Spes Christiana 2020-02

Volume 31 no. 2

ISSN 0935-7467

Founded by Hans Heinz and Udo Worschech, 1990

Published biannually by EASTRS (European Adventist Society of Theology and Religious Studies; www.eastrs.org)

Editorial Board

Reinder Bruinsma (Netherlands; General Editor), Aulikki Nahkola (Newbold College of Higher Education), Marko Lukic (Teološki Fakultet Beograd), Daniel Olariu (Universitatea Adventus, Cernica), Nestor H. Petruk (Villa Aurora, Florence), Hanz Gutierrez (Villa Aurora, Florence), Igor Lorencin (Theologische Hochschule Friedensau).

N.B.: The content of articles represents the respective author’s position and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors.

Correspondence Address

Reinder Bruinsma, Ph. D., General Editor, [email protected]

Kerstin Maiwald, Book Review Editor and Managing Editor, [email protected]

Stefan Höschele, Ph.D. habil., advisor, [email protected]

Internet

www.eastrs.org/spes-christiana

Please visit to find author’s guidelines, review guidelines, and a Word prototype file.

Printing

Distribution of this journal is primarily done via the internet. Printed copies may be ordered online through Amazon or www.bod.de/buchshop.

Table of Contents / Table de matières / Inhalt

Editorial

Reinder Bruinsma

Is the Adventist Hermeneutical Approach to Daniel and Revelation Changing?

Stefan Höschele

The 1872 Declaration of Fundamental Principles: On the Contextual-Theological Significance of Adventism’s First Statement of Beliefs

André Reis

Robert Sloan Donnell: From Righteousness by Faith to Sinless Perfection

Chigemezi Nnadozie Wogu

Preparing Converts for the Second Coming of Christ: The Encounter of Seventh-day Adventist Missionaries with Indigenous Issues in Nigeria from 1900 to the 1940s

Matthew J. Korpman

Forgotten Scriptures: Allusions to and Quotations of the Apocrypha by Ellen White

Miguel Gutierrez

The Prophet as a Model of a Spiritual Leader

Radiša Antić

The Laws of Nature: Philosophical and Theological Perspectives of Evil in Nature

Book Reviews

Peter Scazzerro. Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: It’s Impossible to Be Spiritually Mature, while Remaining Emotionally Immature (Andreas Bochmann)

A.J. Swoboda. Subversive Sabbath: The Surprising Power of Rest in a Nonstop World (Ján Barna)

Christian Feichtinger. Das geheiligte Leben: Körper und Identität bei den Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten (Stefan Höschele)

Tihomir Lazić. Towards an Adventist Version of Communio Ecclesiology: Remnant in Koinonia (Reinder Bruinsma)

Jirí Moskala and John C. Peckham, eds. God’s Character and the Last Generation (József Szilvási)

Barry Beitzel. Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels (Igor Lorencin)

Matthew J. Korpman. Saying No to God: A Radical Approach to Reading the Bible Faithfully (Klaus Schmitz)

Brian Bull and Fritz Guy. God, Sky and Land: Genesis 1 as the Ancient Hebrews Heard It. God, Land, and the Great Flood: Hearing the Story with 21st-Century Christian Ears. God, Genesis and Good News: God, the Misreading of Genesis, and the Surprisingly Good News (Aulikki Nahkola)

Editorial

A new issue of Spes Christiana is ready. We proudly offer our readers a collection of seven interesting articles and a number of relevant book reviews.

Our authors come from different backgrounds: Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States; and they represent various theological disciplines. A look at the Table of Contents reveals that the topics vary from studies of a church-historical and missiological nature to biblical and theological studies. In the latter category are the article about The Prophet as a Model of a Spiritual Leader and the piece about the Laws of Nature: Philosophical and Theological Perspectives of Evil in Nature. The other five articles relate more directly to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its history. Very little has been written about the early Adventist leader Robert Sloan Donnell. The article about him in this issue of Spes Christiana definitely adds to our knowledge of the fascinating episode of Adventist history around 1900 in which Donnell played a key role. The piece about Ellen G. White’s use of material from the Apocrypha, similarly, breaks new ground and invites further exploration in this area.

The teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are now codified in the Statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs, but this document, in its present form, was not adopted until a few decades ago. Prof. Stefan Höschele, who has long been connected with our journal and the general editor and still acts as an advisor, explores the role and content of the earliest formal summary of Adventist beliefs, which dates from 1872. I have contributed an article in which I try to answer a question many are asking, namely whether the Adventist hermeneutics regarding the Bible books of Daniel and Revelation are gradually changing. Finally, an intriguing issue ‒ how Adventist missionaries interacted with local traditions and indigenous beliefs in Nigeria in the era in which the Adventist Church was founded in this African nation ‒ is dealt with by a young scholar who hails from Nigeria, but is now a Ph.D. candidate at the Free University of Amsterdam.

Hopefully these articles will be appreciated and enjoyed by our readers, who are as geographically spread out as are the authors of this issue. I hope that many of our readers will feel inspired to also contribute to the upcoming issues of Spes Christiana. The Spring 2021 issue will have a special focus on the theme of Spirituality. We welcome articles on one of the many aspects of this topic, which may be approached from different angles: biblically, theologically, phenomenologically, historically, (auto-)biographically, etc.

We expect that we will be able to publish in the 2021 Autumn issue several papers that will be presented at the European Theology Teachers Convention that will be held (online) from March 24 to March 28.

Yours in the service of Christian scholarship to which our journal is dedicated,

Reinder Bruinsma, General Editor

Is the Adventist Hermeneutical Approach

to Daniel and Revelation Changing?

¹

Reinder Bruinsma

Abstract

This article investigates whether, within Seventh-day Adventism, the hermeneutical approach is changing, in particular with regard to the prophetic portions of Daniel and Revelation: Is the traditional historicist position still dominant or are other approaches also making inroads? A number of official and semi-official sources are surveyed, as well as publications from scholars and popular authors. The article zooms in on the treatment of four issues in the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy: (1) the year-day principle, (2) the identity of the little horn (Dan. 7) and the sea-beast (Rev. 13), (3) the seal of God and the mark of the beast, and (4) the number 666. It appears that the historicist approach continues to receive support, most strongly in official and semi-official publications, but less so in books by scholars and popular authors. Authors in the two latter categories are also inclined to attribute value to other approaches besides historicism. Quite generally, there is a tendency to be less specific, when compared to the past, in making specific historical applications to particular symbols.

It could be the dream of any Adventist author or Adventist publisher to hear the president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church during a world congress give an unequivocal endorsement of a book that has just been written or published. That was what Pastor Ted N.C. Wilson did when, after having emphasized the importance of approaching the Bible in as literal a way as possible, he encouraged the church members to use a recent book, prepared by the Biblical Research Institute, as their hermeneutical guide. He said: Utilize wonderful resources such as the Biblical Research Institute’s new book on hermeneutics that helps us know the correct way to interpret the Scriptures.² In giving this ringing endorsement he spoke in clear support of the traditional Adventist approach to the study of the Bible, including the use of the historicist option in dealing with the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

In this article I want to address this element of traditional Adventist hermeneutics by surveying the way in which recent publications have approached this matter, and to investigate whether any clear hermeneutical shift is discernible. If so, this may inspire further studies with regard to implications for Adventist theology and evangelistic practice.

I will single out a few particular issues in Daniel and Revelation, to illustrate how a particular approach works out in the exegesis of the actual Bible text. I have selected about twenty books which have been published since 2000. A few of these have an official or semi-official status. These include the Seventh-day Adventist Handbook of Theology (Dederen 2000), two publications of the BRI (Reid 2006; Pfandl 2010), and the Andrews Study Bible (Dybdahl 2010). In addition, I have chosen a few publications that have been written by prominent Adventist theology professors: Jacques Doukhan (2000a; 2000b); Ekkehardt Mueller (2015), Jon Paulien (2004; 2007; 2008; 2009), Ranko Stefanović (2002), Zdravko Stefanović (2007) and Sigve K. Tonstad (2019).³ And, finally, I have taken a good look at a few books that are of a more popular nature,⁴ such as The Remnant Study Bible (2009)⁵ and books by Marvin Moore (2001; 2007; 2008), Mike Tucker (2007), Francis Njau (2010), Reimar Vetne (2016), and the book that was co-authored by Steve Case and Daniel Wysong (2014).⁶ I have not included in this study any of the publications and other media products about apocalyptic themes that constantly flow from a wide range of independent ministries, which operate mostly on the conservative fringe of the Adventist Church.⁷

1. Our Historicist Heritage

Historicism has ancient credentials. Most Adventist authors on Daniel and Revelation do not fail to mention this fact and regard it as a key argument for choosing the historicist option. Historicism may indeed have a long track record,⁸ but we must recognize that over time the general picture within the Christian world has changed, and the preterist, futurist and idealist approaches have won many adherents, while dispensationalists have applied the historicist approach in ways that Adventists strongly reject. Norman Gulley, an Adventist systematic theologian, possibly overstates his case when he claims that Adventists stand virtually alone, when defending historicism, but his point is well taken (Gulley 1998, 66).⁹

In a book in which the various hermeneutical approaches to biblical apocalyptic prophecy are compared, some rather striking statements by proponents of the various options may be found. The person writing in defense of preterism concluded:

Preterism seems to me to provide the most coherent, relevant, and exegetically sound approach to the most difficult book of the Bible. The preterist principle can be abused, of course ‒ some liberals adopt it, devoid of its supernaturalism, of course). But so can the futurist principle…. The same can be said about the idealist and the progressivist principles. The task of the serious Christian is to carefully weigh the issues in the balance of the whole of Scripture. (Gentry 1998, 92)

The representative of the idealist approach does not agree, but claims that his approach is superior: I am convinced for several reasons, that the idealist approach stands on a stronger hermeneutical foundation than the other approaches ... (Hamstra 1998, 128). Dispensationalist Robert L. Thomas is, however, convinced that his approach is best: "A dispensational view of Revelation strives for objectivity by putting aside all preunderstanding and bias, so that the text of the book may speak for itself" (Thomas 1998, 227).

Adventist theologian Jon K. Paulien, who defends historicism, is just as adamant as the three authors just mentioned: "The historicist view remains the best approach to apocalyptic prophecy (Paulien 2006, 268). Elsewhere he states: It [historicism] takes all the evidence of the Bible seriously" (Paulien 2009, 17).

Paulien echoes a long-established Adventist position: The historicist approach unlocks the meaning of Daniel and Revelation. Adventists inherited the historicist approach from their Millerite forebears (Davidson 2000, 96). However, Kai Arasola, the Finnish scholar who investigated the methodology of William Miller, concluded that many of Miller’s conclusions did not pass into Adventist thinking, and that the 1844 debacle which confronted the Millerites contributed to the end of historicism. Yet, Arasola admitted that

historicism did not die with Miller. It still lives in a modified and partly renewed¹⁰ form within the groups that have some roots in Millerism…. On the one hand, he [Miller] contributed to the end of a dominant system of exegesis, on the other hand, he is regarded as a spiritual father by millions of Christians who have taken some parts of the Millerite exegesis as their raison d’être. (Arasola 1990, 171‒172)

2. Qualified Support for Historicism

Today, the historicist approach to apocalyptic prophecy represents a minority position. Academic interpretations tend to favor preterism, while the popular market has embraced futurism (Tonstad 2019, 27). The official teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, however, remains firmly rooted in historicism. This was recently underlined in the Consensus Statement voted by the approximately four hundred participants in a conference on eschatology, held in Rome (Italy) from June 11 to June 21, 2018. It was one of the regularly scheduled Bible conferences that are organized by the BRI, intended for Adventist theology teachers, pastors and church leaders. The statement that was voted included this paragraph: We affirm that the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation are foundational for the understanding of biblical eschatology and that the historicist method is the proper approach to interpreting them.¹¹

Yet, when looking at Adventist authors who have written about apocalyptic prophecy in the last two decades, we find that in many cases their support for historicism is qualified in different ways. In the chapter Biblical Apocalyptic in the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, William H. Johnsson argues for a historicist emphasis but does not push it too strongly. Daniel and Revelation manifest a cosmic range of apocalyptic prophecy, that covers history from the days of the prophets to the end of time (Johnsson 2000, 795). He adds that preterist and futurist interpretations, or such interpretations that make the prophetic message no more than the eternal confrontation between the forces of good and evil, are inadequate (Johnsson 2000, 796‒797). In contrast, he concludes, historicism, though sometimes marred by diverse, sensational, speculative and contradictory approaches, appears as the most valid hermeneutical approach in the biblical apocalypses (Johnsson 2000, 797).

The Andrews Study Bible, though avoiding Adventist jargon in its notes and comments on the apocalyptic sections of the Bible, makes it clear that it operates on the basis of the historicist principle: The historicist position takes the full evidence of these portion of Scripture most seriously (Dybdahl 2010, 1659). But, while the over-all method is considered as sound, exact applications, the Andrews Study Bible suggests, are often uncertain. Moreover, each of the other approaches (preterism, futurism and idealism), have a point, as long as that point is not taken to an extreme. The idealist perspective is certainly helpful, provided it does not lead us to ignore the global, historical, and political implications of the book [of Revelation] (Dybdahl 2010, 1659).

In one of his books Professor Jon Paulien, a specialist in the Book of Revelation, makes the same point. He suggests that historicism has its problems. If we limit ourselves to a historicist reading of apocalyptic prophecy, then much of it doesn’t apply directly to the point of time in which we now live…. [It] is often very dry and leaves people wonder about the spiritual meaning. All approaches (historicist, but also preterist, futurist and idealist) have a certain degree of validity (Paulien 2004, 29‒30).

In the commentaries of Doukhan on Daniel and on Revelation, historicism is assumed rather than explicitly defended. Although one might argue that Doukhan’s books also betray traces of idealism, the author maintains that a historicist approach is dictated by the context and stresses that there is much more beyond the spiritual dimension of these books:

In Hebrew thinking, though, truth is not a spiritual or philosophical message designed only to nurture our soul and our minds. Instead, biblical truth is essentially historical. God speaks in history. And whatever explanation or whatever emphasis we want to give to the date fulfilling the prophecy, we should not be surprised that biblical prophecy takes the risk of entering the flesh of history, even our modern history. (Doukhan 2000, 152)

In his recent commentary Zdravko Stefanović, a theology professor at AdventHealth University (Orlando, Florida, USA), does not deny the important historical applications of Daniel. But he is also keen to pay attention to the meaning for the original readers and to contemporary applications (Stefanović 2007, 9). Daniel’s purpose is not to provide objective history, but to point at the truths that lay behind the historical facts. His brother Ranko Stefanović, who teaches theology at Andrews University (Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA), expresses himself in rather similar ways with regard to the book of Revelation. He finds the historicist approach sometimes problematic, because of the difficulty of fitting every detail of the text into a historical fulfilment. On the other hand, he says, the alternative approaches can only have some validity, if the prophetic elements are taken into consideration and applied to the time that extends beyond John’s days (Stefanović 2002, 11). This position appears to have some resemblance to that of Desmond Ford (Ford 1978, 65‒72), whose apotelesmatic principle ‒ which stressed the positive elements in preterism, futurism, and idealism ‒ caused major theological uproar in the Adventist Church in 1980s and beyond (Ouro 1888, 326‒342). Ranko Stefanović calls for making case-by-case judgments:

The exposition of the text must be controlled by the intent of its author, who should tell us what we are supposed to find in it. If the message of the studied text was primarily for John’s days, then it calls for the preterist or idealist approach. On the other hand, if it discusses the very end of times, then its interpretation calls for a futurist approach. If the studied text presents the events occurring throughout the course of history, however, a sound interpretation calls for a historicist interpretation of the text. Strong evidence must demonstrate that the scenes and symbols in the text point to events throughout all of history, rather than those primarily in John’s times or the time of the end. (Stefanović 2002, 12)

In the second edition of his commentary, Ranko Stefanović somewhat modifies his views regarding this matter without, however, retracting them (Reynolds 2010, 27‒28).

Sigve Tonstad emphasizes that any interpretation of the Revelation must be adequate and relevant (Tonstad 2019, 28). He opines that the major schools of interpretation are all found wanting in these respects. Repeatedly he points to the inadequacies of the preterist view. "Revelation trains its sight on values more than events, and is God-centered more than time-centered" (Tonstad 2019, 29). The central theme is the cosmic conflict between good and evil (Tonstad 2019, 20).

The more popular authors whom I have included in this review do not spend much energy on defending the historicist approach to apocalyptic prophecy. Marvin Moore, a prolific author and editor at the Pacific Press Publishing Association, and the African author Francis Njau simply assume the validity of the historicist option. The same applies to the Remnant Study Bible. No attempt is made to explain why the historicist approach is the best option, but the principle is simply applied (1575‒1582). Mike Tucker’s book is primarily pastoral in intent, and looks particularly for contemporary spiritual lessons. But underneath one can detect the tacit assumption that historicism is a valid principle. Yet, it could be argued that Tucker’s book in some places clearly shows idealist tendencies.

In their book about the Revelation, which places Jesus at the center of everything that is said in this Bible book, the authors ‒ Steve Case and Daniel Wysong ‒ briefly discuss the various approaches to apocalyptic prophecy. They conclude that each of the four schools [of interpretation] has merit, and yet each gets stuck by insisting that it is the only possible interpretation. (Case and Wysong 2014, 4) Readers of the Revelation, they say, must let the text speak for itself and then determine which sections focus mainly on the first century, which have particular meaning for the end-time, and which relate to events in past history. And we certainly can find passages with powerful spiritual application for any believer who listens (Case and Wysong 2014, 4).

Gerhard Pfandl and Ekkehardt Mueller, both prominent staff members of the Biblical Research Institute during the period under review, do not agree. They see a major difficulty in this eclectic approach, since it leaves the exegete with the problem of how to determine what method is appropriate (Pfandl and Mueller 2010, 81).

The somewhat different levels of qualified support of historicism may be partly due to different definitions. Reimar Vetne has pointed out that many Bible exegetes operate with a particular understanding of preterism and of the other non-historicist approaches, which may not always be totally accurate, and therefore tend to define historicism in an all-or-nothing way.¹² Vetne suggests that a definition of historicism must allow for enough room for applying certain passages specifically to the authors’ days, and some specifically to the final days which are yet future (Vetne 2003, 7).

3. Historicism at Work

It seems fair to conclude that in recent Adventist publications historicism is still used as the main hermeneutical principle in interpreting apocalyptic prophecy, even though there is often not the across-the-board unqualified stamp of approval historicism once received. We will find confirmation of this when we look at a few topics that have consistently played an important role in the Adventist understanding of Daniel and Revelation. We will look briefly at the way our various recent authors have dealt with these particular facets. I have chosen (1) the year-day principle, (2) the identity of the little horn of Daniel 7, the sea beast of Revelation 12 and the land beast in Revelation 13, (3) the meaning of the seal of God and the mark of the beast, and (4) the meaning of the number 666.

3.1 Year-Day-Principle

It is rather surprising to discover that, generally speaking, very little effort is made to provide a solid basis for the validity of the so-called year-day principle, which stipulates that in apocalyptic time prophecies one day symbolizes one literal year, one month stands for 30 years, and one year for 360 years. Several authors refer to the extensive study by William H. Shea (Shea 1982, 67‒110), which is probably the most thorough treatment given to the topic by any Seventh-day Adventist scholar. Marvin Moore also provides detailed information about the historical antecedents of the year-day principle (Moore 2008, 116‒124). Usually, if any justification for the application of this principle is given at all, reference is simply made to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4‒8 as proof texts.¹³ In these two passages, days are used as a symbol to represent years. Although these passages are situated in a prophetic context, they are not, however, connected to any long-term prophetic time periods.

The year-day principle, which is closely linked to the historicist approach to apocalyptic prophecy, has a venerable tradition, and was an important aspect of the Millerite heritage. The application of the principle to the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9:25 was the ultimate proof of its suitability…. Like earlier historicists, he [Miller] believed that a 490-year period leading up to the time of Christ was an unarguable conclusion for any discussion on the year for a day theory (Arasola 1990, 87). Gerhard Pfandl and Ekkehardt Mueller call the year-day principle the backbone of historicism (2010, 81‒83).

Johnsson argues that the statements of time periods in Daniel and Revelation are found in a symbolic context. Hermeneutical consistency, therefore, would require that these time periods, which are described as days, months, or times, are treated as symbolic (Johnsson 2000, 797). Paulien also stresses that there is a strong exegetical basis for interpreting the time prophecies as symbolic (Paulien 2010, 210.257.268). For Doukhan it is clear that the year-day principle is dictated by the context in which the time prophecies occur (Doukhan 2000, 108), but he hardly discusses the matter any further. In his commentary on Revelation, one short footnote refers the reader to a few remarks in his previous book on Daniel (Doukhan 2002, 97). Zdravko Stefanović accepts the year-day principle, but limits his justification to a reference to Shea and Doukhan (Stefanović 2007, 282). Ranko Stefanović, when discussing the 1260 day period, is a little less explicit and suggests that these time designations have more qualitative than quantitative significance (Stefanović 2002, 379). But it is clear that he applies the year-day principle (albeit perhaps more loosely) when he refers to this 1260 day time period as a period of approximately 1200 years, during which God’s people were under attack (Stefanović 2002, 384). Tonstad concludes that the prophetic time periods, such as the 1260 days, cannot refer to literal days, but seem to denote a considerable time period (Tonstad 2019, 163.185).

Mike Tucker assumes the validity of the