choice regarding Adam’s choice to
disobey the law of God, in the same way all human beings are saved by
Jesus Christ without their knowledge or consent. For Ballenger, the fact
that unbelieving sinners do not feel or act saved does not change the fact
that they are saved, “according to [God’s] own purpose and grace which
was given . . . in Christ Jesus before the world began.”60 Thus, in Ballenger’s
understanding, there is no human involvement in the process of salvation.
54
Ballenger, Proclamation of Liberty, 38.
55
A. F. Ballenger, “The Justice and Mercy of Substitution: To What was the Substitution Price
Paid?” Gathering Call, January 1919, 3.
56
A. F. Ballenger, “Universal Atonement and the Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences,” Gathering
Call, June 1916, 2.
57
A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” Gathering Call, June 1916, 4.
58
A. F. Ballenger, “The Nine Theses,” 1905, Document File 178, Center for Adventist Research,
Andrews University. See also A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” Gathering Call, April 1914, 8.
59
60
Ibid., 34.
Personal Choice and the Unpardonable Sin

The fact that human beings are saved, however, does not neces-
sarily mean that all people, with or without their consent, will go to
heaven. For Ballenger, while the death of Christ places every human
being “back on the pier of life, and innocency before the law,” it only
assures that, in God’s eyes, humanity stands “where they stood in Adam
before Adam pushed them off into sin and death.”61 As a result, every
person is faced with the same choice Adam had. In other words, it is up
to the individual whether they choose to go “higher into eternal life or
lower into the second death.”62 Ballenger writes, “Individual salvation
depends upon individual appropriation by faith of that universal atone-
ment, and on the additional acceptance of the life of Christ to be the
life of the individual to save him from continuing in sin.”63 According to
Ballenger, the reason why all human beings are placed in the position
where they have to make this choice is to transfer the responsibility for
personal salvation from God to the individual. This is necessary so that
no human or heavenly being can blame God for the eventual annihilation
of those who refused the offer of salvation extended to them.64
On this basis, Ballenger developed the idea that there are two types
of salvation:
There is a general or ‘common salvation’ which includes all men,

and there is a special salvation for those who believe. The general
salvation will avail nothing to the man who refuses to believe. Why
not believe the general salvation and thereby experience [sic] the
special salvation?65
Thus, while it seems that the “general salvation” was provided on the
cross, “the special salvation” depends on human choice.66
The essential part of Ballenger’s understanding of the atonement
and human salvation is that, in his theology, a choice to reject salva-
tion constitutes the unpardonable sin—that is, sin for which there is no
61
A. F. Ballenger, “The Triumph of the Truth,” Gathering Call, January 1916, 5.
62
Ibid.
63
A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” Gathering Call, October 1917, 5 and A. F. Ballenger, “How
and When Were Sins Transferred to Christ,” Gathering Call, December 1918, 2.
64
65
A. F. Ballenger, “Why Salvation is Free?,” Gathering Call, May 1919, 1.
66
Ibid.
atonement.67 Christ’s death on the cross atoned for all sin that was the
result of humans’ sinful nature, as well as of ignorance; however, His
death did not atone for the sin of rejecting God’s grace. If it had, it would
be impossible, according to Ballenger, to “make an end of sin,” which
was part of Christ’s mission. Ballenger notes that
if such sinning were included in the sacrifice of Christ, wicked

men and angels could take advantage of this fact to continue
their deliberate, defiant campaign against God and His peo-
ple throughout all eternity. No, there is no sacrifice for such
sinning, nor could there be without making Christ the perpetu-
ator of sin.68
Having paid the price, Christ waits for humanity to make the choice
to accept the gift of grace extended to them.69 But does this mean there
is no place for Christian living or good works in Ballenger’s teachings?
On the contrary, Christ’s death on the cross provides humanity with
two free gifts. When human beings accept the gift of salvation, they are
immediately forgiven for the sin they committed and will commit in
ignorance, and also for sin that is the result of their sinful human na-
ture.70 But as they grow in Christ, He endows them with “another gift of
His grace”—the ability to overcome their sinful nature, to stop sin-
ning and to replace sin with “good works.”71 But, as Ballenger notes,
these “good works are the fruits of salvation, not the foundation. As the
foundation of salvation, God regards them as filthy rags. As the fruit
of salvation they are a glory to God.”72 If this visible change does not
happen, however, this indicates that the individual failed to “fulfill the
righteousness of the law in his life,” and thus had committed the unpar-
donable sin.73 When human beings make this choice, they endorse those
sins that were committed as a result of their carnal nature, thereby reen-
acting them “in mind and heart,” and incurring their guilt.74 As a result,
67
68
Ibid., 118.
69
Ballenger, “How and When Were Sins Transferred to Christ,” 2.
70
71
Ballenger, “Why Salvation is Free?” 2.
72
Ibid.
73
A. F. Ballenger, “Last Day Lawlessness,” Gathering Call, September 1920, 1.
74
the benefits of the atonement are removed from them and they are con-
demned to eternal damnation.75
Ballenger’s Rejection of the Investigative Judgment
The above overview of Ballenger’s soteriology helps us understand

why he felt so uncomfortable with the doctrine of the investigative judg-
ment and why he ultimately rejected it. His first and foremost concern
regarding the Adventist understanding of the investigative judgment
was that it suggested salvation to be “dependent on what man ha[d]
done for God instead of what God ha[d] done for man,”76 a point often
repeated in evangelical criticisms of the doctrine: through His atone-
ment, God saved the entire human race; there is nothing to review. For
Ballenger, the suggestion that salvation depends, in some way, upon
human action, signifies a return to biblical pharisaism, and thus to the
destruction of the essence of the gospel.77 In his understanding of the
atonement, Ballenger is clearly in polemical disagreement with Smith,
who believes that the benefits of the atonement are granted to those
whose lives show their allegiance to God. Smith’s view, Ballenger argues,
makes the offering “individual and dependent upon an investigative
judgment, instead of general, ‘once offered’ on behalf of all.”78
Second, Ballenger claims that a review of the lives of believers and
a final appropriation of Christ’s sacrifice just before His second coming
suggests that His sacrifice for sin was incomplete, imperfect, and condi-
tional.79 As such, it has to be continued and completed through the lives
of millions of Christians throughout the centuries, from the cross to the
end of the world.80 This, according to Ballenger, is clearly against the teach-
ings of the New Testament, such as Hebrews 10:10–14, 17–18.81 He argues,
75
76
Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” October 1917, 5. See also A. F. Ballenger, An Examination of Forty
Fatal Errors (Riverside, CA: self-pub., 1907), 52–23.
77
Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” April 1914, 6.
78
A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” Gathering Call, August 1917, 6.
79
A. F. Ballenger, “Was Paul Crucified for You,” Gathering Call, May 1917, 2.
80
Ballenger, “Was Paul Crucified for You,” May 1917, 2.
81
“And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again
he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered
for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time
he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect
forever those who are being made holy” (Heb 10:10–14, NIV). “Then he adds: ‘Their sins and
Was the sacrifice of Christ complete? Or was it partial and incom-

plete and must be completed by the sacrifices of men? Are the
sacrificing lives of all Christian men and women a necessary part
of Christ’s sacrifice without which His sacrifice is incomplete?
Was the sacrifice of Christ so lacking that it has required the lives
of all Christian men and women of the past, and will require
the lives of all Christians of the future to complete that sacrifice? . . .
Most of our readers will wonder why such questions are asked.
The reason lies in the fact that there is a persistent effort be-
ing put forth to persuade the cast-out companies that Christ’s
sacrifice for sin was incomplete, and that during all the centuries
Christ has been working through men to complete that sacrifice,
and will continue to work to complete it until the end of time.82
Third, Ballenger believes that the investigative judgment—that is, a

review of human choices—invokes fear and thus adversely impacts
Christian assurance, as the sinner faces the investigative judgment un-
sure of His status before God.83 In contrast, Ballenger believes that the
completed work of Christ on the cross ensures salvation the moment a
sinner believes, providing full assurance that Christ’s sacrifice was
sufficient.84
Fourth, Ballenger declares that the investigative judgment doctrine
has no support in Scripture. In his opinion, the first angel’s message,
one of the passages in which Adventists find support for the investigative
judgment, is the announcement of the “judgment of God in general”—that
lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is
no longer necessary” (Heb 10:17–18, NIV).
82
Ballenger, “Was Paul Crucified for You,” 2.
83
Ballenger, The Proclamation of Liberty, 127. A. F. Ballenger, The First Angel’s Message or the
Investigative Judgment, pamphlet, n. d., Ballenger’s Collection, Center for Adventist Research,
Andrews University, 36, writes, “The gospel is the good news of salvation from sin thru [sic]
faith in the redeeming merits of Christ. Everyone who knows and accepts the gospel has the
assurance that he is ‘accepted in the Beloved:’ he knows that he has salvation. How can one
enjoy the good news so long as he must wait till God examines the books to see whether he
is worthy of salvation? If God does not know who are to be saved till He examines the book,
then certainly none of His children can know it till after the IJ [sic] makes its reports.” Since
this pamphlet is not dated, there is no certainty that it was written or endorsed by A. F.
Ballenger. Although the Adventist Heritage Center estimates its publishing date to the late teens
of this century, it could have been published after his death (1921), when the Gathering Call
was under the editorship of his brother, E. S. Ballenger. Since the ideas contained in this
pamphlet are congruent with the overall thrust of Ballenger’s teachings, however, the
information presented there will be used sparingly throughout this paper.
84
is, on the persecutors of His people—rather than a pronouncement of

the investigative judgment.85 Thus, Ballenger states,
Notice that the souls under the altar are not begging the Lord
to start an investigation to see whether an atonement should be
made at the mercy-seat to silence the claims of a broken law for
their death as transgressors of that law; but they are crying to
God with a loud voice petitioning Him to “judge.” . . . By this
time the reader must be deeply impressed with the truth that the
announcement that the hour of God’s judgment is come, is
indeed “eternal good tidings,” and it is good tidings because it
announces the destructive judgments of God upon the persecu-
tors of His saints and their eternal deliverance thereby.86
A detailed study of certain portions of the book of Revelation con-

vinced Ballenger that this judgment—which is declarative rather
than investigative in nature—is still in the future.87 Thus, he finds no
Scriptural support for the claim that God needed to review the lives of
His people or that the process began in 1844.88 Finding no scriptural
foundation for the investigative judgment doctrine, Ballenger declares
it the product of human imagination. He suggests it found its way into
Adventist theology in order to explain the delay of Christ’s coming after
the disappointment of 1844. As time dragged on and Christ failed to
appear, Adventists invented the theory that, before Christ could re-
turn, He must first investigate the records of sinners’ lives, in order to
determine who was worthy of redemption.89
In summary, Ballenger’s theology of atonement is a reaction to the
Seventh-day Adventist understanding of atonement at that time, and
particularly to the writings of Uriah Smith. In his attempt to redefine
the doctrine of the atonement, Ballenger rejects the investigative judg-
ment doctrine, which, according to him, undermines the essence of the
85
A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” Gathering Call, November 1915, 8. See also A. F. Ballenger,
“Before Armageddon,” Gathering Call, May 1916, 1.
86
A. F. Ballenger, Before Armageddon (Riverside, CA: self-pub., 1918), 120–121.
87
Ballenger, Before Armageddon, 122–123.
88
Curiously, Ballenger does not do away with 1844. For him, the date signifies the cleansing of
the sanctuary from the sin that had not been atoned for by Christ’s death, including the sin
of Satan and the sin of those who choose to reject God’s grace. See A. F. Ballenger, Cast Out
for the Cross of Christ (Tropico, CA: Private Press, 1909), 76. See also Ballenger, “Notes by the
Way,” April 1914, 6.
89
A. F. Ballenger, “The Atonement,” Gathering Call, October 1916, 3.
gospel by introducing a human element into the doctrine of the atone-

ment. He argues that the official Adventist soteriology of his time
makes the atonement dependent upon human beings rather than on the
atoning death of Christ on the cross, which in turn resulted in a lack of
Christian assurance.
Thus, Ballenger outlines a revised soteriology, where humans are saved
on the basis of a completed atonement provided by Jesus Christ on the
cross, without any human consent or cooperation. Thus, no review of hu-
man life is necessary, as humans’ only role is to accept what Christ accom-
plished for them. Despite later Adventist attempts to fine-tune the doc-
trine, particularly in Questions on Doctrine and the work of the Biblical
Research Institute, Ballenger would most certainly have continued to op-
pose the investigative judgment doctrine, as all further refinements contin-
ued to involve a review of believers’ lives.
A Failed Quest: Indomitability of the Doctrine

of the Investigative Judgment
Accordingly, it is to be expected that Ballenger, a harsh critic of
Adventist teachings, would distance himself from the investigative judg-
ment doctrine, as well as the language associated with it. Thus, one
can search in vain for any reference to the investigative judgment or
language associated with it in his soteriology. Despite his best efforts,
however, Ballenger was unable to expunge it from his theology concep-
tually. While it may not seem so to the unprepared reader, the concept
of a review is still intrinsically present in his theology.
The clearest evidence of the concept of a review of God’s people
is found in Ballenger’s parable “Not Under Law but Under Grace.”90
For Ballenger, this parable demonstrates a true biblical understand-
ing of the atonement. In the parable, the Governor General of a British
colony, a man of great wealth and benevolence, is about to show his
mercy and grant pardon to a criminal who has been sentenced to death.
The Governor decides to redeem this criminal’s life and adopt him as a
son, even though it would cost him his entire fortune. The judge, “a
man of irreproachable character” who is a friend of the Governor’s and
who has just sentenced the criminal, objects to the Governor’s decision.
The Governor argues that, because of his surroundings, the criminal
did not have the opportunity to choose another type of life, stating, “It
90
Ballenger, Proclamation of Liberty, 50–55, 144–148. Ballenger also printed this parable in several
articles in Gathering Call, and eventually published it through the International Tract Society
as Not Under Law but Under Grace (London: International Tract Society, n. d.).
is my purpose to instruct him in a better life and lead him to forsake

his lawless career.”
The judge objects because he believes the criminal will be on the
streets committing crimes as soon as he is released. He argues, “It will be
useless to pay the price of his life now, for the simple reason that the crimes
he will commit will bring him back under the law almost immediately.”
The Governor admits this is a possibility, but his counterargument is
that he is placing his entire fortune to pay not just for the criminal’s
past crimes, but also for his future ones, which he assumes the criminal
will commit “in his ignorance and weakness.” This action, he claims, does
not make the law void, but rather “establishes” it. With this deposit of
grace, the criminal will never come under the law again.
Furthermore, the Governor believes his efforts will reform the
criminal and he will become a law-abiding citizen. “But in order to
accomplish this, he must be delivered from the law, and kept free,” other-
wise the death sentence, demanded by the law, will have to be enforced.
The judge throws out one more objection: what if the criminal, who will
certainly accept the Governor’s grace, takes advantage of his newfound
freedom from the law and continues to commit his crimes? Should he
be allowed to continue his lifestyle without any repercussions? The
Governor’s response to this question is intriguing because it reveals
the conditionality of forgiveness, thus necessitating a review of the crimi-
nal’s life:
If he transgresses the law willfully after he has come to the

knowledge of the truth . . . there will remain no part of my sac-
rificing deposit for him . . . if he tramples upon my sacrifice for
him; if he comes to count the giving of my fortune as something
given that he may continue in law-breaking; if he thus delib-
erately does despite to the spirit of grace shown him, then there
remains no deposit of grace for him. Then he must fall into
the hands of the civil authority, and will be deserving of sorer
punishment than if he had never known of my abundance.91
These statements clearly reveal two phases of judgment: the if and

the then phase. First, the sinner’s life must be examined to determine if
his/her life is congruent with the grace given to him/her. Once this pro-
cess is completed, then the sentence will be pronounced. Thus, even
though grace is given to all humanity and all humanity is saved from
91
Ballenger, Proclamation of Liberty, 55, emphasis supplied.
the penalty of the law, the life of the sinner after his/her conversion plays
a definite role, as an indicator of his/her sincerity.92 Accordingly, it appears
that God must review the lives of those who claim to be Christians, in
order to determine the validity of their claims to salvation.93
This process of if and then appears to find support in Ballenger’s
other writings, where he suggests that if believers continue to abuse God’s
grace, then Christ’s sacrifice becomes ineffective. In one article he states,
If God’s deposit of grace on behalf of the transgressor of His law

does no more than perpetuate the lawless life of the transgressor,
it will have been made in vain . . . it will have served to reveal
the mercy and love of God . . . but it will have been spent in vain so
far as the sinner is concerned.94
Elsewhere, Ballenger writes that if the sinner refuses to “afflict his

soul” through repentance, “receive the atonement,” and show that his life
is in agreement with God’s law, he will be “cut off,” the benefits of the
atonement will be removed, and the sinner will continue to live in a state
of total separation from Christ.95 A legitimate question at this point is:
What process does God use to determine if His “deposit of grace” has
been spent “in vain?” How does He know whether the person who
professes to accept His grace is to be redeemed or “cut off ”?
Ballenger does not provide his readers with answers to these ques-
tions, but his soteriology—according to which “it is possible for man, by
rejecting grace, to commit sins for which Christ did not substitute, whose
penalty Christ did not pay in His death, and which can only be paid
in the death of the sinner himself ”96—appears to require a review of
believers’ lives. Although investigative judgment terminology is absent
from Ballenger’s writings, it manifests itself through his if and then ter-
minology. Through their life choices—the “human element” so reviled by
Ballenger—human beings either accept the provisions of the atonement
or reject them.
92
A. F. Ballenger’s brother E. S. Ballenger, “Why Salvation is Free?” Gathering Call, March 1930,
1, agrees with this conclusion: “Then are there no good works connected with salvation? Yes,
plenty of them. And if good works do not appear, man’s claim to salvation is a fraud.” E. S.
Ballenger’s theology is virtually the same as that of his brother in this regard.
93
Ballenger, Forty Fatal Errors, 104.
94
Ballenger, “Not Under Law but Under Grace,” 2.
95
Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” April 1914, 7.
96
A. F. Ballenger, “Extracts from a Letter,” Gathering Call, October 1914, 5.
This raises an important question: How could a critic of the investiga-

tive judgment doctrine, particularly the concept of a review of believers’
lives, ultimately make it part of his theology? What inclined him to re-
tain the element of Adventist doctrine he was so vehemently opposed to?
A broader understanding of Protestant soteriology can aid in answering
this question.
The Theological Necessity of the Investigative Judgment:

Theological Analysis
Seventh-day Adventists have always regarded themselves as chil-
dren of the sixteenth-century Reformation, and have seen the Protestant
faith, enshrined in the Reformation slogans sola gratia, sola fide, and
soli Deo gloria as an antidote to the Catholic merit-oriented soteriol-
ogy. These slogans express the idea that the salvation of humanity is
accomplished by God’s grace and must be accepted by faith. The last
phrase, soli Deo Gloria, expresses the conviction that God alone is
responsible for the salvation of humanity, and that saved humans
cannot claim credit for being saved. All biblically oriented and theo-
logically informed Protestants, including Seventh-day Adventists, affirm
these basic truths.
What is not often known and acknowledged, however, is that the
Protestant faith, which embraces these slogans, is expressed accord-
ing to two diametrically opposed theological meta-paradigms known
as monergism and synergism. This is in contrast to Roman Catholic
soteriology, which has always been synergistic.97
For all believers, a synergistic paradigm is easier to embrace, as it
more closely correlates with human experience, including upbringing,
education, and various cultural experiences. These experiences, in turn,
exert a powerful leverage on a believer’s soteriology.98 Thus, a synergistic
paradigm of salvation is highly intuitive. This is not so with a monergistic
paradigm. Monergism has its roots in a narrow interpretation of certain
biblical passages, leading to a paradigm according to which all reality,
97
Individual Catholic thinkers, such as Augustine, have at times embraced monergism; however,
monergism has never gained acceptance on the official level. This is mainly because Catholi-
cism embraced a synergistic soteriology and enmeshed it with ecclesiology, prior to the rise of
monergism during the fifth century. For details, see Darius Jankiewicz, “Vestiges of Roman
Catholicism in Sixteenth Century Protestant Reformational Ecclesiology: A Study of Early
Lutheran, Reformed, and Radical Ecclesiology,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 54 (2016):
103–108.
98
Much of human experience is based on a punishment-reward system.
including salvation, is explained. Thus, in contrast to synergism, mo-

nergism is highly counterintuitive. While believers tend to naturally
operate within a synergistic paradigm, a monergistic paradigm requires
believers to be much more intentional.
Understanding these two meta-paradigms and how they function
within Protestantism is crucial, as it impacts the meaning of sola gratia,
sola fide, and soli Deo gloria. In other words, when synergists and mo-
nergists utter these slogans, they do not mean the same thing. It is thus
insufficient to affirm the Protestant faith expressed in these slogans;
it is also important to understand the soteriological meta-paradigm
within which this faith is expressed. Understanding this will make
sense of the dilemma faced by Ballenger, as well as many other Adven-
tist critics of the investigative judgment doctrine. We will begin with
Protestant monergism.
Monergism99
Within the Protestant context, monergism (Gk. mon, “one” and érg[on],
“work”) is a soteriological paradigm where God alone is responsible for
the salvation of humanity. Any form of human input, including free will,
is precluded. Protestant monergism almost always manifests itself in e
ither universalism or double predestinarianism.100
Protestant universalism, a less-known outgrowth of monergism, is
a theory that has periodically appeared in theology since the sixteenth
99
It is impossible to provide an exhaustive explanation of the history and theology of monergism
and synergism in this short study. Instead, the reader is referred to the following: Michael Horton
and Roger E. Olson, Against Arminianism, Against Calvinism, Enhanced Edition, Two Books in
One (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011); Daniel Kirkpatrick’s recent work published in de-
fense of monergism, Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone?
(Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2018); and Roger Olson’s classic work in defense of synergism, Arminian
Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006).
100
Dale Moody, “Romans,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Acts–1 Corinthians, ed.
Clifton J. Allen (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1970), 221; cf. Roger Olson, The Story of Christian
Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 586. Double predestination repre-
sents the view that God actively elected some to salvation and some to damnation. This is in
supposed contrast to a single predestination view, which asserts that God actively elected
some for salvation and left the reprobate to suffer their natural fate. These views are also called
supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, respectively. See Peter J. Thuesen, Predestination: The
American Career of a Contentious Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 237. As
demonstrated by Darius W. Jankiewicz, “Predestination and Justification by Faith: Was Luther
Calvinist?” in Here We Stand: Luther, the Reformation, and Seventh-day Adventism, ed. Michael
W. Campbell and Nikolaus Satelmajer (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2017), 42–56; however, there
are no significant differences between these two views.
century.101 Although it has several variations, the basic thrust of the theory
is that God’s plan is to restore all humans, regardless of their choices,
into relationship with Him. This was the original purpose for which
humanity was created.102 Because universalism raises critical questions
about God’s character, particularly His justice, and about human moral-
ity and responsibility, few Protestant thinkers have embraced this view.103
A far more well-known and widely embraced version of monergism
is Protestant double predestinarianism (from this point on, this study
will use the term “monergism” only in reference to double predestinari-
anism). This version of monergism affirms that in eternity past God
decreed who would be saved and who would be lost. This decision is
irrevocable and unconditional. Humanity plays no role in the process
of salvation and individuals have no way of affecting or changing this
divine decision. Freedom of will regarding spiritual matters is denied.
Those who are predestined to be lost—that is, the reprobate—do not
experience the genuine wooing of the Holy Spirit toward repentance
and conversion. Those who are predestined for salvation will, solely
by the grace of God, experience conversion and become Christians.
Decreed by God in eternity past, salvation cannot be lost; thus the
phrase “once saved always saved.”
Obviously, this position has serious implications on the Protestant
belief of justification by faith, with the slogans sola gratia, sola fide, and
soli Deo gloria having specific meanings. Sola, in all three phrases, in-
dicates that God is in complete control of the process of salvation, and
human free will is excluded. Gratia is understood as a gift from God
that precludes the possibility of rejecting it; in other words, grace is
irresistible. In monergistic literature this is sometimes referred to as
a “strong” or “total” theology of grace.104 Faith, in sola fide, is viewed as
passive—that is, human faith does not have any influence upon God’s
101
While it claims a venerable pedigree—finding its earliest Christian expression in the work of
Clement of Alexandria and Origen (apokatastasis)—and while it provides its proponents with
indubitable assurance of salvation, universalism clearly departs from the biblical witness and
thus has never been part of mainline Christian or Adventist thought. Some scholars, however,
disagree; the most famous Protestant theologian who seemed to have embraced universalism is
Karl Barth. See Olson, Story of Christian Theology, 586.
102
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 891, 1015.
103
For a theological critique of universalism, see Todd Miles, A God of Many Understandings
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman , 2010), 95–120. See also G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of
Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 387–423.
104
C. Matthew McMahon, Augustine’s Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine’s Writings
(Coconut Creek, FL: Puritan, 2012), 32; cf. Steve Urick, Calvinism v. Arminianism (Bloomington,
IN: AuthorHouse, 2014), 112.
decision. This belief flows from the conviction that the fall damaged
Adam and his posterity so completely that they are unable to re-
spond to God’s offer of salvation. Thus salvation becomes God’s work
alone—through election—with no human input. Only predestined
individuals receive the gift of faith from God, and predestined indi-
viduals simply accept that they are justified by faith—that their faith is
in no way instrumental in their salvation. Within the monergistic
paradigm, therefore, the phrase “justification by faith” does not mean
that the person chooses, by faith, to accept God’s offer of salvation;
rather, it means that an individual simply accepts the decision God
made in eternity past. Accordingly, sola fide is basically reduced to the
“aha” moment when the elect believer recognizes what has already been
accomplished. For many monergists, introducing any human element
into the process of salvation, including faith based on free human choice,
implies a return to Catholic synergism.105
It goes without saying that the main purpose of monergism is
to provide complete assurance of salvation by removing the “human
element”—including choice— from the process of salvation. If a per-
son has faith—a gift from God—it means that they are saved. Their lives
will certainly not be subject to review. It is for this reason that monergistic
rhetoric may be attractive to Christians who feel burdened by legalism.
It is historically documented that Reformers such as Jan Huss
(1371–1415),106 John Wyclif (ca. 1320–1384),107 and all the Magisterial
Reformers—namely, Martin Luther (1483–1546), John Calvin (1509–
1564), and Urlich Zwingli (1484–1531)—embraced a monergistic form
of Christianity.108 In their reaction against the Catholic emphasis on
105
Jankiewicz, “Predestination and Justification by Faith,” 50.
106
Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia (London: I. B.
Tauris, 2010), 42.
107
Harry Buis, Historic Protestantism and Predestination (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1958), 23.
108
While it is well known that both John Calvin and Urlich Zwingli were monergists, it is not
often known that Luther was just as staunchly monergistic as his Reformed colleagues (Buis,
2, 48). Within Adventism, the popular misconception that Luther taught a Pauline version
of justification by faith most likely resulted from the high praise the Reformer received from
Ellen G. White, especially in The Great Controversy. To be sure, the Protestant Reformation
initiated by Luther in 1517 was a major turn away from medieval Catholicism toward a scrip-
tural understanding of justification by faith. This is probably why White lavished Luther
with such high praise. And rightly so! He was, according to her in Testimonies for the Church,
vol. 1 (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1948), 372, “God’s chosen instrument” and raised up
by God “to do a special work.” Luther’s embrace of divine determinism, however, hampered
his complete return to a scriptural understanding of justification by faith. In his desire to move
away from the optimistic anthropology and merit-based view of salvation advocated by the
Christian works as essential for salvation, they adopted Augustinian

monergism. Augustine (AD 354–430) believes that humanity in its to-
tality is a condemned mass (massa damnata) and that the only solution
for the human situation is God’s action in eternity past. This action
provides believers with an ultimate assurance of faith.109 During the
seventeenth century, monergistic Protestant faith found its expres-
sion in the acronym TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election,
Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints).
This is the most prevalent form in which Protestant monergism manifests
itself today.110
Synergism
In contrast to monergism, synergism (Gk. syn, “with” and érg[on],
“work”) is a soteriological paradigm where God and humans cooperate
in the process of salvation. This paradigm has a venerable pedigree,
and has been embraced by the majority of the Christian tradition. A
synergistic approach to salvation offers several important advantages
over monergism: 1) as stated above, it is an intuitive approach to faith;
2) it appears to be more naturally aligned with Scripture than monergism;
3) it is based on a broad, rather than narrow, interpretation of Scripture;
4) it does not require awkward reinterpretation of words such as
Catholicism of his day, Luther embraced the view that advocated God’s extreme sovereignty
to the complete exclusion of human free will. As a result “faith,” in the “justification by faith”
phrase, became a passive acceptance of the election that was accomplished without human
input. Thus, Luther’s journey toward a Pauline understanding of justification by faith was
stopped a few centuries short when he lingered too long in conversation with Augustine. For
Luther on predestination, see Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and
O. R. Johnston (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1957); cf. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 846; Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 388; Thuesen,
Predestination, 28; and Jankiewicz, “Predestination and Justification by Faith,” 42–51. Influenced
by Luther’s successor, Philip Melanchthon, later Lutheranism for the most part rejected predesti-
narian doctrines as incompatible with the gospel.
109
Jairzinho Lopes Pereira, Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther on Original Sin and Justification
of the Sinner (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2013), 147.
110
The five points of Calvinism were defined during the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) in response
to the five points of Arminianism defined in The Remonstrance (1610). For an exposition of
the five points of Arminianism, see Olson, Arminian Theology, 30–39; cf. Freya Sierhuis, The
Literature of the Arminian Controversy: Religion, Politics and the Stage in the Dutch Republic
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 50–51. For a defense of the five points of Calvinism, see
John Piper, Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God’s Grace (Geanies House: Christian
Focus, 2013); and David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of
Calvinism, Defined, Defended, and Documented (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001). For an excellent
critique of the five points, see David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-
Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010).
“whosoever,” “all,” “each,” “everyone,” (Acts 2:21; John 3:16; Titus 2:11;
2 Pet 3:9);111 and 5) finally—its most consequential feature—it stresses
the existence of genuine human free will in matters of salvation. It is
this last characteristic that raises the ire of monergistic theologians.
Unlike monergism, however, synergism suffers a major complication.
Monergism offers a unified approach to salvation: it is either monergism
or it is not. There are no shades of Christian monergism.112 Synergism,
on the other hand, has many shades, resulting in various approaches
to salvation, all of which are under the same synergistic umbrella. Syn-
ergistic approaches to salvation tend to differ from denomination to
denomination. Furthermore, various approaches are often found within
the same denomination. This is also the case with Seventh-day Adventism.
At the extreme end of the Christian synergistic spectrum there is
work-centered synergism, often identified with Pelagianism.113 Pelagianism
views Adam’s sin as having no effect upon his posterity. Humans are
born with the same nature and freedom of will possessed by Adam prior
to the fall. Thus humanity may earn their salvation by their own effort.
A variety of mediating approaches, often labeled as semi-Pelagianism or
semi-Augustinianism, mix faith and works in differing configurations.114
111
Monergistic theologians interpret the “all” in such passages as “all who are elected.” See Jerry
L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2004), 32.
112
Some attempt to speak of degrees of predestination by using the distinction between double
and single predestination, thus introducing degrees of monergism. However, while theoretically
possible, in reality there is no difference between the two views. See Jankiewicz, “Predestination
and Justification by Faith,” 44, 47–48.
113
Pelagianism was both an ascetic movement, which emerged in response to the perceived moral
corruption of the fifth-century Roman clergy, and a theological position. It finds its roots in
the teachings of the British monk Pelagius (ca. AD 360–418), who came to Rome around AD
405. Pelagianism asserts a highly optimistic view of human nature that allows a person to make
the first steps toward salvation without the assistance of God’s grace. It stresses obedience to
God’s commandments as a means of salvation. God, asserted Pelagius, would not ask human
beings for something impossible to achieve. For a more detailed outline of Pelagianism, see
Robert F. Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1968), 22–25.
114
Semi-Pelagianism was a theological position that emerged in the wake of the Pelagian Con-
troversy of the fifth century. During the controversy, two diametrically opposed positions
emerged: Pelagianism, which asserted a hyper-optimistic view of human nature and the be-
lief that individuals could take the first steps toward salvation without the assistance of God’s
grace, and the Augustinian position, advocating extreme anthropological pessimism and the
resultant soteriological determinism. For the most part, however, early medieval theologians
were not willing to commit themselves to either Augustinianism or Pelagianism. Threat-
ened more by Augustine’s determinism, which many of them saw as a theological innova-
tion, they devoted their energy to finding a position that in some ways combined elements
of both soteriologies. The leading proponents of semi-Pelagianism, which had many shades
At the other end of the spectrum there is grace-centered syner-

gism, which fully embraces the Protestant faith expressed in sola gratia et
fides and soli Deo gloria. For grace-centered synergists, the sola of the
slogans always remains just that: sola. This means they believe that God
alone initiates the process of salvation, restores human free will through
His prevenient grace,115 enables good works, oversees the entire process
of salvation through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and crowns it with the
salvation of those who choose to become followers of Christ. All of this is
accomplished solely by God’s grace, and thus grace-centered synergists are
in agreement with the Protestant slogans sola gratia et fides and soli Deo
gloria. Grace-centered Protestant synergism—which I also call “biblical
monosynergism”—finds its roots in the writings of Philip Melanchthon
(1497–1560),116 in some branches of the Radical Reformation, and par-
ticularly in the writings of Jacob Arminius (1560–1609) and his follower
John Wesley (1703–1791).
Monergism, Synergism, Free Will, and the Investigative Judgment

As previously noted, the most significant difference between moner-
gism and synergism is that the latter, in all its forms, embraces the existence
of genuine free will. Pelagianism and various forms of semi-Pelagianism
assert that the fall did not damage humanity in such a way that free will
was lost.117 Grace-centered synergists (or biblical monosynergists) agree
during the post-Augustinian era, were fifth-century theologians John Cassian (ca. AD 360–435),
Vincent of Lérins (d. ca. AD 445), and Faustus of Riez (ca. AD 410–495). During the Council
of Orange (AD 529), semi-Pelagianism was condemned as Catholic soteriology moved closer
to Augustine. Thus, Catholic theologians prefer the term semi-Augustinianism, rather than
semi-Pelagianism. For a detailed description of semi-Pelagianism and the controversies sur-
rounding it, see Rebecca Harden Weaver, Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the
Semi-Pelagian Controversy (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1966).
115
Prevenient grace (literally, “the grace that comes before”), also referred to as enabling grace,
which is the grace that enables human beings to freely respond to God’s offer of salvation. See
Olson, Arminian Theology, 35.
116
Philip Melanchthon initially agreed with Luther’s monergism. This is evident in his earli-
est edition of Loci Communes (Melanchthon’s systematic theology), first published in 1521. In
the 1535 edition of Loci Communes he distances himself from Luther’s monergism. Thus John
Drikamer, “Did Melanchthon Become a Synergist?” The Springfielder 40, no. 2 (1976): 100,
writes, “Melanchthon definitely did became a synergist. In the early days of the Reformation he
taught divine monergism in strong terms. He sided with Luther during the controversy with
Erasmus and his confessional writings taught monergism. By the middle 1530s, however, he
was already leaning heavily in the direction of synergism.
117
The only difference between Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism is that the former affirms that
Adam’s posterity has the same kind of free will as Adam had before the fall, whereas the latter
embraces the position that while the fall weakened human free will, it did not destroy it.
with monergists that the fall did damage humanity in such a way that they
are not able to respond to God’s offer of salvation. Thus, they embrace
the teaching that, regarding spiritual matters, human beings are “totally
depraved”; however, in contrast to monergists, grace-centered syner-
gists believe that God restores human free will through the agency of His
prevenient grace.
It is the existence of human free will that necessitates some sort of
review on the part of the Creator; otherwise, what would be the point of
providing His creatures with free will? Some critics of the Seventh-day
Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment opine that an omniscient
God does not need a lengthy review to know who are His. This is beside
the point. Whether long or short, whether it began in 1844 or not, such
a review is a theological necessity. It is not surprising, therefore, that all
synergistic religions—both Christian and non-Christian—and all syn-
ergistic denominations embrace a form of investigation or review of
the lives of believers. “We shall all,” writes John Wesley in his famous
sermon The Great Assize, “stand before the judgment-seat of Christ . . .
and in that day ‘every one of us shall give account to God.’”118 Wesley
was, of course, a monosynergist.119
This is not the case with monergism. For Christian monergists,
the idea of a review of human lives, which might possibly be linked
with one’s destiny,120 is anathema. The decision of a sovereign, all-knowing
God, made in eternity past, cannot be changed or questioned. Such a
review would diminish God’s glory, diminish the effectiveness of His
grace, and, most importantly, introduce a human element into the pro-
cess of salvation. This is why a great chasm exists between a monergistic
system of belief and those who espouse any form of synergism. While
some may grudgingly acknowledge grace-centered synergism as hetero-
dox (as shown in the next section), anything beyond that is heresy.
118
John Wesley, The Great Assize: A Sermon (London: John Mason, 1829), 6.
119
When writing on Wesley’s eschatology, some Wesleyan scholars, such as Thomas Oden, actually
use the term “investigative judgment.” This terminology is therefore not unique to Adventism.
See Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity: A Plain Exposition of His Teaching
on Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 354. Donald Barnhouse “Are
Seventh-day Adventist Christians?” 43, was thus clearly incorrect when he wrote that the in-
vestigative judgment doctrine has “never been known in theological history until the second
half of the nineteenth century, and which is the doctrine held exclusively by the Seventh-day
Adventists.” The doctrine of the pre-advent, or investigative, judgment has always been
conceptually present in pre-millennial, synergistic Christian soteriology.
120
At least this is how the investigative judgment has often been portrayed in Adventist litera-
ture and sermons.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the strongest arguments against the

investigative judgment doctrine come from monergists. Their arguments,
cleverly disguised as representing the true form of biblical Christianity,
tend to focus on the cross of Christ alone and the absoluteness of Chris-
tian assurance. Supposedly, only a monergistic point of view can pro-
vide a Christian believer with true assurance of salvation. In reality, the
attack on the investigative judgment doctrine is a monergistic attack
against any form of synergism. Being unfamiliar with the dynamics of the
monergism/synergism controversy, the defenders of the investigative judg-
ment doctrine—even those embracing a grace-centered synergism—are
often forced on the defensive. But, for monosynergists, there is nothing to
be defensive about. The eschatological review of believers’ lives is a fact
necessitated by the existence of free will.
While having an overall positive effect upon Adventism, the con-
versations between evangelical and Adventist leaders during the 1950s
illustrate the standoff between monergism and synergism. They also
demonstrate the inability of monergistic scholars to grasp the dynamics
of grace-centered synergism.
A Clash of Meta-Paradigms121
During the early 1950s, East Pennsylvania Conference president T.
E. Unruh listened to a radio series on righteousness by faith in the book
of Romans. The series was presented by Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, a
prominent Presbyterian pastor and an editor of the renowned Eternity
Magazine. Unruh was impressed with Barnhouse’s message and sent a
letter of appreciation. In his reply, Barnhouse expressed surprise that an
Adventist would appreciate his message, since “it was well-known that
Adventists believed in righteousness by works.”122 Thinking he could
clear up some misunderstandings, Unruh mailed a copy of Steps to
Christ to Barnhouse. Barnhouse read the book, published a harsh critique
of it and its author, and ripped it apart on air. Discouraged, Unruh did
not pursue further correspondence.
Unruh may not have become so discouraged had he understood that
Barnhouse was a monergist,123 and thus judged Steps to Christ according
121
The events referred to in this section are described in detail in R. W. Schwarz, Light Bearers
to the Remnant (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1979), 543–545 and George R. Knight, A
Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald), 164–168. The theological analysis that references the monergism/synergism divide,
however, is my own.
122
Barnhouse, quoted in Schwarz, 543.
123
Barnhouse, who died in 1960, was a Calvinist. Calvinism, of course, interprets Scriptural
to the precepts of his soteriological paradigm. Both the title and the
message of the book would have irked him greatly. From the monergistic
perspective, steps to Christ and human free will are impossible.
Barnhouse, however, did not forget his conversation with Unruh,
and sometime later he initiated a series of evangelical-Adventist conver-
sations. These conversations culminated in a controversial statement,
which Barnhouse published in Eternity Magazine. The statement pro-
claimed that while many Adventist beliefs were heterodox, as long as
Adventists held on to the essentials of the Christian faith, such as the
full deity of Christ and the efficacy of His atonement on the cross, they
could be counted as “born-again Christians and truly brethren in Christ.”124
One “heterodox” belief particularly critiqued by Barnhouse and
his colleague Walter Martin—a specialist on American cults—was the
investigative judgment doctrine. Adventists put forth a valiant but ulti-
mately unsuccessful endeavor to convince their evangelical colleagues
of the biblical foundations for the investigative judgment in the 1957
book Questions on Doctrine.125 Three years after the publication of
Questions on Doctrine, Walter Martin, also a monergist, published a
book on Adventism, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.126 While
to a large degree this book was a sympathetic presentation of Seventh-
day Adventism, Martin devoted considerable effort to explain and re-
fute the investigative judgment doctrine. Similarly to Barnhouse’s
critique of Steps to Christ, Martin conducted his critique from a mo-
nergistic perspective, giving little consideration to the foundational
monosynergistic theological framework of Adventism.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Martin dismissed the investiga-
tive judgment doctrine in these words:
Seventh-day Adventists, we believe, needlessly subscribe to

a doctrine which neither solves their difficulties nor engen-
ders peace of mind. Holding as they do to the doctrine of the
investigative judgment, it is extremely difficult for us to un-
derstand how they can experience the joy of salvation and the
knowledge of sins forgiven.127
revelation from a monergistic perspective. See W. C. Ringenberg, “Barnhouse, Donald Grey,” in

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 126.
124
Schwarz, 544 and Knight, 165.
125
See n. 33 in this study, and discussion in the section titled “Questions on Doctrine.”
126
Martin, Truth.
127
Martin, 182–183.
Indeed, for a monergist who believes in the unbridled sovereignty

of God, total grace theology, and the non-existence of human free will,
a review of believers’ lives is a needless exercise. The fate of believers
has already been determined in eternity past. What is there to review?
“For those who believe in ‘eternal security,’” Martin wrote, “there is no
judgment for the penalty of sin.”128 Such a judgment, according to this
view, “diminishes Christ’s work on the cross.”129 This, however, is a
misunderstanding of the Adventist version of synergism.
2 Corinthians 5:10: A Monergistic Version

of the Investigative Judgment
In the light of the previous paragraph, it is important to bear in mind
that Christian monergism does not deny an eschatological review of
human behavior. After all, the apostle Paul writes, “For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may re-
ceive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether
good or bad” (2 Cor 5:10). Compelled by biblical evidence, Christian
monergists recognize that, at the end of time, a review of human lives
must occur. This review, however, follows rather than precedes the second
coming. As Louis Berkhof, a well-known Calvinist theologian, explains,
some regard the final judgment as entirely unnecessary, because

each man’s destiny is [already] determined at the time of his
death. . . . Since the matter is settled, no further judicial inquiry
is necessary, and therefore such a final judgment is quite super-
fluous. But the certainty of the future judgment does not depend
on our conception of its necessity. God clearly teaches us in His
Word that there will be a final judgment, and that settles the
matter for all those who recognize the Bible as the final standard
of faith.130
Thus, it is apparent that monergistic theologians not only accept the

necessity of an eschatological judgment, but also that the notion of in-
vestigation is embedded in the final judgment. Such an investigation has
two objectives: first, to display “before all rational creatures the declarative
glory of God in a formal, forensic act, which magnifies on the one hand
128
Martin, 182, emphasis original.
Richard Kyle, Religious Fringe: A History of Alternative Religions in America (Downers Grove,
129
IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 151.

130
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1941), 731.
His holiness and righteousness, and on the other hand, His grace and
mercy”;131 and second, to review the lives of all human beings.132
An immediate question arises: if the matter of final destiny is
settled by God’s decree in eternity past, what is the reason for the
“investigative” phase of judgment? Monergistic theologians put forth this
ingenuous solution: the purpose of judgment is not to ascertain who
goes to heaven and who goes to hell; this was indeed determined in
eternity past. Instead, the purpose of the “investigative judgment”
—terminology some Calvinist thinkers actually employ133—is to deter-
mine the level of reward or punishment. According to Berkhof, “there will
be different degrees, both of the bliss in heaven and of the punishment
of hell. And these degrees will be determined by what is done in the
flesh.”134 In other words, a review of human life is still necessary. Human
works on earth are still determinative. However, human works do not
determine salvation. Instead, they determine the degree of reward or
punishment. Charles Stanley, a well-known Calvinist theologian and
preacher, puts it this way:
The kingdom of God will not be the same for all believers. Let me
put it another way. Some believers will have rewards for their
earthly faithfulness; others will not. Some believers will be
entrusted with certain privileges; others will not. Some will reign
with Christ; others will not. Some will be rich in the kingdom
of God; others will be poor. . . . Some will be given true riches;
others will not . . . some will be given heavenly treasures of their
own; others will not. . . . Privilege in the kingdom of God is
determined by one’s faithfulness in this life. This truth may
come as a shock. Maybe you have always thought that everyone
would be equal in the kingdom of God. It is true that there will
be equality in terms of our inclusion in the kingdom of God but
not in our rank and privilege.135
131
Berkhof, 731.
132
Ibid., 733.
133
Hoekema, 81, writes, “Here [Matt 25:31–32], indeed, we read about an ‘investigative judg-
ment’—a judgment based on an investigation of the lives of those arraigned before the
throne; but this judgment takes place after Christ has returned in glory.”
134
Berkhof, 733–734.
135
Charles Stanley, Eternal Security (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 125–126, emphasis
original.
Here lies the most significant difference between synergism and

monergism: for the former, the investigative judgment has something
to do with the believer’s salvation and occurs before the second com-
ing; for the latter, it determines rank and privilege in heaven and hell
and occurs after the second coming.136 With this distinction in mind,
Walter Martin writes,
Christians, therefore, need not anticipate any investigative

judgment for their sins. True, we shall ‘all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body’
(II Cor. 5:10), but this has nothing to do with any investigative
judgment. It is judgment for rewards.137
It becomes evident, therefore, that Martin and other monergistic

Christians champion their own version of the investigative judgment
while denying it to the Adventists. Instead, they judge Adventist teach-
ings using a monergistic yardstick. According to this yardstick, no matter
how grace-centered Adventism might be, it will always fall short of the
monergistic view of God’s sovereignty.138 Adventism would have to em-
brace monergism as its undergirding theological meta-paradigm in order
to be considered a genuine expression of biblical Christianity by the mo-
nergistic segment of the evangelical world. Viewed from the perspective
of monergism, the Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary with the investi-
gative judgment makes no sense at all and would have to be abandoned.
Historicism as a method of prophetic interpretation would have to
be discarded, as it is incompatible with the monergistic meta-paradigm.
But all that would come at a great price. Such a move would destroy
not only the overarching Adventist theological framework of the great
controversy, but possibly Adventism itself. From being a prophetic
movement, Adventism would become another Christian denomina-
tion with heterodox beliefs such as the seventh-day Sabbath and condi-
tional immortality. This brings us back to Albion Fox Ballenger and his
criticism of the Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment.
136
For Catholicism the investigation occurs at the time of death (or at the second coming) and
determines the believer’s fitness for heaven.
137
Martin, 178, emphasis supplied.
138
This is exactly the charge that Hoekema, 82, a Calvinist, makes against the Adventist ver-
sion of the investigative judgment. For him, the doctrine is to be rejected because “it violates
Scriptural teaching about the sovereignty of God,” emphasis original.
Ballenger and Monergism
In his criticism of the investigative judgment doctrine, Ballenger

took a page from the monergists’ playbook and judged the doctrine by
the standards of that ideology. The subtle influences of this ideology
become evident in his explanation of the atonement, and the cross of
Christ becomes the singular focus of his attention. Mimicking moner-
gistic Christians, Ballenger argues that the investigative judgment doc-
trine makes the atonement “dependent on what man has done for God
instead of what God has done for man,” thus introducing the human
element into the doctrine of salvation.139 Furthermore, he asserts that
the investigative judgment doctrine diminishes the value of Christ’s
sacrifice on the cross; that it invokes fear in the hearts of believers, thus
adversely impacting Christian assurance; and, finally, that it is not found
in the Bible and thus redundant theologically.
It is thus not surprising that Ballenger opened himself up to the
charge that he had embraced universalistic monergism. His discussions
with church leadership at the 1905 General Conference Session proved
particularly vexing, as he was informed that his teaching undermined
the pillars of Adventism and amounted to heresy.140 He was accused of
promoting universalism, and was forced to vigorously deny this accusa-
tion for the rest of his life. The following incident expresses his frustration
and desire to be understood correctly. At the end of the question time,
he was asked by W. W. Prescott whether he believed that when Christ
paid the penalty on the cross, He freed the whole human family from
death. Ballenger hesitated in answering this question, claiming there
was insufficient time to explain his teachings fully. Finally, pressed, he
answered,
I will say it plainly. I do not believe that any man will ever groan
under the same guilt under which Christ groaned on Calvary;
but that men will groan because they reject so great salvation.
“Of how much sorer punishment think ye he shall be thought
worthy who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God?” I know
that now I will be charged with teaching Universalism; but this is
not universalism [sic].141
139
Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” October 1917, 5; Ballenger, Forty Fatal Errors, 52–23.
140
The reader is referred to Edwards and Land’s meticulously researched volume Seeker After
Light (n. 18 in this study) for a complete account of Ballenger’s conflict with the church.
141
A. F. Ballenger, “Statement,” May 22, 1905, Center for Adventist Research, Andrews University.
Ballenger clearly understood that universalism had no scriptural

support. He claimed that while it was true that Christ died for all peo-
ple, not all people would be saved.142 To escape the trap of universalism,
Ballenger taught that Christ, through His death on the cross, placed all
humankind on the “platform of life.” Eternal life, however, “was on a
higher platform, a gift of grace to be had by choosing.”143 This, according
to Ballenger, was a “thousand miles from universalism.”144
Ballenger was also forced to defend himself against charges of pre-
destinarian monergism. While he agreed that Christ’s death on the cross
was a “once and for all” penalty for sin that was paid without consulta-
tion with or cooperation of sinners,145 he disagreed with the limitation
of the benefits of the atonement to the chosen elect, thus “leaving the
rest of the world in hopeless despair,” and also with the notion that
once saved, the sinner could not fall away from the grace of God.146 In
response to the charge of predestinarian monergism, he would point
out that “a gift of grace [is] to be had by choosing.”147
Ballenger’s problem was that while he was strongly attracted to
the monergistic assurance of salvation arguments and used them in his
polemic against Adventism, his understanding of salvation continued
to incorporate a human element. In short, he could not fully embrace
monergism, and thus remained a reluctant synergist. While he taught
that atonement was solely an act of God, he was unable to embrace the
monergistic understanding of human free will. In Ballenger’s soteriology,
therefore, the final responsibility for salvation seemed to be in the hands
of human beings, who, exercising their free will, choose their destiny.
This choice would be reflected in the way in which they live their lives
after conversion.148
142
143
Ballenger, “The Triumph of the Trust,” 5.
144
Ibid., and A. F. Ballenger, “Notes by the Way,” April 1914, 6.
145
A. F. Ballenger, Proclamation of Liberty, 64.
146
Ibid., 125. Curiously, due to his misunderstanding of the nature of grace-centered synergism,
Ballenger accuses Adventists of embracing extreme Calvinism. Adventist theology, according
to Ballenger, emphasizes the fact that the atoning blood of Christ will only be effective for those
sinners who truly repent. A. F. Ballenger, “Was the Death of Christ Conditional?” Gathering
Call, November 1920, 2, exclaims, “Christ died only for the few; and we have landed in the
center of the camp of the Calvinists who teach a limited atonement—that Christ died for only
those who will be saved. But this Calvinistic conclusion positively contradicts the plain Word of
the Lord.” See also A. F. Ballenger, “Extracts from a Letter,” Gathering Call, December 1918, 2.
147
Ballenger, “The Triumph of the Trust,” 5.
148
Ballenger, Before Armageddon, 180, writes, “Commandment keeping has nothing to do with
When theologians include an element of human free choice in their

soteriology—thus leaving the realm of monergism—they must be pre-
pared to accept the next logical step: a review of human choices and their
implication for salvation. Thus, at some time before Christ’s return to
earth, God will conduct some form of review or evaluation of the
believer’s life in order to determine whether His sacrifice was truly
appropriated by the person, and whether his or her life reflected this
accordingly.149 Such a review is an inherent and necessary element of any
Christian synergistic soteriology. Whether it is referred to as an investi-
gative judgment, a pre-advent judgment, or an “if and then” process, it
is still a review, or judgment, of the believer’s life.150
It becomes clear, therefore, that Albion Fox Ballenger, as well other
critics of the investigative judgment doctrine, did not clearly perceive the
great Protestant divide between monergism and synergism—between
God’s sole salvific action and His allowing human free will in the process
of salvation. Those Adventists who are critical of the pre-advent judg-
ment doctrine also appear to misunderstand this dynamic, not realizing
that a review of believers’ lives cannot be erased from Adventist sote-
riology. It is the existence of human free will—a gift that the Creator
endowed upon humanity—that necessitates a review on the part of the
Creator; otherwise, human free will becomes a theologically redundant
proposition.
It is evident that Ballenger was mightily attracted by the concepts
he may have encountered in monergistic literature. For the sake of
obtaining salvation, and yet refusing to keep God’s commandments, men commit the unpardon-
able sin.” He continues, “All men are under grace and not under law, yet the man who breaks
the law because he is not under law, is in danger of committing that fatal sin which Paul and
John call the ‘sin unto death.’”
149
While Ballenger would likely disagree with this conclusion, his idea that the benefits of the
sacrifice of Christ will be withdrawn if an individual makes the wrong choice seems to support it.
See Ballenger, Proclamation of Liberty, 196.
150
In the pamphlet The First Angel’s Message or the Investigative Judgment, the Ballenger broth-
ers argue that God does not need a hundred years of investigation in order to know who His
people are. Interestingly, Ballenger accepts that there are books of record in heaven, but not
that their purpose is for the examination of the saints. He explains: “The intelligences of heav-
en not only understand our actions but they can read the thoughts and motives which prompt
our actions. Not so with man; he is not able to go behind the actions, nor is he able to see the
strivings of the spirit of God with sinful men. Many men and women appear to us as very
saintly, while they are most corrupt at heart. If, when we get to heaven, some of our dear ones
or friends, who seemed to us to be honest Christians, are not there, we will be perplexed to
know why. If we had no means of learning the fact we would have cause to wonder whether
God was just in excluding them. The books are for the purpose of enlightening the redeemed”
(Ballenger, 34).
complete Christian assurance he came as close as he could to the gulf

that divides monergism from synergism; and yet, ultimately, he could
not cross the great divide between these two meta-paradigms. This is
because, at heart, he remained a synergist. Thus, his quest to controvert
the doctrine of the investigative judgment for the purpose of Christian
assurance ended in failure.
Conclusion
The pursuit of Christian assurance is littered with difficulties and

unanswered questions. Christian monergism claims to have solved the
problem of Christian assurance by eliminating the human element in
the process of salvation. On one hand, universalistic monergism offers
ultimate Christian assurance but creates serious theological prob-
lems related to God’s character, particularly the nature of His love and
justice, and makes a mockery of human moral responsibility. This is
an enormous price to pay for having complete assurance of salvation.
On the other hand, predestinarian monergism also claims to provide
believers with complete assurance. In addition to the problems associ-
ated with universalism, however, it adds its own. It is one thing to assert
complete assurance for the elect, but it is another thing altogether to
determine who belongs to that exclusive group. The question “How can
I know that I am one of the elect?” has occupied the minds of many
Protestant believers, with no clear answers ever proposed.151
Christian synergism, with its belief in human free will, also faces
the problem of Christian assurance. The problem is exacerbated by
the fact that there are many varieties of synergistic belief systems, each
offering diverse solutions to the problem of Christian assurance. Accord-
ing to some of these systems, a review of believers’ lives may indeed be
a scary proposition. Perhaps this is how Ballenger perceived the inves-
tigative judgment process, and perhaps why he ultimately rejected it. In
some respects, therefore, we should be grateful to Ballenger—as well
as to Barnhouse and Martin—for challenging the church to develop a
more grace-centered understanding of the investigative judgment. As
151
This question troubled most seventeenth-century American Puritans. They wanted to dis-
tinguish between those who were elect, and thus welcome into church membership, and those
who should be “cast out into the world.” They solved the problem by identifying “signs of
grace,” which could be perceived in the lives of those who were elected. Baptism, dedication to
the church, an orderly family life, interest in reading Scripture, and moral health were usually
considered “signs of grace.” In conjunction with spiritual signs, material success also indicated
divine favor upon the elect. See Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 499 and Michael Folley,
American Credo: The Place of Ideas in US Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 160.
often happens in the heat of polemic, however, Ballenger lost his syner-
gistic bearings, became attracted to monergistic arguments against the
investigative judgment, and threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thus, rather than following Ballenger to the end, we must place the in-
vestigative judgment within the framework of grace-centered synergism.
This study proposes that only grace-centered synergism, or bibli-
cal monosynergism—which accepts that it is God alone (thus soli Deo
gloria) who initiates and completes the process of salvation, restores
human free will through prevenient grace,152 enables good works, and
oversees the entire process of salvation through the agency of the Holy
Spirit—offers believers a genuine and biblically based assurance of
salvation and a positive view of the investigative judgment.153 This can
only happen when believers become convinced of their spiritual in-
ability (total depravity)154 and that their good works (sanctification)
do not constitute the ground of their salvation as “it is God who
works in [them] to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose”
(Phil 2:13, NIV);155 only then may they embrace the fact that they are al-
ways covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ so long as they hold on
to Him by faith. The apostle Paul states, “Blessed are those whose
transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against him” (Rom 4:7–8, NIV).
This means that when believers appear before the judgment seat of
God, Christ’s righteousness covers them entirely.156 Thus the investigative
152
Ellen G. White, “Christ the Propitiation for Our Sins,” Atlantic Union Gleaner, August 19,
1903, 1. The term “prevenient grace” does not appear in White’s writings. The idea is, however,
conceptually present in all her writings. E.g., White, Steps to Christ, 18, states “that power is
Christ. His grace alone [prevenient grace] can quicken the lifeless faculties [total depravity] of
the soul, and attract it to God, to holiness.” For more on prevenient grace, see George Knight,
“The Grace that Comes Before Saving Grace,” in Hanna, Jankiewicz, and Reeve, 287–299.
153
Jiří Moskala, “The Significance, Meaning, and Role of Christ’s Atonement,” in God’s Character
and the Last Generation, ed. Jiří Moskala and John Peckham (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018),
203–204, suggests that the adjective “investigative” should be supplanted by the more positive
adjective “affirmative.” See also Hanna, Jankiewicz, and Reeve.
154
White, Steps to Christ, 18, speaks of total depravity as the “lifeless faculties of the soul.” To-
tal depravity does not mean we are as bad as we can be. This term simply means that humans
are unable to initiate the process of salvation and produce good works that lead to salvation.
Thus salvation is soli Deo gloria. In Adventism total depravity does not lead to predestination,
as in monergism. Instead it leads to total dependence on Christ and His righteousness.
155
White, Steps to Christ, 57, 61. A careful reading of Steps to Christ, and especially the chapter
“Test of Discipleship,” reveals beyond doubt that White was a grace-centered synergist.
156
Ibid., 62, says, “If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful
as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands
in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned.”
judgment should be welcomed, not feared (Ps 26:1; 27:1). This is congru-
ent with the Old Testament notion of judgment, which is always followed
by the redemption of God’s people.157 It should thus be the believer’s
greatest desire to appear before the heavenly judge. And having a kins-
man-redeemer as judge can be the foundation of an assurance far greater
that anything Ballenger or Walter Martin could offer.
In the final analysis, because of the nature of Christian faith, com-
plete assurance of salvation on this earth is impossible. Faith is, after all, “a
confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”
(Heb 11:1, NIV, emphasis supplied). Thus, complete assurance will only
be possible in heaven when we see God face-to-face. Meanwhile, we
are invited to pursue Jesus Christ—rather than assurance of salvation—
and fix our eyes on Him who is “the author and finisher of our faith”
(Heb 12:2, NKJV). When we do that, He, through the agency of His Holy
Spirit, will produce in us true sanctification (2 Pet 1:3–4) and grant us a
sufficient measure of Christian assurance to take away the fear of
judgment.
White, The Great Controversy, 484, states, “Christ will clothe His faithful ones with His own
righteousness, that He may present them to His Father ‘a glorious church, not having spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing.’”
157
Tom Hale, Stephen Thorson, The Applied Old Testament Commentary (Colorado Springs, CO:
David C. Cook, 2007), 1034; cf. Christoph Barth, Marie-Claire Barth, God with Us: A Theological
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 80.
CHAPTER 26
Calculating the 1260-Year

Prophecy
Nicholas P. Miller
The prophetic time period of “times, time, and a dividing of time,”

introduced in Daniel 7:24–26, has been historically understood by Ad-
ventists as comprising the period of 1260 years of papal supremacy and
persecution during the Middle Ages. Prior to the French Revolution,
Christian thinkers proposed a range of views about when the period
started and ended. But with the rise of Napoleon, and the exile into cap-
tivity of the pope by French general Berthier, there was a rare moment
of near prophetic unanimity among Protestant expositors who declared
that this period ended in 1798. It was a matter, then, of running the
period backward from that point to find the starting point, which would
be AD 538.1
This was where a fly appeared in the otherwise clear prophet-
ic ointment. After the shock and clarity of the events of the 1790s
subsided, some scholars could not see an event in AD 538 that was
obviously decisive enough to match the clarity of the concluding
1
Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), 6–7, re-
cords the event in this manner: “As the unbelievable events of the 1790s unfolded, students of
this apocalyptic literature became convinced (in a rare display of unanimity) that they were
witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. The Revolution
brought the cheering sight of the destruction of the papal power in France . . . ; the final act
occurred in 1798 when French troops under Berthier marched on Rome, established a re-
public, and sent the pope into banishment. Commentators were quick to point out that this
‘deadly wound’ received by the papacy had been explicitly described and dated in Revelation
13. Although prophetic scholars had previously been unable to agree on what dates to assign
to the rise and fall of papal power, it now became clear, after the fact, that the papacy had come
to power in 538 A.D.”
event of the pope being exiled and dying in jail. Some thought that the
opening of this period was signaled by the third horn of Daniel 7 be-
ing uprooted, which was the defeat of the Ostrogoths by Justinian’s
general Belisarius in AD 538. The trouble was that the decisive “de-
feat” appeared a little anti-climactic, as it involved the breaking of the
Ostrogoth siege of Rome by Belisarius. This event seems to be just one
stage in an ongoing conflict that actually continued for at least two
decades more. The Ostrogoths regained Rome in the 540s, and need-
ed to be dislodged again by Belisarius. The Ostrogoths were not fully
defeated until about AD 553. So what made the AD 538 battle so much
more prophetically significant and decisive than similar victories in the
540s and the final battle in AD 553?2
The lack of a clear answer to this question about the significance
of AD 538 has caused some expositors to argue that it has no inherent sig-
nificance, and was chosen merely because of its convenient relationship
to the decisive ending in 1798. This has caused some scholars to move
away from viewing the 1260-year prophecy as having a literal, historical
application, and as being more of a symbolic number. Adventists have
not been unaffected by this shift, and some scholars argue that these
numbers should be understood generally and symbolically, rather than
as referring to particular periods of historical time. This approach has
also gained ground in relation to some other prophetic time periods, such
as those found in the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation.
This study argues that a move away from military events and to-
ward those surrounding the implementation or dissolution of legal
authority structures provides a firmer basis for these prophetic periods
of time. Such an approach can put the traditional historicist approach
on a firmer footing. An approach to these periods, based on legal rather
than military events, is supported from within the biblical text itself.
Adventist Approaches to the Terminal Points of the 1260 Years:

Primarily Militaristic and Political
As early Adventists adopted the prophecy as part of the historicist
heritage, most prophetic expositors tied the timing of the beginning of
the 1260 years with military victories of Rome in the final uprooting
of the three horns by the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24. For example,
Uriah Smith recorded the uprooting of the three horns as being the
2
This historical story can be found described in some detail in Will Durant, The Age of Faith
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 108–110.
Calculating the 1260-Year Prophecy 561
“Heruli, A.D. 493, the Vandals, in 534, and the Ostrogoths finally in
553.”3 He argues, however, without much real explanation, that effective
opposition to Justinian’s proclamation of the supremacy of the Roman
bishop ceased in AD 538.4
In discussing this prophecy, Smith does not directly reference the
Justinian Code, but rather refers to the “decree” or “edict” by which
Justinian made the pope head of all the churches.5 He dwells on the “army
of Belisarius, the general of Justinian,” who is “hailed as deliverers” by
“Catholics everywhere.”6 The overall effect is to place the emphasis on mili-
tary events rather than the profound legal changes instituted by the Code.
Further, in discussing the end of the period, Smith also focuses on
the militaristic: “In the year 1798, Berthier, with a French army, entered
Rome, proclaimed a republic, took the pope prisoner, and inflicted a
deadly wound upon the papacy.”7 He makes no mention of the cessa-
tion of the Justinian Code. Neither does he remark on or reference the
implementation of the secular Napoleonic Code, which displaced the
religious/political legal framework that the Justinian Code had superin-
tended for more than 1,200 years.
Smith at least acknowledges some of the messiness of the military
story, noting that the Ostrogoths were not defeated until AD 553. But he
does not reveal that the Ostrogoths retook Rome in the 540s, and it had
to be recaptured again by Belisarius’ forces.8 His lean toward the mili-
tary story set the tone for future expositors, many of whom turned the
story almost entirely into one of military conquest and timing.
An important exception to this trend is that of Ellen G. White. In
The Great Controversy,9 she does not deal in detail with the events of the
uprooting of the three horns or of Justinian’s conquests or Code. Rath-
er, she simply writes that in the sixth century, “the bishop of Rome was
declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given to
the beast ‘his power, and his seat, and great authority.’ Revelation 13:2.
And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression . . . . Daniel 7:25.”10
3
Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing
Association, 1944), 128.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 127, 145.
6
Ibid., 127.
7
Ibid., 145.
8
Ibid., 128.
9
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950).
10
White, Great Controversy, 54.
By focusing on the declaration of Rome’s supremacy, White focuses on

the legal event, and indeed makes no mention of the military events sur-
rounding it. However, later Adventist authors tend to focus primarily, if
not exclusively, on the military history of the uprooting of the three horns.
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the book of
Daniel, originally published in 1955, sets out the 1260-year framework
as being bounded by military events. It first discusses the three horns be-
ing uprooted, arguing that while the Goths were not fully destroyed in
538, it “marked the real end of Ostrogothic power, though not the Ostro-
gothic nation.”11 Buried in the discussion of military events, though, is a
thoughtful paragraph on Justinian’s declaration of papal supremacy in
AD 533 and its incorporation into the Justinian Code of 534. It is argued,
then, that the victory of AD 538 is significant because the implementa-
tion of that earlier Code then becomes a reality. The discussion of the
Napoleonic end of the period is even more cursory, however, and no
mention is made of the Napoleonic Code.12 So while embedded in the
discussion is a promising start on the significance of legal events and
institutions, that discussion is not fully developed. One is left with the
impression that the primary events of significance are military. At least
this is the way later expositors appear to have read it.
The books that arguably supplanted Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation
as the standard popular Adventist reference works on biblical apocalyp-
tic were the God Cares volumes 1 (Daniel) and 2 (Revelation). In these
works, Adventist seminary professor and church history scholar C.
Mervyn Maxwell hews close to the historicist framework set out by
Smith, but makes his own interpretive choices at various key points. One
of these is that, in his discussion of the 1260-year time period found
in Daniel, he focuses almost exclusively on the military uprooting of
the three horns. He asserts that the Heruli were defeated in AD
493, and that Justinian “exterminated” the Vandals in 534 and then
“significantly broke the power of the Arian Ostrogoths in 538.”13 He then
argues that the 1260-year period began with the “date for the crushing
of the Ostrogoths.”14
Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:
11
Review and Herald, 1955), 826–828.

12
Ibid., 827.
13
C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares, vol. 2, The Message of Revelation for You and Your Family
(Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press), 123–124.
14
Ibid., 2:124.
Later, he acknowledges that the battle in AD 538 at Rome did not

end the Ostrogoth peril but that there were “skirmishes and battles” in
Italy for a “number of years” until they were “annihilated”—at least all
but “a couple of thousand.”15 Maxwell does not give any dates on these
further skirmishes and battles; neither does he acknowledge that Rome
was actually re-captured by the Ostrogoths in AD 546, which Belisarius
had to retake himself in AD 547. Conventional chronology puts the end
of the Ostrogoths in about AD 553. Maxwell simply does not address
what was so significant about the end of a siege on Rome in AD 538,
when the same power came and recaptured Rome again the next decade
and had to be dislodged again.
A number of other Adventist expositors follow this course of
merely citing the Ostrogoth “defeat” of AD 538 as being the key el-
ement of the start of the 1260 years. Jacques Doukhan, in his Secrets of
Daniel, records that “Catholic forces . . . chased the Ostrogoths out of
Rome in 538. The Italian peninsula was now free of Arian vestiges.”16
Then, in relation to the end of the period, he asserts that “most impor-
tant, in 1798 the French army under the commanding officer General
Berthier would invade Rome, capture the pope, and deport him.” While
Doukhan acknowledges that Napoleon “intended to eradicate papal and
church authority,” no mention is made of the implementation or demise
of the Justinian Code or the implementation of the Napoleonic Code.17
Gerhard Pfandl in his Daniel: The Seer of Babylon at least acknowl-
edges the uncertainty of the end of the Ostrogoths, with their tenure
extending beyond AD 538. He also acknowledges the importance of the
AD 533 declaration of the Roman bishop being head of the church, com-
bined with that becoming effective in “practical terms” in AD 538. Still,
no mention is made of the extensive religious system implemented by
the Justinian Code. Further, he asserts that the end of the 1260-year pe-
riod came when “Berthier entered Rome and took Pope Pius VI prisoner.”18
Somewhat puzzlingly, Pfandl says that a measure of secular, politi-
cal power was restored in 1815, and was not finally lost until 1870, when
Victor Emmanuel II entered Rome. This would suggest that the 1260
years could end in 1870, which would put the starting point at about
AD 610, though no suggestion is given as to what event might have
happened then. No mention is made of either the Catholic-centric
15
16
Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000), 107, 109.
17
Ibid., 110–111.
18
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, MD: Pacific Press, 2004), 64–66.
Justinian Code or the secular Napoleonic Code. There is a recognition,

however, that looking purely at military or even political matters leaves
one with a variety of date possibilities. But no solution is given as to how
to shore up the AD 538 starting point.19
One expositor who does take into account some of the historical
messiness, and the importance of the legal decrees, is William Shea. In
his commentary on Daniel 7–12, he acknowledges the incomplete vic-
tory over the Ostrogoths of AD 538, and recognizes that they were not
eliminated until AD 555. He asserts, however, that the Justinian decree
of papal supremacy came into effect in AD 538, and was not voided by
subsequent events. He also discusses the events under Napoleon and
Berthier, where an “atheistic” regime replaced the papal government in
Rome. But while on the right track, these events are cursorily discussed
in less than a page, and no explicit mention is made of Pope Vigilius,
the Justinian Code, or the Napoleonic Code.20 Shea’s work on this
issue was more popular than scholarly, and his comments seem to have
had little impact on the scholarly dialogue.
This uncertainty and vagueness on the part of Daniel scholars on
the historical events surrounding the 1260-year period appear to have
bled over into how some prophetic expositors of Revelation now approach
that period. Some Adventist scholars are starting to think of the 1260
years in terms of general or even symbolic periods of time, and are
moving away from being overly concerned with specific beginning
and ending dates. A good example of this is found in the first edition of
Ranko Stefanovic’s Revelation commentary.
Stefanovic acknowledges that “the most plausible interpretation
understands these [1260] time designations . . . as referring to the pro-
phetic period of more than twelve centuries, known as the Middle Ages.”21
But he then quotes LeRoy Froom as observing that “Protestant His-
toricists differed considerably as to when to begin and when to end
the 1,260-day period.” He then approvingly quotes Hans LaRondelle,
saying it is best not to be “dogmatic about precise date-fixings in church
history,” noting that the period appears to have “qualitative as well as
quantitative significance.”22
19
Pfandl, 64–66.
20
William Shea, Daniel 7–12, The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 141.
21
Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002), 338.
22
Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 338.
The qualitative meaning of the 1260-day period evokes, accord-

ing to Stefanovic, the three-and-a-half-year period of Elijah’s witnessing
during the persecution of Jezebel, as well as the same period of Christ’s
ministry and suffering. Thus, the faithful of church history will suf-
fer and witness in a similar manner, for a similar period, at least
symbolically. Certainly, one can appreciate the likelihood of this quali-
tative meaning adding to a richer appreciation of the 1260-year period.
But Stefanovic leans toward making the qualitative meaning the pri-
mary meaning. He mentions neither AD 538 nor 1798, nor the historic
events associated with these dates. Rather, on top of his earlier lan-
guage emphasizing the uncertainty of the beginning and ending periods,
he asserts that “these time designations in Revelation have more
qualitative rather than quantitative significance.”23
These comments tend toward suggesting that this period of time
has symbolic or idealistic significance, and one should not engage too
much with history in trying to nail down actual historical connections.
In Stefanovic’s defense, he sought greater historical data to buttress the
traditional Adventist position, but had difficulty obtaining any from
Adventist Old Testament scholars. After his book was published, there
was some pushback on his handling of the 1260-year period, and some
works by some Adventist scholars, unpublished at the time of his first
edition, were brought to his attention.24 In light of these works, Stefanovic
modified his language in the second edition of his book, published in
2009. Here, he acknowledges the traditional Adventist view of AD 538
to 1798, and changed the line about having “more” qualitative than
quantitative meaning to having qualitative “as well” as quantitative.25
Other expositors may not be as diligent and responsive as Stefanovic.
There is already an indication that some are moving toward an idealis-
tic or symbolic position regarding the time periods of Revelation. Such
a step begins to disconnect Revelation from actual history, beyond its
general repudiation of tyrannical, evil behavior, and applause for patient,
righteous, virtuous behavior by individuals, institutions, and empires.
23
Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, 379, emphasis supplied.
24
These include Alberto R. Timm, “A Short Historical Background to A.D. 508 and 538:
As Related to the Establishment of the Papal Supremacy,” in Prophetic Principles: Crucial
Exegetical, Theological, Historical & Practical Insights, ed. Ron du Preez, Scripture Symposium
1 (Lansing, MI: Michigan Conference, 2007), 207–231 and Jean Carlos Zukowski, “The Role
and Status of the Catholic Church in the Church-State Relationship Within the Roman Empire
from A.D. 306 to 814” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2009).
25
Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed.
(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 346, 387.
Such an approach to the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation would

certainly be very different from that expressed by our pioneers or
exhibited by Ellen G. White in her discussion of these prophecies in The
Great Controversy.
Considering a Primarily Legal Framework for the Terminal

Points of the 1260 Years
A careful study, however, of Daniel 7:24–26 and some related pro-
phetic passages reveals that the decisive events of the terminal moments
of the 1260 years should be understood primarily legally rather than
militarily. Once this legal framework is understood and given its due
weight, it becomes clearer how the AD 538 event relates to the 1798
event. In a nutshell, the Justinian Code, which was completed in AD 534,
“enacted orthodox Christianity into law,” placed the pope as the formal
head of Christendom, “ordered all Christian groups to submit to [his]
authority,” and gave him civil power of life and death over heretics.26
This Code, however, did not become legally promulgated and en-
acted on the ground until the siege of Rome was lifted in AD 538.
Justinian’s General Belisarius had entered Rome unopposed at the end
of AD 536, but, shortly thereafter, the Ostrogoths came and laid siege
to Rome. After about a year, the siege was broken, and Belisarius had
control of Rome and its environs.27 It was then that the provisions
of the Code elevating the papacy could actually be implemented by
Belisarius beyond the borders of Rome itself. The Gothic Wars con-
tinued, as has been previously mentioned, with Rome falling again
to them in AD 546, and Belisarius had to return to dislodge them. The
Ostrogoths returned again in AD 549 and recaptured the city, and were
not finally driven out until another general of Justinian, Narse, killed
or exiled the remaining Goths in AD 553.28
But these later battles and sieges did not negate or nullify the papal-
centered legal system that had been put into place in AD 538. As Jean
Zukowski notes, even when Rome fell again later to the Goths, they did
not control the papacy, as at that time it was operating outside Rome.
“After 538,” Zukowski observes, “the papacy never came back under
26
Durant, 112. Durant, 114, notes that the Code “differs most from earlier codes by its rigid or-
thodoxy, its deeper obscurantism, its vengeful severity.”
27
Ibid., 109.
28
Durant, 111.
the control of the Ostrogothic kings.”29 The papal system, placed at the
head of Christendom and given the power of life and death over heretics
by the Justinian Code, continued with significant influence in the East
until Constantinople fell in 1453. It endured in the West for more than
a thousand years, being given a great boost in the legal revolutions of
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, forming the legal scaffolding of
many modern states30—that is, until the secular revolutions of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where the Code and its religious
character were explicitly rejected.
These secular revolutions began with the French Revolution, which
soon led to the capture and exile of the pope by Berthier in 1798. But
again, more significant than the military/political event of the capture
and exile was the replacement of the religiously centered Justinian Code
by the secular Napoleonic Code. The secular code was implemented by
the famous Bill No. 8 of February 15, 1798, where General Berthier de-
clared Rome an independent republic and “in consequence, every
other temporal authority emanating from the old government of the
Pope, is suppressed, and it shall no more exercise any function.”31
This study asserts that this focus on the legal, rather than the mili-
tary, is justified and even required by the biblical passages surrounding
the 1260-day period of time. While the uprooting of the three horns
is certainly relevant and connected to the rise of the little horn, those
military events are not given by the Bible as being decisive in the tim-
ing of the 1260-year period. Rather, the key verse is Daniel 7:25, which
says that the saints shall be “given into his hand until a time and times
and the dividing of time.”32 The key moment related to the time period is
not something the little horn does to conquer or assert itself; rather the
focus is on the time that the little horn is “given” certain authority and
dominion. This would best be fulfilled by a legal act of another bestowing
authority, which is precisely what the Justinian Code did.
Further support for this is the fact that Daniel speaks in terms of
“times and law” and “dominion” in relation to times, time, and half
time (Dan 7:24–26). Again, these are words full of legal significance.
29
Zukowski, 160.
30
Ibid., 114.
31
Constitution of the Roman Republic, Translated From the Authentic Italian Edition (1798)
is a “Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and of Citizens,” with a tabulated series of
Articles of Rights and Duties, followed by the text of the Roman Constitution. (Original
title: Constituzione della Repubblica Italiana, adottata per acclamazione nei comizj nazionali in
Lione. Anno I., 26 Gennajo 1802.)
32
All biblical quotations are from KJV, unless otherwise indicated.
“Times [zemân] and law [ḏâṯ]” speak for themselves with their di-
rect legal reference, ḏâṯ being the Aramaic word for decree or law.33 The
word “dominion,” which is taken away at the end of this period, is in the
Aramaic šâleṭân, a specifically legal term for “sovereignty,” or legal
oversight, that rulers exercise over their “realm,” which is where their
legal authority runs.34 This legally oriented reading is also supported
by the parallel usage in Revelation 13. There, it talks of the persecuting
power’s “authority [exousia] to act for forty-two months” with arrogance
and blasphemy (Rev 13:5). While exousia can have a range of meanings
that include “ability” or “capacity,” in the context of political relations
it means “authority,” “jurisdiction,” “power,” and “strength.35
Christ did not promise the church exousia on earth. Rather, He
promised spiritual power, or dynamis. When His disciples asked when
He would restore Israel, He said, “You shall receive power [dynamis]
when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be My witnesses”
(Acts 1:7–8). Exousia, however, was given to the church by the ruling
powers. The Justinian Code, which was compiled and revised between
528 and 534,
enacted orthodox Christianity into law. It began by declaring for

the Trinity. . . . It acknowledged the ecclesiastical leadership of
the Roman Church, and ordered all Christian groups to sub-
mit to her authority. . . . Manicheans or relapsed heretics were
to be put to death; Donatists, Montanists, Monophysites and
other dissenters were to suffer confiscation of their goods. . . .
James Strong, Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas
33
Nelson, 2009): s.v. “‫ ת‬,” h1882 (Aramaic) corresponding to 1881; decree, law.
Ibid., s.v. “ ‫ׁש‬,” h7985 (Aramaic) from 7981; empire (abstractly or concretely): — dominion.
34
AV (14) - dominion 14; dominion, sovereignty-dominion, sovereignty-realm.

35
Ibid., s.v. “ἐξουσία,” g1849, from 1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e., (subjectively)
force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhu-
man, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: — authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power,
right, strength.AV (103) - power 69, authority 29, right 2, liberty 1, jurisdiction 1, strength 1; pow-
er of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases leave or permission physical and mental power the
ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises the power of
authority (influence) and of right (privilege) the power of rule or government (the power of
him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed) universally
authority over mankind specifically the power of judicial decisions of authority to manage
domestic affairs.
It differs most from earlier codes by its rigid orthodoxy, its deep-
er obscurantism, its vengeful severity.36
This authority came to the Roman Church through a combination

of legal, ecclesiastical, and military events. The Goths held Rome and
Italy prior to AD 536 and the arrival of Belisarius. The pope, Silverius,
had been chosen by the Gothic king, Theodahad. Justinian, at the urging
of Theodora, handpicked a Roman deacon, Vigilius, to be pope. In
AD 537, Belisarius sent Pope Silverius into exile, and eventual death,
and put in place Vigilius. Pope Vigilius was the first pope with unques-
tioned loyalty to Justinian and his new code, which in AD 538 became
meaningfully effective for the first time.
Multiple sources attest to AD 537 as being the year of Pope Silverius’
exile and Pope Vigilius’ reign, though Silverius did not die until AD
538.37 There is a clear and parallel symmetry to the 1260-year period
starting with a pope being exiled and replaced with one hand-picked by
the emperor under the auspices of a new legal code, and ending with a
pope being exiled by an emperor and a religious code replaced by a
secular rule. The symmetry is underscored and strengthened by the fact
that it starts with the practical implementation of a religious legal code,
the Justinian Code—one that elevates the Roman Church to official, le-
gal priority—and ends with the installation of the Napoleonic Code, a
secular system that rejects the idea of a special place for the church.
Conclusion: Focus on Legal Rather than Military Events
This study shows that a careful, historical understanding of the his-

tory of church and state is exceedingly helpful to an understanding of
prophecy. While the uprooting of three horns is a historical process
over a period of time between the 470s and 550s, legal enactments can
36
Durant, 112–114.
37
That Vigilius appears to have been installed as pope in AD 537 is not of real concern. Vigilius’
first year of rule under the Justinian Code would have been in AD 538. His sovereignty, as a
practical matter, does not take effect until after the breaking of the siege in AD 538. It is only
then that he can exercise his first real temporal authority as leader of the Christian Church
generally, and the Justinian Code can be enforced outside of Rome. Even though Rome again
fell to the Ostrogoths at least one more time in the future, the papacy continued to operate
under Justinian’s oversight (Zukowski, 160). No one effectively opposed the pope’s newly
authorized temporal and spiritual authority in Western Christendom. Thus, these later battles,
while relevant to the question of the uprooting of the third horn, do not bear decisively on
the question of when the pope gains and implements his new powers of life, death, and central
supremacy.
provide a more precise time boundary for relating to historical devel-

opments, and the Bible often seems concerned with legal enactments
when dealing with historic powers in prophecy.
Viewed through the legal prism, the AD 538 event now stands
as a true bookend to the 1798 event. Both events involve monarchs
and their generals removing popes and implementing new law codes.
Belisarius removed the old pope, and put in place Pope Vigilius, and
then instituted a new, religiously centered legal code that exalted the
Roman Church and pontiff. Berthier, 1260 years later, also removed a
pope, and terminated the Justinian Code as a legal system. He put into
its place the secular Napoleonic Code, which removed all legal authority
or significance from the church and religion.
This study argues that a similar, legal-prism approach can help
clarify some other prophetic time periods, including the time peri-
ods found in the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9, including “the
hour and day and month and year” prophecy associated with Islam
and the Turks. This prophecy was taken very seriously by Adventist
pioneers as having a historical application to the end of the Ottoman
Turkish empire. Josiah Litch famously predicted events surround-
ing the surrender of the Ottomans to Western forces, a prediction that
appears to have been endorsed quite strongly by Ellen G. White.38
The difficulties, however, of assigning a date to a military or politi-
cal defeat of the Ottoman Empire are quite profound. Historians differ
by decades over when the Ottoman Empire actually ended. Often a date
as late as the early 1920s is cited.39 But if one focuses on the religious
identity of the empire as expressed in its laws, there was an event in
Litch’s predicted year that moved the Turkish Ottomans from their
religious-based Sharia system to one based in part on the secular
Napoleonic Code.
In November of 1839, only about nine months prior to Litch’s
prophetic date, the Ottoman ruler promulgated the Hatti Serif of
Gulhane (“Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber”). This famous decree is
considered the foundation stone of the modern Turkish legal system.
Among its provisions was a new code of justice that asserted the equal
status of Muslims, Jews, and Christians before the law. It modernized
the military services of the country, and began implementing French
38
White, 334–335.
39
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “The empire from 1807 to 1920,” https://www.britannica.com/
place/Ottoman-Empire/The-empire-from-1807-to-1920#ref44405 (February 28, 2020).
legal principles from the Napoleonic Code to supplement and eventually

replace Sharia law in civil and criminal matters.40
It is beyond the scope of this study, but one could support the
basic prophetic time period proposed by Litch, and endorsed by White,
by supplementing the events they considered with a discussion of the
change of the Turkish legal system from a religious-centered regime to
one based on secular principles. The submission of the question regard-
ing the control of the negotiations with Egypt over the Turkish fleet to
the Western powers was perhaps the first public and most obvious
expression of the new, secular legal outlook—a posture of the Ottoman
government that had been established a few months earlier. Thus, we
need not see this negotiation event as something decisive politically or
militarily itself, but as the first publicly visible expression of an underly-
ing, fundamental change in the legal orientation of the Ottoman Empire.
Again, this focus on the issue of legal authority is supported by
the biblical text itself. In Revelation 9, there are two time periods
found in the fifth and sixth trumpets. The first one is a period of “five
months” when “power” is given to locust-like creatures to “hurt people”
(Rev 9:7–10). Interestingly, the word “power” here is exousia, with
all the implications of legal, coercive authority previously discussed,
and the same word found in the discussion of the 42 months in
Revelation 13. When it comes to the sixth trumpet, the key word is
luō, meaning literally to “loosen” or “release”41 the angels and mount-
ed horseman to “kill a third of mankind” (Rev 9:14–18). While luō has a
range of semantic meanings, it can carry the sense of releasing in a legal
manner—for example, releasing a husband and wife through divorce,
or releasing the bounds or bonds of the law or legal constraint.42
These forces of evil, it is indicated, are now given legal room to act with
their own authority and power.
These observations are offered as reference pointers for future in-
vestigations of the trumpets and their time periods. There is not enough
time or space to develop them here. But the important point, as dis-
cussed earlier, is to respond to a move among some Adventist prophetic
expositors to symbolize, idealize, or spiritualize away these time
40
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “The empire from 1807 to 1920,” and Ishtiaq Hussain, The
Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire (n.p., Faith Matters, 2011), http://faith-matters.
org/images/stories/fm-publications/the-tanzimat-final-web.pdf (accessed February 27, 2020).
41
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
2000), 606.
42
Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, 606–607.
periods—to detach them from having historical significance in terms

of actual time and place. The Adventist prophetic story has had its
power precisely because of its engagement with history, which anchors
the message to the real world. To turn one’s back on this historicist
and historical approach would weaken the message. Thus, firming up
these historical periods is of great importance to the study of prophecy
and last-day events.
It is not that military events and battles are irrelevant; it is that
their relevance is primarily that of helping begin or end particular legal
and governmental regimes. And is this not an appropriate principal and
focus for a book and a God concerned less with force and coercion
and more with displays between contrasting forms of governance and
jurisdiction? As the old hymn reminds us:
And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago,

Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.43
43
Cecil Spring Rice, “Urbs Dei” (“The City of God”), ca. 1912, set to music by Gustav Holst as “I
Vow to Thee, My Country.”
Index of Biblical References
OLD TESTAMENT 15:6 164 20:10 5
15:14 513 20:18 127
Genesis 15:17–18 28 21:28 21, 63
1 18, 446 16:21 12 21:33 21
1–3 18, 22, 421, 422 17:5 6 22:18 21
1–11 448 19 28 22:30 21
1–15 259 19:1–29 334 23 20, 21
1:1 231, 406 22:14 4 23:4 21
1:2 40, 374 22:18 406 23:5 21
1:26–27 124 37:35 36 23:9 20
1:26–28 18 42:38 36 23:10–12 22
1:27 123 44:29 36 23:15 110, 344
1:31 18 44:31 36 27:21 85
2:2–3 11 49:1 217 30:7–8 396
2:5–3:24 125 49:8–10 217 30:36 85
2:7 38, 46 49:10 406 31:15 22
2:8 236 31:17 20
2:15 18 Exodus 32:32–34 192
2:17 236 2 25 34:3 19
3 123, 308, 482 3:14 368 34:6–7 238
3:1–7 301, 318, 406 7:17–21 304 34:28 344
3:6 48 9:19 12 35:2 22
3:15 390, 406, 484 9:31–32 110 39:29 396
3:16 25, 363 12:41 513 40:2 85
3:19 38, 46, 406 13:4 110
4:4 406 13:18 318 Leviticus
5:2 188 13:21–22 318 2:14 110
5:24 494 14:11–12 318 16 10, 121, 314
6–9 19, 30 14:15–18 318 16:2 4
6:5 509 15:1–19 134 16:21–22 94
6:5–7 27 15:14 127 16:30 94
6:5–12 406 15:15 127 16:31 22
6:11–17 334 15:16 127 18:23 21
6:13 258 15:22 318 19:3 22
7:4 258 16:1–3 318 19:30 22
7:6 258 16:4–36 318 20:15 21
7:10–14 258 16:23 5 20:15–16 27
7:17 258 17:1–7 318 23 5, 109
7:24 258 19:4 301, 317 23–27 21
8:1 27 19:13 19 23:2–44 85
8:3–6 258 19:16 127, 422 23:3 22
8:10 258 20 20, 23, 318 23:8 22
8:12–14 258 20–33 20 23:10–12 110
8:22 237 20:8–11 18, 21, 258 23:11 22
12:3 406 20:9–11 11 23:13 5
23:15–16 22 8:14–16 318 17:20 206

23:27 4 10:1–5 344
23:28–32 106 10:12–13 11 1 Chronicles
23:32 22 10:14 19 16:23–24 10, 11
23:38 22 11:12 19 17:13 215
24:8 22 16:1 110, 120 29:14 18
24:18 21 16:9 110 29:15 34, 35
25 21, 22, 23 20:19–20 21
25:2–7 21, 22 31:29 216 2 Chronicles
25:8–9 104 32:8–12 317 1:16 98
25:8–18 104 32:20 196 7:1 28
25:9 104 32:22 36 13:14–15 274
25:10 105 36:21 21, 22
25:13 105 Joshua
25:17 20 7:19 130 Ezra
25:20 22 11:14 12 3 102
25:20–21 24 3:2–6 102
25:21 22 Judges 6:15–17 102
25:23 18, 19 5:4–5 206 7 97, 99, 106
25:38 20 5:20 206 7–10 99
26:2 22 16:17 12 7:6 100, 102
26:11–12 345 7:9 97, 100, 103
26:31–44 23 1 Samuel 7:10 100, 102
26:34 23 2:1–10 134 7:17 99
26:35 23 2:6 36, 54 7:27–28 7
26:43 23 2:9 130 7:38 107
7:14 215 8 104
Numbers 25:18 248 8:9 96
3:7–8 18 8:15 100
8:17 19 2 Samuel 8:32–33 100
10:8–10 274 7:12–13 188 8:33–34 101
13–14 221 20:5 85 8:35 99, 101, 102, 108
16:2 85 22:6 36 8:35–36 98
16:22 214 22:9 127 8:36 106, 107, 108
16:30 36 9 104
16:32 309 1 Kings 9:1 104
16:33 36 2 216 9:5 104
19:2 103 2:6 36 9:6–15 104
24:14 217 6:20 197 9:15 407
26:10 309 8:2 206 10:1 105
27:16 214 8:4 85 10:7–9 107
28–29 101, 103, 104 10:28 98 10:8–9 104
29:8 103 12:29–30 197 10:9 107
29:36 103 16:11 216 10:10–17 107
31:23 28 17:1 304, 315, 316 10:17 103
33:5–49 302 19:18 407
Nehemiah
Deuteronomy 2 Kings 8 102
4:13 344 1:9–14 316 8:9 102
4:24 28 1:10–12 304 9:6 11
4:30 216 2:1–11 494
5 23 2:9 36 Esther
5:11–14 20 9:14–10:27 216 9:11 259
5:12–15 21 11:1 216
5:14 5 11:13–16 216
Scripture Index 577
Job 10:22 39, 40 42:5 365

1–20 34 11:8 36
1:1 43 12:7–10 19 Psalms
1:8 43 12:22 39 2:6 215
2:3 43 13:18 45 2:7 215
2:12 46 13:20–21 49 2:9 188, 307
3 38, 40, 42 14:2 35 2:10–12 216
3:4–5 39 14:5 50, 51 5 127
3:5 39 14:7 51 6:3 350
3:6 40 14:8 46 6:6 36
3:11 41 14:12 33 8 218
3:13 38, 40, 41 14:13 36, 49, 50, 52 8:13 35
3:13–22 38, 39 14:14 51 9:18 36
3:14 38, 41 14:14–15 33 10:6 206
3:15 38, 41 14:15 50, 51 11:5–7 30
3:16 39 14:19 46 11:6 49
3:17 39, 41 14:22 50 11:7 49
3:17–19 41 16:15 46 11:10 11
3:18 39, 41 16:16 39 13:4 41
3:19 39, 41 17:1 35 14:5 206, 208
3:20 39, 43 17:7 35, 36 15:5 206
3:21 39 17:11 35 15:8 206, 208
3:22 39 17:13 36, 43 16:8 206
4:9 127 17:16 36, 37, 38, 46 16:10 36, 48
4:14–15 127 18:5–6 43 17 127
4:19 46 18:18 43 17:14 49
5:17 7 19:8 43 17:15 48, 49
5:26 39 19:15 46 18:6 36
7:6 34 19:20 48 20:8 206, 208
7:7 34, 35 19:21–29 45 21:7 48
7:7–10 35 19:23–24 45 23:4 39
7:8 36 19:25 45, 46 23:5 318
7:9 34, 35, 36, 19:25–27 44, 54 24:1–2 18
37, 42, 43 19:26 45, 46, 48 24:4 4
7:10 37 19:26–27 45 26:1 558
7:21 35, 36, 37, 19:27 45, 48, 49 27:1 558
39, 46 20:11 35, 37, 46 27:4 48
8:7 50 21:13 36 28 127
8:9 34, 35 21:26 38, 46 29:1–2 10, 11
8:21 127 23:14 51 30:4 36
9:2 45 23:17 40 30:10 38
9:5 49 24:1 50 31:18 36
9:13 49 24:17 39 32:1–2 7
9:25 34 24:19 36 33:3 135
9:26 34 26:6 36 35 127
9:28 45 28:3 35, 39, 40 36:6 19
9:32–34 49 28:26 51 36:10 48
10 46 28:28 11 37:2 35
10:9 46 30:10 51 37:20 34, 35
10:11 48 30:26 40 38:11 127
10:12 46 33:20 43 39:7 34
10:13 45, 46 34:22 35, 39 40 127
10:19 39 38:17 39 40:3 135
10:21 39, 40 38:26 19 41:13 48
10:21–22 35, 39, 43 38:39–41 28 45:6–7 215
46:5–6 206 97:4 206 5:5 36

47:6–7 206 99:1 206 6:24–32 345
48:1–2 9 100:3 11 7:9–23 345
48:2 4 102:4 34 7:27 36
49:15 36 102:11 35 8:28 51
49:16 36, 54 102:12 34 8:33 7
55 127 102:21 215 8:35–36 334
55:16 36 102:25–27 215 9:6 8
56:14 43 103:15–16 34, 35 9:18 36
59 127 104:21 28 11:30 13, 334
60:2 206 104:27–30 28 12:10 20
61:3 206, 208 105:39 28 15:4 334
61:8 48 106:34–40 407 15:11 36
63:3 48 107:27 206 15:13 127
68:7–8 206 109:23 35 15:24 36
69:3 36 110 207, 218 15:30 127
69:25 127 110:1 217, 218, 422 23:14 36
70 127 110:2 215 23:19 8
71 127 110:4 215 27:20 36
73:24 54 110:5–7 216 30:8 51
74:9–10 350 111:6 206, 208 30:16 36
76:12 214 115:1–8 347
77:17–18 206 115:17 170 Ecclesiastes
78:19–20 318 116:3 36 3:13 12
78:39 34 116:11 12 6:12 35
79 127 119:30 196 7:1–4 5
79:5 350 126:2 127 7:2 12
80 127 129 127 7:8 5
80:4 350 129:23 34 7:20 12
80:13 218 130 94 9:5–6 170
80:17 218 130:8 94 9:10 36
86:13 36 134:1–3 11 11:5 12
88:4 36 135:15–18 347 11:9 12
88:9 36 137 127 12:1–7 12
88:10–12 51 139 127 12:13–14 11, 12, 341
89:20–37 406 139:1–12 11
89:29 188 139:8 36 Song of songs
89:49 36 140 127 8:6 28
90:2 258 140:14 48
90:4 242, 244, 258, 261 141:2 274 Isaiah
90:5–6 34, 35, 41 141:7 36 1:17 8
90:6 36 144:4 34, 35 2:2 146, 217
90:13 350 144:9 135 3:12 8
92 6 146:3–4 170 4:2–6 317
92:1 6 147:9 28 4:50 4
94 127 148:1–6 11 5:14 36
94:3–7 350 148:6 51 5:18–20 257
95:6 11 149:1 135 6:8 504
96 220 6:11 350
96:1 135 Proverbs 7:11 36
96:3 10, 11 1:7 11, 92 8:5–8 309
96:5–9 11 1:12 36 8:22 130
96:9–10 206 2:16–19 345 9:6–7 188
96:10 220 3:13 7 11 27
96:13 220 3:18 334 11:10–16 317
Scripture Index 579
11:1–10 28 65:21–23 237 28:18 28, 367

13:9–13 6 65:25 28 30:1–5 6
13:10 155, 156 66:7–14 306 31:14 38
13:13 206 66:15–16 30 31:15 36
14:4–21 406 66:18–19 10 31:16 36, 38
14:9 36 66:22 30 31:17 36
14:11 36 66:24 30, 136 31:18 38
14:12–14 482 32:21 36, 39
14:12–15 365 Jeremiah 32:27 36
14:13–14 406 4:4 127 36:19–23 343
14:15 36 4:21 350 37:1–14 54
24 30 4:23–26 40 37:3–10 48
24:14–15 10, 11 5:12–24 257 37:25 217
24:18–23 206 5:22 51 38:16 217
25:5 35 8:7 28 38:18 127
25:8 54, 135 8:18 123 38:20–23 206
26:16–27 306 15:8 248 38:21 367
26:19 38, 46, 54 17:9 406 40 313
27:9 194 17:15 257 40–48 24
28:15 36 23:5–6 406 40:1 121
28:18 36 23:20 216 40:1–5 314
30:18 7 23:26 350 43:8 127
30:27 127 30:17 215 47:1–12 10
32:2 35 30:24 216 48:30–35 198
34:4 155 31 30
38:10 36 31:6 215 Daniel
38:12 34 31:31–34 215 1 84, 85, 86, 93
38:18 36 33:17–26 188 1–4 88
40:6–7 34, 35 47:5–6 350 1–6 xxvi, 88, 89
42:1–7 406 48:47 216 1:1–3 87, 88
42:10 135 49:39 216 1:2 84
42:12 10 1:4 4, 90, 91
43:2 28 Lamentations 1:5 4, 13, 85
43:16–19 317 1:4 86 1:6 78
43:20 28 1:8 206 1:9 13
44:22 34 1:15 86 1:12 4, 13
45:9 224 2:6ff 86 1:13 4
46:13 260 2:22 86 1:14–15 85, 89
53 406 1:15 4
53:6–12 407 Ezekiel 1:17 83, 90
53:11 48 1 516 1:17b 83
54:5 306 1:27–29 28 1:18 4, 15, 85, 91
54:17 490 2:8–3:3 128 1:18–20 89
57:9 36 12:22 257 2 88, 93, 145,
58:14 6 14:14 78 217, 269, 281, 403
59:19 194 14:20 78 2–6 87
59:20 193 16:27 51 2:1 83, 306
59:20–21 193 26:20 38 2:4 81
60:22 243 28:3 78 2:4–7 83
61:1–3 6 28:11–19 121 2:9 83
61:1–4 406 28:12–17 482 2:14–18 93
65 24, 27 28:12–19 406 2:17–19 86
65–66 24 28:14 4, 28 2:18 87, 88
65:17 30, 410 28:14–17 365 2:19 84, 87, 93
65:17–25 31 28:16 4 2:19–45 78
2:20–23 86, 93 6:19 86 7:27 8, 9, 11, 87, 218

2:21 77, 81, 90, 92 6:22 13 7:28 78, 79
2:23 92 6:23 81, 87, 209 8 9, 10, 81, 82,
2:26 83 6:25 81 84, 87, 90, 91,
2:27–28 92 6:26–28 82 95, 109, 145,
2:28 77, 83, 217 7 8, 9, 10, 80, 519, 525
2:28–29 281 81, 84, 87, 88, 8–9 88
2:3–11 93 95, 134, 145, 8:1 5, 87, 88
2:31–45 13, 93 202, 209, 210, 8:3 9
2:35 87, 199, 306 216, 217, 218, 8:3–8 9
2:36 83 220, 221, 222, 8:9–13 315
2:44 217 270, 301, 305, 8:9–14 84, 486
2:44–45 87 306, 308, 311, 8:10 306
2:45 83 318, 319, 320, 8:10–12 87
2:46–47 93 385, 403, 441, 8:10–14 84
2:46–49 82 466, 467, 468, 8:11–12 7
2:49 13 519, 525, 559, 560 8:12 84
3 81, 93 7–8 88 8:12a 84
3:1 81 7–12 xxvi, 82, 88, 89, 564 8:13 4, 89, 350, 385
3:2 81 7:1 5, 83 8:13–14 7, 85
3:3 81 7:1–2 79 8:14 xxvi, 7, 10, 77,
3:4–24 13 7:1–3 8 91, 95, 96, 100,
3:5 81 7:1–28 13 109, 295, 488,
3:13 133 7:3 81 489, 501
3:16–18 93 7:4 8, 81 8:16–17 13
3:19 133 7:4–6 9 8:17 55, 57, 77,
3:19–21 210 7:4–7 9 128, 486
3:25 209 7:6 8 8:17–19 86
3:28–30 81, 82 7:7 8, 306, 315 8:19 77, 85, 89, 91, 486
3:31–33 81, 82 7:7–8 210 8:20–26 90
4 81 7:8 8, 560 8:26 4, 91, 283, 486
4:5–27 13 7:9 9 8:27 13, 78, 129, 137
4:10 87 7:9–10 28, 87 8:28 283
4:15–24 78 7:9–12 8, 9, 10 9 82, 87, 88,
4:16 129 7:9–14 218, 270, 89, 93, 94, 95,
4:17 129 271, 486 109, 218, 219,
4:19 129 7:10 81, 210, 214, 222, 403
4:28 87 270, 467 9:1 5
4:31 87 7:13 210, 422 9:1–2 92
4:31–34 82 7:13–14 8, 81, 217, 385 9:2 13, 87, 88, 90
4:34 82, 86, 87, 88 7:14 217, 270 9:3 89
5 88 7:16 134 9:4b–19 79, 81, 86, 87, 93
5:5 87 7:17 287 9:5–6 94
5:13–28 78 7:18 xxvii, 202, 9:8 94
5:17 92 203, 208, 209, 9:10 94
5:22 13, 81 210, 215, 221 9:16–17 87, 88
5:25–28 13 7:19 315 9:19 94
6 81, 88, 89, 93 7:20 560 9:20–23 87
6:5 81 7:22 7, 11, 283 9:20–27 82
6:8 81 7:23 315 9:21 55
6:8–9 81 7:24 210, 306, 560 9:22–23 13
6:11 13, 87, 88 7:24–26 559, 566, 567 9:24 96, 210, 219
6:11–12 81, 86, 89 7:25 77, 81, 85, 9:24–25 95
6:16 210 287, 295, 301, 9:24–26 188
6:18–19 13 305, 308, 318, 561, 567 9:24–27 77, 96,
Scripture Index 581
100, 104, 406, 489 12 56, 71, 74, 75, 2:10 130, 156
9:25 55, 96, 98, 90, 297, 301, 2:10–11 206, 210
99, 106, 107 302, 385, 407 2:15 6
9:27 108, 219 12:1 55, 58, 71, 2:31 130
10:1 13 72, 73, 75, 91, 2:32 191
10–11:2a 57 131, 134, 136, 3:15 156
10–12 55, 88 152, 197
10:1 5, 13 12:1c 91 Amos
10:1–11:2a 58 12:1–2 71 3:3 85
10:5 6 12:1–3 71, 72, 73 5:18–20 6
10:6 134 12:1–31 71 5:20 130
10:8 128 12:1–4 91 8:9 130
10:8–9 134 12:2 38, 46, 54, 9:2 36
10:10–19 134 56, 71, 72, 73, 9:7 188
10:12–14 87 74, 94, 136 9:9 188
10:13 306 12:3 57, 71, 72, 9:9–12 407
10:14 74 73, 90, 91, 136 9:9–15 189
10:17 127 12:4 55, 57, 58, 9:10 257
10:20 128 90, 91, 283 9:11–12 187
10:20–21 306 12:4–7 302
11 xxvi, 14, 63, 64, 90 12:5–6 7, 57 Jonah
11:1 9 12:5–13 57, 58 2:3 36
11:2b–12:3 57, 58, 60 12:6 7, 89, 350 3 25
11:6 55 12:7 7, 74, 77, 3:7–8 19
11:6–8 70, 71 85, 287, 295, 4 30
11:13 55 298, 301, 305 4:11 19
11:14 55 12:8 7, 57, 128
11:20 74 12:8–9 283 Micah
11:24 55 12:8–10 182 1:4 206
11:33 13, 74, 90 12:8–13 78 4:1 146, 217
11:35 55, 57, 58, 86, 90 12:9 7, 55, 57, 58, 5:2 186, 406
11:40 55, 57, 58, 86, 91, 136, 283 6:8 510
61, 62, 64, 66, 12:10 13, 90 7:15–20 317
67, 69, 70, 12:11 55, 74
71, 75 12:11–12 74, 75 Nahum
11:40–12:3 xxvi, 55, 56 12:12 4, 7, 15, 74 1:5 206
11:40–12:13 56 12:13 xxvi, 4, 15, 2:11 127
11:40–41 65, 67 55, 56, 73, 74,
11:40–43 70, 71 75, 91, 94, 283 Habakkuk
11:40–45 56, 58, 59, 1:2–4 350
60, 61, 62, 63, Hosea 1:5–11 258
64, 65, 66, 67, 2:8–15 317 2:3 86, 258, 261, 515
68, 69, 71, 75 2:14–20 306 2:3–4 94
11:41 58, 59, 61, 3:5 217 2:4 196, 221
62, 64, 67, 69 4:17 197 2:5 36
11:42 58, 61, 62, 64, 5:8–6:6 46 2:7 221
67, 69 6:3 98 2:14 10, 11
11:42–43 59, 67, 70 13:3 34 3:6 206
11:43 58, 59, 61, 13:14 36, 54 3:14 206
62, 66, 67, 69
11:44 58, 59, 61, 62, Joel Zephaniah
63, 66, 67, 69 1 25 1:12 257
11:44–45 68 2:1 6 1:14–16 6
11:45 58, 59, 61, 2:1–11 6 3:18 86
62, 64, 66, 75 2:2 130
Haggai 8:5–13 186 24 139, 140, 141,

2 202, 206 8:10–13 184 142, 144, 145,
2:3 207 8:11 186 146, 148, 151,
2:6 205, 210 8:12 130 155, 160, 385
2:6–7 203, 204, 206 8:24 149 24–25 139
2:18 207 8:29 407 24:1–2 144
2:21 205, 206 9:35 186 24:1–41 139
2:21–22 204 9:36 186 24:2–3 147
2:21–23 207 10:5 184 24:3 489
2:22 208 10:7 186, 503 24:4 149
2:23 207 10:23 488 24:4–6 488
11:3 252 24:4–31 142
Zechariah 11:13–14 183 24:6 150, 489
1–8 207 11:25 198 24:6–28 145
1:12 350 11:25–27 281 24:8 150
1:14–18 6 12:28 308, 387 24:9–14 151
2:5 28 12:30 185 24:10–12 145
4:2–3 304 12:30–45 184 24:12–14 509
4:11–14 304 12:32 185 24:13 153
9:14 6 12:33 185 24:14 246, 488,
13:9 28 12:34 185 504, 513, 517
14 24 12:38–42 185 24:15 209, 403
12:43–45 185 24:21 151, 152
Malachi 12:45 185 24:21–27 152
2:17 257 13:5 154 24:22–23 142
3:2 28 13:25 405 24:23–24 151
4:1 28, 30, 484 13:27–30 405 24:27–31 485
4:2 28 13:30a 185 24:29 154, 156,
13:30b 185 157, 159, 205,
NEW TESTAMENT 13:36–43 405 206, 485
13:37 405 24:29–31 154
Matthew 13:38 405 24:30 147, 210
2:1–18 306 13:39 405 24:30–31 187, 467, 468
2:6 186 14–28 139 24:31 6
2:15 183, 318 14:22 154 24:33 502
3:2 503 14:31 154 24:34 486
3:7 185 16:21 489 24:36 490, 511
3:8 185 16:27 217 24:37–39 509
3:11 185 16:28 488 24:39–30 210
3:12a 185 17:17 196 24:48 509
3:12b 185 17:22–23 489 25 469
3:17 183 19:27–28 217 25:5 490
4:1–11 407 19:28 410 25:13 94
4:17 186 20:17–19 489 25:15 154
4:20 154 20:34 154 25:30 130
4:22 154 21–28 139 25:31 217
4:23 186, 366 21:9 187 25:31–32 489, 551
5:8 497 21:27 159 25:31–46 187, 425
5:13 314 21:39 324 25:41 407
5:45 237 21:43 187 26:41 94
5:48 494 22 526, 527 26:49 154
6:10 388, 503 22:14 130 26:63–66 318
7:2 313 22:34–40 483 26:64 187, 210, 467, 468
7:21 199 23 146 26:74 154
8:3 154 23:38 145 27 485
Scripture Index 583
27:14 129 4:29 314 1:18 281

27:25 187 4:33–35 407 1:29 368, 504
27:37 187 4:41 407 1:47 189, 192, 197
27:48 154 6:36 494 1:49 183
27:50–54 485 6:38 313 2:20 188
27:54 149 6:43–44 185 3:11–13 226
28:1–2 149 7:19–20 252 3:14 489
28:18–20 216, 218, 433 9:21–18:34 20 3:14–18 483
28:19–20 186, 246 9:31 318 3:16 545
9:52 184 3:18 388
Mark 10:18 406 4:4 184
1:15 283, 489, 503 11:23 185 5:21–29 170
3:11–12 407 11:24–26 185 5:22–27 217
3:31–35 185 11:29–32 185 5:24 388
4:24 313 12:10 185 5:26–29 187
4:29 506 12:37 503 6:37 314
4:30–32 199 12:45 509 8:28 281
5:39 175 13:15 20 8:44 195
6:25 248 13:28 314 8:46 163
7:21–23 246 14:35 314 9:25 254
7:31 184 16:19–31 471 9:34–35 314
8:27–16:20 139 17:11–19 186 10:16 184
8:38 217 17:20–21 308 10:33 318
9:7 422 17:21 387 11:11 175
11:9–10 187 18:8 279 12:13 187
12:1–12 186 18:9–14 495 12:20–25 184
12:8 314 18:35–24:53 139 12:23–24 489
12:17 129 19:5 249 12:31 216, 218,
13 139, 140 19:6 249 314, 361, 406, 484
13:1–2 188 19:28–24:53 140 12:31–32 407
13:8 149 19:38 187 12:32 361, 495
13:14 403 20:15 314 12:37 147
13:24–26 485 21:11 149, 150 12:48 187
13:25 205, 206 21:15 485 12:49–50 281
13:30 486 21:20 188 14:1–3 32, 187
14:36 164 21:21 403 14:3 373
14:62 210, 217 21:24 193, 315 14:10 281
15:5 129 21:26 205, 206 14:30 484
15:26 187 21:26–27 210 15:6 314
21:27 210 15:15 281
Luke 21:32 486, 488 16:8 387
1:9–10 396 21:33 489 16:8–11 218
1:32–33 188 21:36 217 16:11 216, 387
1:39 248 23:38 187 17:8 281
2 140 23:46 369 17:14 281
2:16 249 24:25 182 17:14–16 489
2:46–55 134 24:51 421 19:19 187
3 139 19:30 483, 484
3:7 185 John
3:8–9 185 1:1–3 231 Acts
3:16 185 1:9 471 1:6 186
3:17a 185 1:12 194 1:6–11 421
3:17b 185 1:13 191 1:7–8 568
4:25 295, 301, 315 1:14 226 1:8 186
4:25–27 184, 186 1:17–18 318 1:9 218
1:10–11 422 4:1–25 162 9:7 190

2:1 109 4:2 192 9:8 190, 191
2:17 77, 387 4:3–11 191 9:13 190
2:20 156 4:6 192 9:16 190
2:21 545 4:7–8 557 9:25 190
2:22 192 4:9–18 189 9:27 190, 192
2:22–35 218 4:11 192 9:29 190, 192
2:25–28 218 4:16 189, 191, 192 9:30 191
2:32–36 272 4:21 164 9:30–31 192
2:33 385 4:22–24 191 9:31 191, 192
2:34–36 421 4:23 164 9:32 191, 192
2:42–46 22 4:24 164 10:3 191
3:12 192 4:25 164, 165 10:4 191
3:14 218 5 162 10:12–13 191
3:22–24 318 5–8 25 10:19 192
4:34–35 22 5:12–14 28 10:21 192
5:14–16 22 5:18 165 11:1 192
5:33 133 5:20 162 11:2 192
5:35 192 5:21 164 11:5 191, 192, 193
7:52 218 6 162, 163, 165, 168 11:7 192
7:54 133 6:1–11 162, 163 11:11 191
7:56 217 6:3–4 162 11:11–12 194
7:58 314 6:4 174 11:14 192
13:16 192 6:5 163 11:15 194
15 xxvii, 187, 322 6:8 163, 174 11:17 193
15:7–11 188 6:9–10 163 11:17–21 195
15:13–18 189 6:11 163 11:19 193
15:14–17 188 6:12–23 163 11:20 191, 193
15:17 188 6:23 164 11:21 193
16:26 149, 150, 206 7–8 162 11:22 191
17:23 253 7:25 164 11:23 191
17:26 198 8 25, 29 11:25 191, 192, 193
17:31 514 8:1 338 11:26 189, 190,
20:16 249 8:14–25 389 191, 192, 193
21:28 192 8:17 174 11:27 194
22:14 218 8:18–23 27 11:31 194
22:18 249 8:18–27 24, 26 11:32 194
26:18 504 8:18–30 26, 27 12:8 252
8:19–22 19, 24 12:11 252
Romans 8:19–23 24, 25 13:12 282, 503
1 25 8:20 12, 25, 375 14:7–9 177
1–8 25, 26, 410 8:20–21 25 14:10 173
1:3 188 8:20–22 409 16:20 279
1:18–23 25 8:21 26, 420 16:25 134
1:21 25 8:21–22 12 16:26 195
1:25 25 8:22 25, 26
2:1–16 173 8:23 28 1 Corinthians
2:28–29 189, 195 8:31–34 338 2:7 134, 406, 448
3:10 12 8:39 164 4:9 484, 494, 495
3:19–20 12 9 192 5:7 318
3:20 192 9–11 xxvii, 182, 189, 190 6 165, 166, 176
3:21–31 162 9–16 190 6:2–3 467, 468
3:25–26 407 9:3 192 6:9–10 166, 169
3:28 192 9:4 192 6:12–14 166
4 164 9:6 189, 190, 192 6:12–20 166
Scripture Index 585
7 166 Ephesians 1 Thessalonians

7:19 193 1:5 448 4 165, 170, 171,
7:29–30 503 1:7–8 388 174, 175, 178
10:1–10 318 1:9 134, 448 4:1–11 246
10:11 183 1:11 388, 448 4:11 246
10:18 189 1:13 388 4:12 246
14:32 214 1:20–22 218 4:13–18 175, 246,
15 50, 170, 172, 173, 174 1:20–23 308 467, 468
15:19 496 2:2 406 4:14 174, 176, 177
15:26–27 218 2:5–6 208 4:15 178, 488
15:35–58 169 2:6 314, 388, 394, 489 4:15–18 176
15:42–57 32 2:20 198 4:16 6, 177
15:53 494, 495 3:3 134 4:16–17 224
15:53–54 172 3:4 134 4:17 174, 178, 373
15:54 173 3:9 134 4:18 178
16:22 285 4:3 252 5:10 373
4:18 406
2 Corinthians 4:22–24 340 2 Thessalonians
1 176 5:1 450 1:7–10 467, 468
1:8–11 169 5:19 253 2:1–12 488
4:4–5 406 5:32 134
4:14 174, 178, 373 6:19 134, 405 1 Timothy
4:16–5:10 171 1:1 373
5 170, 171, Philippians 2:5 373
172, 173, 174 1 170, 171, 174 3:16 219
5:1 171 1:20 171
5:1–10 170, 171 1:21–24 171, 173 2 Timothy
5:3–4 172 1:21–26 170 1:9–19 406
5:4 173 1:23 174 2:12 373
5:6–8 171, 173 2:9 391 2:14–21 163
5:10 173, 219, 550 2:9–11 473 3:1–8 481
5:17 421, 489 2:10–11 365, 467 4:3–4 481
5:21 163, 368, 407 2:13 557 4:9 248
8:7–8 252 3 174 4:21 248
8:16–17 252 3:10 174
11:22 192 3:10–11 174 Titus
12:9 233 3:12–15 494 2:11 545
3:21 174, 373 2:13 8
Galatians 3:12 248
1:4 489 Colossians
2:10 252 1:13–14 489 Phlm
2:20 193 1:15–20 176 15–17 20
3:16 406 1:16 176
3:28 22, 349 1:16–17 227 Hebrews
3:28–29 192 1:16–18 391 1:1–2 211, 388
4:4 489, 513 1:16–20 364 1:1–2:4 213, 214, 216, 221
4:4–5 390, 407 1:18 177, 452 1:1–3 282
4:29 191 1:23 509 1:1–4 213, 214
5:6 193 2:7 253 1:2 77, 203, 204,
5:22–23 506 2:15 365 216, 221
6:13–15 193 3:9–10 340 1:3 211, 218, 454
6:14 495 3:11 22, 349, 391 1:4 388
6:15 193 3:13 253 1:4–14 212
6:16 189 1:5–14 211, 213, 215,
216, 218, 221, 222
1:5–2:5 214, 215 9:4 344 12:22–29 210, 215

1:5a 215 9:7 205 12:23 208, 213, 214
1:5b 215 9:12 205 12:24 203, 213
1:8–12 215 9:15 219, 407 12:25 204
1:10–12 207 9:15–21 219 12:25–26 203
1:11 208 9:15–23 207 12:25–27 210, 216, 221
1:13 211, 215, 9:23 208, 219 12:25–28 210, 218
218, 220 9:23–24 208 12:25–29 202, 204, 205,
1:14 208, 221 9:23–28 219 206, 210,
2:1–3a 204 9:23–29 219 211, 213, 216
2:1–4 204, 208, 9:24–26 219, 220, 222 12:25–31 204
213, 216 9:24–28 220 12:26 205, 207
2:5 222 9:26 219 12:26–27 204, 206, 208
2:6–9 214 9:26–28 205 12:27 203, 205, 207
2:8 218 9:27 220 12:28 xxvii, 202, 208,
2:9 218 9:27–18 216 209, 210, 214,
2:10 221 9:27–28 211, 218, 219 215, 218,
2:14–16 208, 211 9:28 220 221, 222
3–4 221 10:2 205 12:28–29 203
3:1 204 10:10 205, 208
3:1–4:16 204 10:10–14 534 James
3:1–6 212 10:11–14 208, 219, 1:1 197
3:7 204 220, 221 2:19 196
3:7–4:13 203, 204, 10:12 218 5:3 77
212, 213 10:13 211 5:8 282
3:15 204 10:17–18 534, 535 5:17 295, 301, 315
3:19 507, 510 10:18 219
4:3–10 6 10:23 222 1 Peter
4:5–6 211 10:25 218, 282 1:3 373
4:7 204 10:25–29 221 1:10–12 182
4:12–13 204, 208, 216 10:26–31 204, 208, 216 1:18–19 388
4:14 222 10:27 208 1:20 219
4:14–16 163 10:30 469 1:20–21 388
5:1–6:20 215 10:30–31 208 2:22 163
5:1–7:28 212 10:34 208 2:23 164
5:5–6 215 10:35–39 204, 208, 221 2:24 407
5:11–6:8 203, 204, 10:37 222 4:7 279, 282, 502
213, 216 10:39 221 4:12 467
5:12 204 11:1 558 4:17 527
6:4 205, 489 11:3 211
6:4–8 208 11:4 406 2 Peter
7:3 208 11:5 208, 494 1:3–4 558
7:12 208 11:33 209 1:5 251
7:24 208 11:34 209 1:5–7 261
7:26 163 12:1–2 218 1:5–9 251
7:27 205 12:2 558 1:5–10 246
8:1 218, 221, 421 12:5–6 204 1:5–11 246
8:1–2 308 12:18–21 211 1:10 249, 251
8:1–10:25 212 12:18–24 212, 213, 214 1:14 251
8:1–10:31 215 12:18–29 202, 208, 210, 1:15 249, 251
8:2 207, 221 212, 213, 1:16 245, 256, 496
8:10 189 214, 216 1:16–18 244, 488
8:8–12 215 12:22 9 1:18–21 245
9–10 219 12:22–24 208, 211, 2:1–3 245
9–13 209 213, 216 2:4 406
Scripture Index 587
2:5 236 6 406 2–3 195, 266, 267

3 xxvii, 29, 223, 9 71 2:1–3:22 336
230, 234, 242, 18 388 2:2 342, 348
245, 388 2:4 314
3:1 245 Revelation 2:5 284, 286,
3:1–3 29 1–2 384 348, 396
3:1–14 256 1:1 197, 265, 281, 2:5–6 348
3:1–18 29, 255 282, 331, 336, 2:6 197
3:3 77, 388 356, 395 2:7 13, 292, 326,
3:3–4 257 1:1–8 325 335, 340, 341, 355
3:4 234, 256 1:2 342, 394 2:8 195, 395
3:5 235, 236 1:3 265, 268, 282, 2:9 189, 195
3:5–6 30 283, 316, 328, 2:10 4, 197, 342
3:6 236 336, 340, 346, 2:11 13, 292, 326,
3:6–13 29 348, 395, 503 335, 340, 341
3:7 30, 236, 237 1:4 284, 285, 290, 2:12 342, 347
3:7–12 28, 31 332, 336, 337, 2:13 196, 197, 334, 336
3:8 235, 242 353, 395 2:14 13, 196, 197, 328
3:9 199, 245, 246, 1:4–5 337, 342 2:14–16 314
249, 261, 510, 545 1:4–6 332, 356 2:15 197
3:10 255, 256, 1:4–8 397 2:16 284, 285, 286,
261, 410 1:5 196, 334, 337, 342, 347
3:10–11 244 342, 343, 346, 2:17 13, 292, 326,
3:10–12 420 353, 354, 335, 340, 341
3:10–13 244 393, 394, 395 2:18 342
3:11 31, 246, 250, 1:5–6 327, 329, 2:19 196, 348
253, 254, 261, 365 337, 353 2:20 197
3:11–12 245, 246, 1:6 196, 338, 342, 2:20–21 328
251, 254 354, 393, 395, 396 2:20–23 314
3:12 xxviii, 239, 240, 1:7 132, 210, 2:21 355
241, 245, 247, 284, 338, 395 2:22–23 348, 396
249, 250, 252, 1:7–8 285 2:23 324, 328,
253, 254, 257, 1:8 284, 290, 332, 340, 342
260, 261, 504 336, 353, 2:26 292, 326,
3:12c 255 394, 395 328, 335,
3:13 30, 31, 236, 1:9 326, 342, 394 341, 348
259, 261 1:9–17 267 2:26–27 343
3:14 249, 250, 251, 261 1:9–20 327 2:26–29 340
3:15 245 1:9–3:21 341 2:28 341
1:10 4, 5, 15, 336 2:29 13
1 John 1:10b 6 3 403
2:18 388 1:10–11 5 3:1–2 348
3:1 388 1:11 5, 268, 269, 346 3:1–3 314
3:2 388 1:12–16 28 3:3 286, 348
3:3 365, 372, 497 1:13 128, 305, 396 3:5 292, 326, 335,
3:4 406 1:15 395 340, 341,
3:5 163, 219 1:16 342, 347 394, 445
3:8 219, 406 1:17 128, 324, 3:5–6 340
4:1 214 342, 394 3:6 13
4:8 123 1:17–18 177 3:7 195, 197, 342,
5:12 498 1:18 373, 394, 346, 347
395, 484 3:8 342, 348
Jude 1:19 267, 282, 336 3:9 189, 195,
5–7 484 2 403 337, 396
3:10 196, 285, 5:8–9 135 7:13–17 445

342, 348 5:9 135, 270, 337, 7:14 135, 284, 337,
3:11 284, 285, 349, 354, 395 353, 354, 355
394, 395 5:9–10 327, 329, 337, 7:14–15 338, 353, 354
3:12 326, 335, 342, 343, 350, 7:14–17 135
340, 341 353, 354, 394 7:15 338, 353, 354
3:12–13 340 5:10 196, 338, 354, 395 7:17 10, 135
3:12–21 292 5:11 134 8‒9 274
3:13 13 5:11–14 134 8‒11 266
3:14 342, 346, 347 5:12 327, 395 8:1 385
3:15 348 5:12–13 329 8:2–3 337
3:16 314, 396 5:13 328, 337 8:2–6 273
3:18 268, 340, 343 5:13–14 270, 327 8:3 271, 274, 396
3:19 337 5:15 132 8:3–4 337, 351, 353
3:21 308, 326, 334, 6 271, 272, 286 8:3‒5 266, 273, 274,
335, 341, 6–16 287 275, 276
353, 356, 373 6:1–8 350 8:3–6 275
3:21–22 340 6:1–8:1 290 8:5 150
3:22 13 6:2 326 8:6–11:18 290
4 327 6:9 342, 344, 347 8:7 275, 302
4‒5 xxviii, 266, 269, 6:9–10 326, 344, 350 8:7–12 276
270, 271, 272, 6:9–11 124, 274, 337, 8:8–9 275
216, 332 342, 343, 353 8:10–11 275
4‒11 267, 269, 273 6:10 132, 135, 270, 8:12 275
4–12 392 274, 286, 314, 8:13 133, 314
4–19 392 328, 329, 342, 9 570, 571
4–22 123, 267 346, 347, 9–11 286
4:1 267, 336 350, 385 9:1–12 275
4:1–5:13 331, 337 6:10–11 350 9:5 276
4:1–5:14 332, 353 6:11 286, 287, 340, 342 9:5–6 130
4:1–8:1 351 6:12 150, 156 9:6 130
4:1–11:18 344 6:12–14 486 9:7–10 571
4:1–11:19 341, 344 6:12–17 385, 485, 342 9:11 197, 337
4:4 340 6:16 467, 468 9:12 284, 302
4:5 271 6:16–17 342, 395 9:13–21 275
4:8 135, 284, 290, 6:17 196, 343, 344, 385 9:14–18 571
327, 328, 329, 7 196, 275, 327, 507 9:15 276
332, 336, 340, 7:1 515 9:18 276
342, 343, 395 7:1–3 133 9:20 348
4:9–11 343 7:1–8 340, 494 9:20–21 328, 334, 347
4:11 11, 135, 270, 7:2 286, 453 10 303, 396
327, 328, 329, 7:3 197, 515 10:1–7 133, 303
3 32, 333, 342 7:3–4 196 10:1–11:14 275, 302
5 137, 270, 271, 7:4 189, 196 10:3 286
272, 327, 385, 395 7:9 333, 340, 343, 10:4 133
5:1–5 351 349, 353 10:5–6 302, 328
5:1–8:1 338, 354 7:9–10 337, 343, 10:6 287, 337
5:3–4 328 349, 350 10:6–7 336
5:4 128 7:9–12 134, 327, 329 10:7 134, 287, 302
5:5 196, 197, 326, 7:9–15 337, 353 10:8 315
335, 341, 389 7:9–17 208 10:8–11 303, 305
5:5–6 308 7:10 286, 338 10:8–11:1 313
5:6 9, 272, 395 7:12 13 10:8–11:12 304
5:8 274 7:13–14 340 10:8–11:13ff 303
Scripture Index 589
10:8–11:14 275, 276 11:18–19 328, 334 12:11 326, 335, 338,
10:9 128, 303 11:19 150, 271, 309, 341, 342, 350,
10:10 303, 316 314, 326, 352, 353, 354
10:11 276, 287, 303, 337, 344 12:12 133, 286, 310,
304, 305, 313, 12 296, 297, 298, 337, 384
314, 316, 349 305, 306, 307, 12:13 310, 385
11 130, 297, 302, 309, 310, 311, 12:13–15 312
303, 305, 310, 312, 313, 315, 12:13–16 305, 307, 308,
313, 316, 317, 380 317, 318, 344, 407 310, 313, 385
11-13 xxviii 12–13 312, 407 12:13–17 309, 311,
11–15 349 12–14 335, 384, 445 317, 344
11:1 128, 303, 314 12–19 290 12:14 287, 295, 298,
11:1–2 303, 305, 313 12:1 306, 317 301, 305, 308,
11:1–6 315 12:1–2 306, 309, 344 310, 315, 317,
11:1–13 303, 313, 12:1–4 309, 384 318, 320, 336, 385
342, 347 12:1–4a 309 12:15 308, 310,
11:1–14 302 12:1–5 305, 312, 318, 385
11:2 274, 276, 287, 313, 407 12:16 308, 310,
295, 301, 302, 12:1–6 306 312, 385
305, 312, 313, 12:1–17 198, 334, 336 12:17 133, 305, 307,
315, 318 12:1–22:5 344 309, 310, 311,
11:2–3 297, 303, 12:1–22:21 328 312, 313, 319,
305, 336 12:2 133 326, 328, 334,
11:3 287, 295, 301, 12:3 309, 384 336, 337, 342,
303, 304, 305, 12:3–4 305, 306, 344, 347, 348,
313, 315, 316, 382 307, 406 353, 385,
11:3–6 301, 304 12:4 306, 307, 407, 483
11:3–12 316 309, 317, 384 13 129, 296, 297,
11:3–18 343 12:4–5 307 298, 309, 310,
11:3–19 303 12:4–6 309 311, 312, 313,
11:4–6 303, 305 12:5 188, 306, 307, 315, 318, 319,
11:5 316 310, 384, 395 407, 520, 559,
11:6 301, 315, 316 12:5–6 344 568, 571
11:7 304, 335, 337 12:6 287, 295, 298, 13–14 8
11:7–12 305 301, 305, 306, 13:1 319, 340
11:7–13 302, 304 307, 308, 310, 13:1a 8
11:8 395 312, 313, 315, 13:1b 8
11:9 349 317, 336, 382, 385 13:1–2 9
11:10 130 12:6–16 407 13:1–7 310, 311,
11:11 276 12:7 197 312, 313,
11:13 10, 11, 130, 12:7–9 91, 306, 307, 319, 385
131, 150, 305, 309 310, 365, 13:1–10 311
11:14 284, 302 384, 406, 482 13:1–14:20 328
11:15 6, 326 12:7–10 307 13:2 9, 319, 561
11:15–17 287 12:7–12 272, 309, 13:2a 8
11:15–18 275, 302, 313 310, 312, 13:2b 8
11:15–19 326 313, 342, 384 13:2c 8
11:15–12:17 329 12:7–13 317 13:3 129, 288,
11:16–17 326 12:9 306, 345 319, 452
11:17 326, 327, 12:9–11 340 13:3–18 8
332, 395 12:10 91, 307, 308, 342 13:4 348
11:18 19, 24, 32, 12:10–11 310, 337, 13:5 287, 295, 298,
270, 333, 338, 354, 384, 483 301, 310, 312,
334, 349, 352 12:10–12 327, 407 318, 319,
12:10–13 336 320, 568
13:5–6 345 14:7 8, 9, 10, 12, 16:8–11 486

13:5–7 318 131, 198, 270, 16:9 334
13:6 394 305, 328, 336, 16:10 130
13:7 335, 349 341, 347, 348, 16:11 334, 348
13:7–8 344 441, 445, 447, 481 16:13–17 345
13:8 314, 341, 14:7a 11 16:15 268, 336, 340,
348, 484 14:7b 11 342, 343, 395
13:8–10 310, 311, 14:8 9, 328, 442, 444 16:16 284, 341
312, 313, 319, 385 14:9 10, 12, 348, 445 16:17 314, 353
13:9 340 14:9–11 131, 340, 442 16:17–21 486, 487
13:10 13, 196, 344 14:9–12 483 16:18 150, 309
13:11 9, 310, 311, 14:10 132, 352, 444, 16:21 130
312, 313, 385 447, 449, 451 17 128
13:11–17 8 14:10–11 132 17‒19 270, 392
13:11–18 311 14:10–13 10 17–22 284, 285
13:12 196, 348 14:11 12, 131, 348, 17:1 270
13:12–17 452 445, 449 17:1–5 345
13:12–18 310, 311, 312, 14:12 11, 12, 135, 17:1–6 326
313, 319, 385 196, 328, 334, 17:1–18:21 328
13:14 196, 345 336, 337, 344, 17:2 196
13:14–18 93 348, 353, 440, 17:3 288
13:15 348, 443, 445 443, 450 17:3–6 198
13:16 333, 349 14:13 135, 346, 348, 354 17:4 340
13:16–17 340, 445, 453 14:14 210, 509, 513 17:6 128, 129
13:18 13 14:14–16 8 17:7 128, 136
14 131, 309, 407 14:14–20 310, 385, 17:8 196, 337, 341
14:1 197, 340, 343, 395, 407 17:9 13
353, 445 14:14–16:21 330 17:9–11 287
14:1–4 208 14:15 286, 314 17:10 287, 288
14:1–5 9, 337, 338, 14:17 314 17:11 288
344, 348, 353, 14:19 132 17:12–14 288
354, 356, 15–16 392 17:14 326, 337, 341,
445, 494 15:1 326 354, 395
14:1–13 8, 9, 310, 15:1–4 208, 326, 338 17:15 309, 349
342, 385 15:1–8 337 18 133, 137, 442,
14:2 9 15:1–18:24 343 452, 521
14:3 135 15:2 326, 341, 445 18:1–4 198
14:4 197 15:3 138, 197, 18:1–5 331
14:4–5 348 329, 346 18:1–24 328
14:5 13, 197, 345, 15:3–4 326, 327, 328, 18:2 286, 452
346, 347 340, 342, 343, 18:4 336, 341, 342
14:6 11, 12, 130, 344, 346, 349, 351 18:4–5 334
186, 333, 336, 15:4 10, 11, 329 18:4–8 342
349, 449, 483, 15:5–8 276, 314 18:6 348
509, 513 16 130, 132, 302, 443 18:9 131
14:6b 9 16:1 314 18:10 270
14:6–7 131, 331, 342, 16:1–21 340 18:10–12 131
343, 407, 441 16:1–20:15 328 18:13 333
14:6–12 343, 431, 433, 16:2 340, 348, 445 18:15 131
439, 481 16:3 276 18:19 131
14:6–13 4, 9, 15, 276, 16:4–7 328, 329 18:20 270, 342, 353
331, 332, 16:5 270, 332, 342 18:23 345
350, 407 16:5–7 327, 343, 351 19:1–2 342, 344, 346
14:6–20 347 16:7 342, 346 19:1–5 135, 326, 351
19:1–6 328, 340,
Scripture Index 591
343, 351 21:1–8 326, 328, 22:11 13, 132, 197,

19:1–7 327, 329, 334, 349 282, 328, 334,
342, 343 21:1–22:5 328, 343 339, 340,
19:2 197, 270, 326, 21:2 197, 486 346, 348
342, 346 21:3 198, 345 22:11–12 339
19:5 197, 333, 349 21:3–4 375 22:11–14 324
19:6–8 354 21:4 135, 237, 424 22:12 284, 285, 326,
19:7–8 337, 356 21:5 331, 342, 345, 338, 389, 395
19:8 340 346, 347 22:13 336, 394
19:9 346, 347 21:5–8 356 22:14 13, 137, 282,
19:10 383 21:6 332, 394 337, 340
19:11 342, 346, 395 21:7 136, 198, 326, 22:14–15 328, 333, 334,
19:11–21 354 335, 338, 340, 353
19:13 342 341, 345 22:15 328, 345,
19:15 188, 342, 347 21:7–8 24 346, 348
19:15–16 216 21:8 328, 333, 22:16 188, 197, 281
19:16 395 340, 346, 367 22:17 10, 136, 137,
19:17 286 21:10 197 284, 328, 336,
19:18 333, 349 21:12 196 338, 340, 341,
19:20 345, 445 21:14 198 342, 355, 391
19:21 342, 347 21:15 334 22:17–19 339
20 270, 367, 392, 21:16 197 22:18–19 137, 277,
467, 468, 484 21:21 328 331, 346
20–21 30 21:22–23 136 22:19 197, 284, 341
20:1 337 21:24–27 198 22:20 284, 285,
20:1–21:5 332 21:25 333 336, 338, 347,
20:1–22:5 338 21:25–27 136 395, 488
20:3 286, 287, 337, 345 21:27 328, 333, 334, 22:21 337, 353, 356
20:4 270, 340, 342, 338, 340, 341,
343, 347, 348, 346, 348, 356
349, 393, 445 22:1–5 337
20:4–6 467 22:1–17 332
20:6 197, 393, 395, 445 22:2 333, 349
20:7–9 473 22:3 136, 197
20:8 197, 287, 345 22:3–4 497
20:9 197 22:4 136, 197, 340,
20:10 286, 345, 367 342, 353, 397
20:11 342, 344 22:5–21 285
20:11–12 342 22:6 197, 214, 265,
20:11–13 340 281, 282, 283,
20:11–15 270, 271, 331, 342, 346,
336, 340, 443 347, 395
20:12 326, 333, 341 22:6–7 503
20:12–13 270, 348, 473 22:6–21 284, 325
20:14 367 22:7 137, 265, 282,
20:14–15 445 284, 285, 336,
20:15 338, 341 338, 395
21 29, 32 22:8 334
21–22 31, 392 22:9 282, 283, 328,
21:1 375 346, 348
21:1–2 352 22:10 136, 265, 268,
21:1–4 28, 421 282, 283, 395
21:1–5 332 22:10–12 336
21:1–7 333, 343 22:10–15 340, 356
Index of Extrabiblical References
1 Clement 4 Ezra Josephus, Antiquitates
34:6 210 7:30–31 420 Iudaicae
45:6 210 12–13 217 4.214 248
45:7 210 12:17 284
14:5–6 284 Josephus, Jewish Wars
45–46 284 6.5.3 150
1 Enoch 403
46–48 217 §288–300 150
48:4–5 146 4.4.5 150
4QFlor
54:4–5 420 1:11–13 188
62:2–71 217 Mishnah Tamid
5.6 274
6 Discourse
1 Esdras on the Eighth
6:9 248 and Ninth 284 Philo, De congressu
8:63 103 eruditionis gratia.
112 248
Apocalypse of Abraham
2 Ezra 28-30 242
6:25–26, 146 Sibylline Oracles
3:710–723 146
Apocalypse of Baruch
2 Baruch 403 242, 243, 244
5:2 290 Sirach
12:4 290 27:3 248
Canticles Rabba
13:5 290 8:14 243 35:19 260
20:1 290
20:2 290 Damascus Document (CD) Tacitus, Historiae
20:6 290 7:16–21 188 5.13 150
21:19 290
23:7 290 Epistle of Barnabas 403 Testaments of Levi
42:8 290 4:4 210 18:3–9 146
48:39 290 4:5 210
51:7 290 16:6 210 Testament of Moses
54:1 290 1:17–18 284
54:17 290 Gospel of the Egyptians
81:3 290 68:1–9 284 War Scroll 124
82:2 290
83:1 290 Herodotus, Hdt Wisdom of Solomon
85:10 290 6.107.3 248 14:17 248
2 Maccabees Homer, Iliad y. Taʿanit

4.225 248 1:1 243
2:1–8 484
7:14 252
12:44 252 Homer, Odyssey b. Sanhedrin
21.409 248 38 217
96 217
98 217
98a 243
592

Eschatology From An Adventist Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eschatology From An Adventist Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eschatology From An Adventist Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESCHATOLOGY

from an Adventist Perspective

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH

Proceedings of the Fourth International Bible

Biblical Research Institute Sta

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH

Biblical Research Institute

Silver Spring, MD 20904

Eschatology from an Adventist Perspective: Proceedings of the Third International Bible

Printed in the U.S.A.

Theological and Historical Studies

Index of Biblical References 575

Index of Extrabiblical References 592

Félix H. Cortez, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament

Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D., is professor of Old Testament inter-

Kwabena Donkor, Ph.D., is an associate director of the Biblical

Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times, edited by

Jacques B. Doukhan, D.Heb-Lett., Th.D., is professor emeritus of

Eriks Galenieks, Ph.D., is a director of PhD program for religion

Laszlo Gallusz, Ph.D., is senior lecturer of New Testament stud-

Darius W. Jankiewicz, Ph.D., currently serves as the ﬁeld and min-

journals and other publications. He is co-editor of Salvation: Contours

Denis Kaiser, Ph.D., is assistant professor of church history at the

Chantal J. Klingbeil, Ph.D. candidate, is an associate director of

Gerald A. Klingbeil, D.Litt., is an associate editor of Adventist Review

Larry L. Lichtenwalter, Ph.D., is president of Middle East University

personal ethics, the book of Revelation, and Adventist perspectives on

Anthony MacPherson, Ph.D., is currently a lecturer in systematic

Nicholas P. Miller, Ph.D., is professor of church history at the

Eike Mueller, Th.D., is associate professor for New Testament stud-

Ekkehardt Mueller, D.Min., Th.D., is an associate director of the

Ronald Nalin, Ph.D., is the director of the Geoscience Research In-

Jon Paulien, Ph.D., is professor of religion and the former dean of

Paul B. Petersen, Ph.D., is from Denmark, where he worked as an

Dan-Adrian Petre, Ph.D. candidate (Adventist International In-

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, Th.D., is the retired director of the Biblical

and continues to work part-time for the Institute. He also served as

Roger Ruiz, Ph.D. candidate (Andrews University), is professor of

Thomas R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Dr.PH., is professor of New Testament

Ranko Stefanovic, Ph.D., is a professor of New Testament at the

Alberto R. Timm, Ph.D., is a specialist in the development of

A. Rahel Wells, Ph.D., is associate professor of Hebrew Bible in the

Clinton Wahlen, Ph.D., is an associate director of the Biblical

ASV American Standard Version

Books of the Bible

have the best possible experience. Mention should also be made of

Elias Brasil de Souza

questions—namely, life and death—are indeed addressed in the Hebrew

about His second coming, recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, highlight

God intervened in nature; and 3) these past divine interventions warrant

comprised of a historical ﬂow (past, present, future) and in the context

content of the three angels’ messages. He emphasizes the eschatological

of the most controversial doctrines, challenged and questioned more

Presence of the Future:

The “presence of the future”1 that will be discussed in this study is

and illuminate its paradox. First, two eschatological expressions—“at

The Presence of the Day of the Lord

“At the end of the days” (Dan 1:18)

That Daniel uses eschatological language to describe his present situ-

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10)