PHD Thesis PL Majola

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN
MISSION IN THE THEOLOGY OF JURGEN MOLTMANN AND ITS

IMPLICATIONS FOR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY
BY
Phumlani Lucky Majola
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THEOLOGY DEGREE IN THE DISCIPLINE OF
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
AT
THE SCHOOL OF RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY AND CLASSICS, OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL
IN
February 2014
SUPERVISED BY
Prof AO Balcomb
DECLARATION
I hereby acknowledge that the work contained in this dissertation is my own original
work and has not previously in its entirety or in part been submitted to any
academic institution for degree purposes.
_________________________________
Phumlani Lucky Majola
February 2014
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my lovely wife, Mbalenhle, for her inspiration towards my
completion of this project, and my two daughters, Owethu and Luyanda, for their
love for me even when I have sometimes been distracted by my studies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This journey has not been one without challenges, in both time and academically,
sometimes requiring me to spend long hours without regular and timely attendance
to some of my family responsibilities, and yet my wife has patiently and
supportively been there. While I rightly acknowledge my wife’s support as crucial
to my motivation for the completion of this thesis, I cannot thank my academic
support well enough. Perhaps I should first express my appreciation for the short-
lived co-supervisory role of Dr Gosnell Yorke, as he started to support my
supervisor after some significant months into the project, and then having had to
leave some months prior to its finishing stages. Having recognized Dr Gosnell
Yorke’s minor role, comparatively so, I would like to most of all acknowledge my
heavy indebtedness to Prof Anthony O Balcomb in his role as supervisor throughout
this project. His insights and constructive criticisms have hopefully developed me
into a better researcher and scholarly writer. He has constantly encouraged me to
leave my comfort zone and has patiently given fitting scholarly advice when needed.
I recognize God as my primary guide and strength in life, and as such I cannot but
express my appreciation to him for allowing me the opportunity and responsibility
to grow through this research and study process. I long to see what it is that he has
lined up for me after this, believing that he has allowed me this opportunity for
some purpose of service.
ABSTRACT
This research has the primary objective of developing Seventh-day Adventist

theology through a dialogue with Jurgen Moltmann, on the relationship between
eschatological hope and Christian mission. Due to space limitations, the particular
focus in Seventh-day Adventist theology is on the doctrine of the Investigative
Judgment.
This research demonstrates that while there are some areas of agreement between
Moltmann and Seventh-day Adventist theology, such as that eschatological hope
does influence Christian mission, there are also remarkable differences in their views
of Christian mission. The particular area that is identified in this study is that of
social justice. While Moltmann’s eschatological hope drives him to strong socio-
political agendas, Seventh-day Adventist eschatology, while strong in such areas as
health and education as methodologies of mission, falls short of the extent of
emphasis in socio-political mission that Moltmann has. It is particularly found to be
so in the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment that has
traditionally been given spiritual significance to believers on earth as they wait for
the Parousia.
The dialogue between Seventh-day Adventist theology and Moltmann is designed to

challenge SDA theology, even though Moltmann completely rejects the doctrine of
the Investigative Judgment. The study argues for a “socio-spiritual” version of the
Investigative Judgment. “Socio” refers to its earthliness in direct socio-political
relevance to the community, while “spiritual” refers to its heavenliness and
relational significance between the saint(s) and Christ.
The research begins with an introductory chapter that orients the reader with
matters like the background, methodologies and structure of the research. The
research then continues to do an analytical overview of the major scholarly
discussions on this topic. It then considers Moltmann’s views, and after that the
views of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Prior to the analytical focus on the
Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Investigative Judgment, there is a chapter
dedicated to an overall comparison of Moltmann’s and Seventh-day Adventist
theology. The focus becomes polemical in revising the Seventh-day Adventist
theology of the Investigative Judgment towards an added significance that is directly
socio-political and transformational. The closing chapter then demonstrates the
added value of the proposed version of the Investigative Judgment in the South
African socio-political context.
The significance of this research lies in the fact no other work has, to the knowledge
of the researcher, ever proposed a revision of the Seventh-day Adventist theology of
the Investigative Judgment towards direct socio-political relevance, beyond, and not
instead of, the traditional spiritual significance, especially through a dialogue with
Jurgen Moltmann.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION………………………………...………………………………………….1
 Background and Outline of Research Problem…………………………………...1

 Research Problems and Objectives: Key Questions to be Asked……………….2
 Reasons for Choosing this Topic…………………………………………………...3
 Research Problems and Objectives: Broader Issues to be Investigated………...7
 Principal Theories upon which the Research Project will be Constructed
(Research Design)......………………………………………………………………..7
 Research Methodology and Methods……………………………………………...7
 Structure of Thesis……..………………………………………………………….…8
 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………9
CHAPTER 2
THE MAJOR THEORIES IN ESCHATOLOGY AND IN CHRISTIAN MISSION…..10
 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………10
 An Overview of the Major Theories of Eschatology……………………………10
 Apocalyptic Eschatology……………………………………………….……...11
 Realized Eschatology………………….……………………………………….12
 Existential Eschatology……………….………………………………………..13
 Salvation-historical Eschatology……………………………………………...15
 An Overview of the Major Theories of Prophetic Interpretation……………...18
 Historicism……………………………...…………………………………..…..18
 Preterism………………………...………...……………………………………19
 Idealism……………………………………...…………………………………..20
 Futurism……………………………………...…………………………………21
 An Overview of the Major Theories of Millennialism…………………………22
 Amillennialism………………………………..………………………………...22
 Postmillennialism……………………………..………………………………..23
 Premillennialism …………………………………………………..…………...23
 An Overview of the Major Theoretical Approaches to Christian Mission…...23
 Ecumenical Movement………………………………………………………...24
 Ecumenical Liberal Approach………………………………………………...25
 Ecumenical Evangelical Approach……………………….....………………..26
 Non-ecumenical Approach……………………………………………………27
 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….….28
CHAPTER 3

MISSION IN THE THEOLOGY OF JURGEN MOLTMANN…………….………...….29
 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………29
 Eschatological Hope………………………………………………………………..29
 The Definition of Eschatological Hope……………………………....……….29
 The Foundation of Eschatological Hope…………………………..................30
 The Ambivalence of Eschatological Hope…………………………………...31
 The First Component of Eschatological Hope: Personal Eschatology…….32
 The Second Component of Eschatological Hope: Historical Eschatology..34
 The Third Component of Eschatological Hope: Cosmic Eschatology…….40
 Christian Mission….………………………………………………………………..42
 Mission as Universal……….…………………………………………………..42
 Mission as Missio Dei………………..………….……………………………..43
 Mission as the Quest for Justice………………………………………………44
 Mission as Ecological…………………………………………………………..46
 Mission as Love for Life……………………………………………………….47
 Mission as Proclamation…..…………………………………………………...48
 Mission as Inculturation……………….………………………………………49
 Mission as Ecumenical………………………………..………………………..51
 The Relationship between Eschatological Hope and Christian Mission……...52
 Conclusion……………………………………………………….………………….54
CHAPTER 4

MISSION IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY…………………………….55
 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…..55
 Eschatological Hope………………………………………………………………..55
 The Definition of Eschatological Hope……………………………………….55
 The Ambivalence of Eschatological Hope………………………………..….57
 Christian Mission……………………………….…………………………………..62
 Mission as Missio Dei………......……………………………….……………..62
 Mission as Classifiable……………………….………………………………...63
 Mission as Proclamation………………………………….……………………64
 Mission as Conversation…………………………………………….………...65
 Mission as Universal…………………….……………………………………..67
 Mission as Urgent…………………………………….………………………...68
 Mission as the Quest for Justice……………………………………………….69
 Mission as Stewardship….…………………………………………………….71
 Mission as Inculturation…………….…………………………………………76
 The Relationship between Eschatological Hope and Christian Mission……...81
 Conclusion……….………………………………………………………………….82
CHAPTER 5
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL

HOPE AND CHRISTIAN MISSION IN JURGEN MOLTMANN FOR SEVENTH-
DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY….………………………………………………………84
 Introduction……………..…………………………………………………………..84
 Eschatological Hope……………………….……………………………………….84
 The Definition of Eschatological Hope……………………………………….84
 The Ambivalence of Eschatological Hope……………………………..…….86
 Christian Mission…………………………………………………………….……..96
 Mission as Universal.…………………………………………………………..96
 Mission as Missio Dei…………………….……………………………..……..97
 Mission as the Quest for Justice……………………………………………….97
 Mission as Ecological………………………………………….……………...100
 Mission as Love for Life……………………………………………………...101
 Mission as Proclamation….…………………………………………………..102
 Mission as Inculturation……………………………………………………...103
 Mission as Ecumenical……………………………….……………………….104
 The Implications of the Relationship between Eschatological Hope and
Christian Mission………………………………………………………………….105
 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………106
CHAPTER 6
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY OF THE

INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT………………………………………………...………..107
 Introduction……………......………………………………………………………107
 The Metanarrative of the Theology of the Investigative Judgment………….107
 The Theology of the Cosmic Conflict………...……………………………..107
 The Historical Theology of the Cosmic Conflict………..………………….111
 The Missiological Significance of the Cosmic Conflict Theology……...…113
 An Outline of the Theology of the Investigative Judgment…………………..113
 The Vertical and Horizontal Typology of the Sanctuary and its Services113
 The Dualistic Fulfilment of the Day of Atonement……………..…………115
 The Typical Cleansing of the Sanctuary………………………………….....116
 The Antitypical Cleansing of the Sanctuary………………………..………119
 Azazel…………………………………………………………………………..120
 The Interpretation of Key Texts on the Theology of the Investigative
Judgment…………………………………………………………………………..121
 The Relevant Principles of Apocalyptic Interpretation…………………...121
 Texts in the Book of Leviticus……………….………………………….……123
 Texts in the Book of Daniel………………………………………….……….124
 Texts in the Book of Hebrews…………………………………………...…...124
 Texts in the Book of Revelation……………………………………………...124
 The Historical Theology of the Investigative Judgment………………………126
 A Historical Overview of the Millerite Movement and its Theology……126
 A Historical Overview of the Origin and Development of the Theology of
the Investigative Judgment………………….……………………………….128
 The Missiological Significance of the Theology of the Investigative
Judgment…………………………………………………………………………..131
 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………131
CHAPTER 7
A PROPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTIST THEOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT: A DIRECT
RELATION TO SOCIAL PRAXIS IN LIGHT OF MOLTMANN’S LINK BETWEEN
ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN MISSION..…………………………132
 Introduction………………………………………………..………………………132
 Social Justice in Moltmann: Implications for the Doctrine of Investigative
Judgment………………………………………..………………………………....132
 Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the Light of Moltmann’s View of
the Spiritual and the Social as Inseparable……………………………………..134
 Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the Light of Moltmann’s Theology
of God’s Preferential Option for the Poor………………………………………139
 Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the Light of Moltmann’s Advocacy
of Refusing the Option of Retaliation and Revenge…………….......................141
of Social Justice as Restoration of Equality……………………………………..142
of Social Justice as Equivalent to Ecological Justice………………………...…144
 A Sample of a Revised Seventh-day Adventist Statement of Fundamental
Belief #24…………………….……………….…………………………………….145
 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………145
CHAPTER 8
A PROPOSAL OF PAST AND PRESENT TRANSFORMATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN SOUTH AFRICA IN LIGHT
OF A SOCIO-SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT...147
 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..147
 An Overview of South African Apartheid History……………………………147
 A Historical Overview of the Role of Christian Mission in Apartheid South
Africa……………………………………………………………………………….157
 A Historical Overview of Seventh-day Adventist Mission in South Africa...167
 The Past and Present Transformative Responsibilities of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church in South Africa in light of a Socio-Spiritual Theology of the
Investigative Judgment…………………………………………………………...172
 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………180
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION – Bringing Seventh-day Adventist Theology Down to Earth: Pipe

Dream or Possibility? ……………………………...……………………………………..182
 The Primary Objective of this Research……………………………………..….182

 The Need for this Research…………..…………………………………………..183
 The Use of Moltmann in Order to Achieve the Primary Objective ...…….….183
 Bringing the SDA Down to Earth – a Possible Way Forward…………….…..185
 The Identification of Areas for Future Research…….…………………………185
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..187
APPENDIX I “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists”…………………...204
APPENDIX II “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement”…………213
APPENDIX III “Pictorial Representations of the Old Testament Sanctuary”………221
APPENDIX IV “The Eschatological Antitypical Day of Atonement: The Time of this
Judgment”………………………………………………………………..............................222
APPENDIX V “Heavenly Books of Record”…………………………………………...228
APPENDIX VI “The Founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”…………….230
APPENDIX VII “Developing Trends”………………………………………………….233
APPENDIX VIII “Rules of Interpretation” By William Miller………………………….239

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background and Outline of Research Problem
The word “eschatology” comes from two Greek words, “eschatos” meaning “last”,
and “logos” meaning “word”. It is therefore understood to mean “the study of last
things”. The word “mission” from the Latin “missio” means “a sending” or “a
sending away”. Therefore Christian mission as a study may be interpreted to mean
“the study of the sending of Christians for service into the world”. This research is
to study the relationship between these two concepts of eschatology and mission in
the Christian context.
Eschatology is a study of hope for that which is beyond or that which is

transcendent. The element of hope is important for Christian life and for life in
general. One’s faith means trust of God’s promises of eschatological renewal and
life, love makes God supreme in the heart, but hope overlaps these two and
develops from them in that “hope” is a blend of “desire” and “expectancy”; it may
be said that in a sense “desire” springs from “love” and “expectancy” springs from
“faith”. Eschatology therefore is an important aspect of Christian theology because
it gives direction and hope; it creates a sense of expectancy for something better.
Hope and expectancy in general motivates present change in anticipation and in
preparation for what is to come. A Christian community therefore that does not
have eschatological hope becomes dried up in formalities and routine that does not
have an element of progress and constructive transformation. Eschatological hope
creates a Christian community which is a transformative agent of God in the world.
Therefore, it is the position of the researcher that there is a connection between one’s
view of eschatological hope and that of missiological engagement.
As will be argued in the next chapter, there are four major schools of thought
regarding Christian eschatology: (1) the “apocalyptic” eschatology of Albert
Schweitzer, (2) the “realized” eschatology of Charles H Dodd, (3) the “existential”
eschatology of Rudolf K Bultmann, and (4) the “salvation-historical” eschatology of
Oscar Cullmann. Schweitzer argues for a cosmic appearance of Christ’s kingdom
that however failed to occur1. Dodd argues for a spiritual kingdom that Christ was
able to establish through his life, death and resurrection, and that there is no future
cosmic kingdom to come2, Bultmann argues for a timeless fulfilment of the kingdom
in the life of the individual3, and Cullmann argues for a tension of the fulfilled and
yet unfulfilled kingdom, that Christ did establish a spiritual kingdom through his
death and resurrection but that there is also a future cosmic and literal kingdom that
is to come4.
1 Schweitzer 1954
2 Dodd 1936
3 Bultmann 1957
4 Cullman 1962
1
There are at least three major approaches to Christian mission: (1) the “ecumenical
liberal” approach as may be represented by the World Council of Churches, (2) the
“ecumenical evangelical” approach as may be represented by the World Evangelical
Alliance, and (3) the “non-ecumenical” approach as typically held by those churches
that are generally considered sectarian, examples being the Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Mormons. Although this is a generalization and not an absolute categorization,
there are some typical characteristics of each these groups. For “ecumenical
liberals”: (1) humanisation is the key objective of mission, and may involve
participation in violent liberation movements; (2) there is no dualism between
church and the world, the body and the soul, the “vertical” and the “horizontal”,
between salvation and social involvement, etc.; (3) it is the current situation in the
world that drives the agenda of mission. On the other hand, for “ecumenical
evangelicals”: (1) they move from Scripture to the situation such that it is the one
that drives the agenda of mission; (2) there is a sharp dualism between the church
and the world, the spiritual and the physical, Christianity and other religions (the
former in each case being more important); (3) they may prefer the name
“evangelisation” to “mission” for the reasons that the former is more active,
dynamic and specific-goal oriented rather than general; (4) in the relationship
between social transformation and evangelisation, there seems to be two groups (but
not sharply distinguished) – those who try to use evangelisation as a means of social
change, and those who see social change as an opportunity-creator for
evangelisation5.
The foregoing provides the context in which this research is to attend to the problem
of locating the implications, for Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology, of the
relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in the theology of
Jurgen Moltmann. The researcher expects to find a close and inextricable
relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission, the former shaping
the latter. Also, the researcher expects to find some common ground between the
thoughts of Moltmann and SDA theology, in as much as areas of significant contrast
are expected to surface as a challenge to SDA theology.
Research Problems and Objectives: Key Questions to be Asked
The primary objective of this research is to locate ways of improving SDA theology
through a critical comparative analysis between Moltmann and SDA theology in
their understanding of the relationship between eschatological hope and Christian
mission.
The key questions for this research are: (1) What is the connection between
eschatological hope and Christian mission in the theologies of Moltmann and SDA
theology? (2) What are the implications of this relationship in Moltmann for SDA
theology? (3) What revisions need to be made to the current state of SDA theology
drawing from Jurgen Moltmann’s relation between eschatological hope and
Christian mission? (4) How do these revisions enhance the socio-political value of
SDA theology?
5 Bosch 1980:28-40
2
Reasons for Choosing this Topic
There are two reasons that inform the researcher’s choice of the theology of
Moltmann as a dialogue partner specifically for Seventh-day Adventist theology: (1)
the researcher belongs to this tradition, and (2) SDA theology has some
eschatological distinctives that may be considered sectarian and at the same time it
has an elaborate and extensive system of Christian mission agencies (education and
health in particular). Moltmann is used as the primary dialogue partner in this
research for a number of reasons. Firstly he has wide appeal as an internationally
recognized theologian. Secondly he is genuinely ecumenical in the sense that he
dialogues with all traditions, from Pentecostal, to Liberation, to Seventh-day
Adventist. Thirdly his theology is based in eschatology, as is SDA theology.
Fourthly he grounds his eschatology within the imminent without sacrificing the
transcendent. Fifthly he has a special concern for the poor and the oppressed. By
comparing these two in their theologies of eschatology and Christian mission, it is
hoped that some significant challenges and constructive insights will be posed to the
SDA tradition and in its understanding of the role of the church in the world.
Jurgen Moltmann is a Christian that seems to represent a blend of evangelical and

liberal hermeneutics, a universalist6 soteriology (all human beings are eventually
saved through recreation), a kind of monistic7 anthropology (there is no separable
soul from the body at death), a Trinitarian8 theology (one God in three persons), and
a politicized9 eschatology (eschatology heavily loaded with political significance)
that has strong affinity to the salvation-historical eschatology of Oscar Cullman and
yet with definite contrasts to Cullman’s eschatology, especially regarding the
definition of time. Cullmann views time as a metaphoric line10 (time moves towards
a particular goal), whereas Moltmann interprets time as a metaphoric rhythm 11 (time
moves towards a particular goal with frequent deposits of that goal into the current
process), since inaugural12 eschatology (the ministry, death and resurrection of
Christ is the beginning of eschatology). Perhaps another contrast between them both
is that Moltmann significantly politicizes inaugural eschatology, whereas Cullman is
more concerned with it as the functional midpoint13 of history. Moltmann may have
been influenced in his eschatology of hope by his experience of the Second World
War, his years of war-imprisonment, and even the philosophy of Karl Marx.
SDA theology is in need of this dialogue with Moltmann. In light of Moltmann,

there are some areas of SDA theology that need improvement. Moltmann’s theology
is “politicized” due to his interpretation of inaugural eschatology. Moltmann’s
6 Moltmann 1996:256; cf. 1994:143; 1996:248-249.

7 Moltmann 1996:75; 1994:82, 85-87; 2004:161; 2012:154
8 Moltmann 1981; 2000:309-312
9 See chapter 3
10 Cullmann 1962:xxv; cf. 1962:xxx-xxxi
11 Moltmann 1996:138, 199-202; cf. 2012:155
12 The term “inaugural” has the same meaning as “realized” except that the former assumes
another future fulfilment of the kingdom – “consummative” eschatology – whereas the latter limits
the kingdom to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ (see chapter 2 of this research).
13 See next chapter
3
theology does not only see spiritual value in the cross, but political ones as well, in
the present. The value of eschatological hope for Moltmann is gauged by its direct
relevance to the socio-political situation in the present. His eschatology finds its
practical value by addressing such socio-political concerns as social injustice, the
ecological crisis, and love for life. SDA eschatology on the other hand tends to focus
more on the spiritual and at times the heavenly, in as much as its theology does have
considerable consideration of the earthly and the natural, as can be demonstrated by
its extensive involvement in issues related to health, education, and social upliftment
in general.
It would be perhaps wise to start with SDA theology in general prior to the focus on
its eschatology. Within the larger context of other traditions of Christianity, SDA
theology may very well be categorized as evangelical or conservative in its
hermeneutics. It has a Trinitarian basis, a soteriology that is particularistic14 (not
everyone goes into eternal life) and Arminian (emphasis on human freewill rather
than the belief that God decides arbitrarily in his double-outcome judgment of life
and death), and its eschatology is premillennial15 (Christ comes to earth prior to the
millennium) and is annihilationist16 with reference to human beings (the fires of hell
consume the wicked rather than burning them without end), in line with its
monistic17 anthropology (no separable soul or spirit from the physical body). The
areas within its theology that are perhaps of significant contrast to many traditions
are these: (1) an emphasis on health reform or healthy living, with the
recommendation and promotion of a vegetarian diet18; (2) the emphasis on the law
(not legalism) with reference to the Saturday-Sabbath in particular19; (3) a monistic
anthropology20; (4) doctrine of the Investigative Judgment21 that comes from a
particular interpretation of the heavenly sanctuary and the priestly ministry of
Christ there; (5) self-consciousness of being the remnant church of biblical prophecy
– the people that God has blessed above all others in understanding Scripture and
God’s will – those entrusted with a special message (Revelation 14 verses 6-12) for
this time of earth’s history22.
SDA eschatology is that which mostly brings it at odds with other Christian
traditions. Its eschatology is heavily influenced by its circumstances of origin. The
SDA church was formally instituted in 1863, the name “Seventh-day Adventist”
having been chosen in 186023. This church came into existence after a great
disappointment for many in the Millerite Movement of the early 19 th century in the
United States of America 24. The Millerite Movement had through a historicist
14 See chapter 5
15 See next chapter and chapter 4
16 See chapter 4
17 See chapter 4
18 Kis 2000:688, emphasis mine; cf. Bradford 2000:668-669
19 Nam 2000:957; Tonstad 2009
20 SDA theology argues there is no separable soul or spirit from the physical body at death
21 See chapter 6
22 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:160
23 Vyhmeister 2000:1, 9
24 See below
4
approach25 come to the conclusion that Christ would return to earth in 1844, and
October 22 was the most popular date for this. After Christ did not come, the
movement split: (1) some abandoned Christianity and religion as a whole26; (2) some
condemned the Millerite Movement as Satanic and returned to their traditional
churches, considering themselves as have been deceived27; (3) some believed that
they had been right on the calculations and on the expected event except that Christ
had really come but in a spiritual way28; (4) some believed that their calculations
were wrong but that Christ was still soon to come 29; (5) some believed that their
calculations were wrong and they continued setting new dates over and over
again30; (6) some considered the calculations as correct but that the expected event
was wrong. The Seventh-day Adventist church grew out of group number six.
Based on a historicist interpretation of Daniel 8, the Millerite Movement had
concluded that the cleansing or justification of the sanctuary was the coming of
judgment – consummative eschatology 31. They had assumed as was allegedly
commonly held then that the sanctuary spoken of was the earth 32 and that its cleansing
could have only meant its judgment by fire at the Parousia. After October 22, 1844,
some began to re-examine their stance and the founders of the SDA church came to
the conclusion that there was no biblical support for the view that the sanctuary in
question was the earth, but that the book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that
there is a sanctuary in heaven in which Christ ministers as a high priest. They saw
that as the sanctuary referred to in Daniel 8. They then interpreted its cleansing with
reference to the Day of Atonement services in Leviticus 16 where there is instruction
for the cleansing of the Old Testament sanctuary. They finally came to the conclusion
that 1844 was the year in which Christ would not be coming to earth but that he
would then be moving into the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary – a
functional shift from mere intercession as priest to one of judgment or cleansing of
the sanctuary – otherwise known as the Investigative Judgment33. The SDA church
is presumably the only one on earth that teaches this doctrine.
The theology of the Investigative Judgment has always been one with spiritual
significance in the assurance of Christ’s grace and justice, inspiring individuals to
greater faith in Christ34. The word “investigative” can be misleading as it is not
meant that Christ is not aware of the results of judgment regarding individuals, but
it is merely an anthropomorphic description. Hence some SDA theologians are
suggesting a name change to either “The Affirmative Judgment”35 or “The Pre-
25 See below
26 Bates 1868:300; Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12
27 Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12; White [Ellen] 1911:407; White [James] 1868:182, 265. The
Millerite movement was not however a denomination as there was no structure and no membership.
28 Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12; Vyhmeister 2000:3- 4
29 Bates 1868:300; Bliss 1853:293; White [James] 1868:194, 199
30 Bates 1868:300; Gordon 2000:12
31 Bates 1868:300, 301; Crosier 1846:37-44; Edson 1921:4, 5; Gordon 2000:12; Knight 2000:62, 63;
Maxwell 1989:132; Rodriguez 2000:405; White [James] 1868:141

32 White [Ellen] 1911:409
33 Andrews 1873:503; Damsteegt 1989:42; Knight 2000:65, 66, 68, 70; Maxwell 1989:137-139
34 See chapter 6
35 Moskala 2004:154
5
Advent Heavenly Audit”36. It is therefore the position of the researcher that this
theology needs to advance to socio-transformational significance as well. It is the
aim of the researcher to explore the possibilities of this approach, through a dialogue
with Moltmann’s theology with special reference to the relationship he establishes
between eschatological hope and Christian mission.
The SDA interpretation of Christian mission has led to a narrowness that this
research will attempt to highlight and possibly rectify by bringing it into
conversation with Moltmann. Moltmann, on the other hand, politicizes eschatology.
In other words, his eschatology finds expression in his view of Christian mission as
inclusive of socio-political transformation. While SDA theology does have concern
for the social37, it tends to be of the “ambulance” variety in that it is only education38
and remedial or relief agencies such as hospitals39 and the Adventist Development
and Relief Agency (ADRA) that feature as its strength, with the church’s department
of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty being also primarily concerned with religious
rights. There is no significant emphasis in SDA theology on socio-political
transformation except through the proclamation of the kerygma. The idea is that
Jesus Christ will set up his kingdom sometime in the future, an idea that comes
directly out of its eschatology. The dialogue between Moltmann’s and SDA theology
will hopefully bring a much needed socio-political dimension into the picture and
thus facilitate the improvement of SDA theology in general and the SDA
understanding of Christian mission in particular.
The remedial or relief approach to Christian mission is probably due to the

apocalyptic nature of SDA eschatology. Apocalyptic is largely negative as far as this
world’s governments are concerned, focusing on the destruction of the world and its
governments and thus making way for the new creation40. It seems that such an
apocalyptic view of prophecy which projects the Parousia into the distant future
tends to have a psychological impact that favours resignation when it comes to social
challenges in the present. It is the position of the researcher that in order to balance
this apocalyptic and negative view of the world, SDA eschatology can be oriented in
such a way that negates the attitude of resignation and actually encourages the SDA
view of Christian mission to engage directly in socio-political transformation.
Perhaps another area that may be looked into in the future is that of the SDA
theology of “the remnant”; the self-consciousness of this tradition as one especially
entrusted by God with the most relevant message for this time. At the heart of this
message is the matter of the Investigative Judgment and creationist theology
(Revelation 14 verse 7), the warning of the world against false Christian traditions,
especially the Roman Catholic belief system (Revelation 14 verse 8), and the warning
against the impending persecuting union of false religions against those who keep
36 Wallenkampf 1989:214, 215

37 See chapter 4
38 The SDA church as of the year 2011 had 2,068 schools (including tertiary institutions)
around the world (www.adventiststatistics.org, Statistics, accessed on the 10th of January 2014)
39
The SDA church as of the year 2011 had a network of 172 hospitals and sanitariums around
the world (www.adventiststatistics.org, Statistics, accessed on the 10th of January 2014)
40 Horsley 2010:1
6
the commandments of God and the Saturday-Sabbath (Revelation 13:9-12)41. This
conviction seems to be a major contribution towards the distance that this church
keeps from unions and alliances with other Christian churches – with the objective of
keeping doctrinal purity. What may need further research is to how this proposal
made in this research through the revision of the theology on the Investigative
Judgment may also impact and call for revision of the SDA theology of the Remnant.
Research Problems and Objectives: Broader Issues to be Investigated
The study will raise the question of the scope of Christian mission (whether it
includes more than the salvation of souls and if the structures of society are
included) and interrogate the relationship between theological belief and social
concern in general and the relationship between eschatology and social
practice/transformation in particular. It will also raise questions with regard to how
intangibles such as faith and hope can translate into concrete issues of social
transformation.
This research will also investigate the effect of hermeneutical presuppositions and
how the choice of framework impacts on one’s theology and how one’s particular
tradition may lead to bias and narrowness of thought. There will be opportunity in
this research for the investigation of broader philosophical issues that are relevant to
other intellectual disciplines besides theology, for example social science and
political studies. Also, this research should contribute to the general study of
Christianity’s relevance to society by showing how Christianity may still be
necessary as a constructively transforming agent in society.
Principal Theories upon which the Research Project will be Constructed

(Research Design)
The relationship between religious belief and socio-political concern has been of
interest to both scholars of religion as well as sociologists ever since the birth of
modern social science. Secular theories that discount the relevance of religious faith
to society continue to feature. This study is based on the premise that there is an
intersection between religious belief and social practice, at least in theory, since it
will not involve an empirical investigation of this relationship. More specifically,
from a theological perspective, this study will interrogate the theory that there is a
relationship between eschatology and Christian mission.
Research Methodology and Methods
This will be a research study primarily based on the literary works of Jurgen
Moltmann and SDA mainstream theologians. There are other important theologians
and scholars that will have significant but secondary contributions to make in this
dialogue. Among these are David Bosch, particularly on Christian mission, George
E Ladd, Millard J Erickson, Paul Tillich, W Pannenberg, and Wayne Grudem.
41 Nichol [vol. 7] 1980:827-832
7
Structure of Thesis
This research will be structured according to the following pattern, besides the
introduction (chapter 1) and the conclusion (chapter 9):
Chapter 2: The major theories in eschatology and in Christian mission - this is an

analytical study of the major scholarly conversations on the topics of eschatology
and Christian mission; it also indicates the positions of Moltmann and SDA theology
in relation to this conversation.
Chapter 3: The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in

Jurgen Moltmann – this is an analytical study of Moltmann regarding eschatological
hope, Christian mission and the relationship between them; this study serves as a
preparation for the critical and comparative study of chapter 5.
Chapter 4: The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in

Seventh-day Adventist theology – this is an analytical study of SDA theology
regarding eschatological hope, Christian mission and the relationship between them;
this study serves as a preparation for the critical and comparative study of chapter 5.
Chapter 5: The implications of the relationship between eschatological hope and

Christian mission in Jurgen Moltmann for Seventh-day Adventist theology – this
chapter challenges SDA theology to “come down to earth” into the socio-political
context by using Moltmann.
Chapter 6: An analysis of the Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Investigative

Judgment – this is an analytical study in light of this theology being especially
challenged by Moltmann; this study is also done in preparation for chapter 7 which
proposes a revised version of this theology in question.
Chapter 7: A proposal of constructive42 implications for the Seventh-day Adventist

theology of the Investigative Judgment43 in direct relation to social praxis in light of
Moltmann’s link of eschatological hope with Christian mission – this is an analytical
and polemic study that argues for a constructively revised version of the theology
42 The reader might wonder as to the reason the researcher chooses to especially draw limited
(“constructive”) implications for SDA theology by Moltmann. The most probable perception is that
the researcher belongs to the SDA tradition and does not wish to throw out his church’s theology.
There is truth in that, but the primary reason is in the fact that the researcher is not ready to accept
Moltmann’s hermeneutical presuppositions and methods. An illustration may be found in his
approach to the story of creation resulting in his conclusion that it is a mythical account of God’s act.
Another example is his universalistic stance on salvation and his interpretation of Satan as figurative
of evil. The last example is his approach to biblical apocalyptic, rejecting the element of it as a
foretelling of divinely planned historical events. Whether the researcher is right or wrong in his
presuppositions and methods of interpretation is not the matter at hand in this research, but the
question is what can SDA eschatology and mission learn from Moltmann. It is made very clear in
chapter 4 of this research that Moltmann’s eschatology has no room for an investigative judgment,
hence this chapter draws limited implications for SDA eschatology and mission.
43 This theology of the Investigative Judgment is especially chosen because of its uniqueness
within Christian eschatological thought.
8
concerned, and in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics; this study
draws from Moltmann and also shows exegetical support from the Christian bible.
Chapter 8: A proposal of past and present transformative responsibilities of the

Seventh-day Adventist church in South Africa in light of a socio-spiritual theology of
the Investigative Judgment – this chapter is a follow-up to that of chapter 7,
analytically and polemically showing how the new version of the theology under
discussion in chapter 7 has enhanced social value particularly in the South African
socio-political context.
Conclusion
This introduction has been done through the description of the background of the
research problem, indicating the research problems and objectives, the reasons for
the choice of this topic, the research design, the research methodology and methods,
and also the structure of the dissertation.
The next chapter will give the reader a broader view of the context in which this
research is undertaken, on this topic. It will also give indications of where
Moltmann and SDA theology stand, according to the researcher, in relation to this
larger theological conversation.
9
Chapter 2
THE MAJOR THEORIES IN ESCHATOLOGY AND IN CHRISTIAN MISSION
Introduction
Prior to this research’s focus on the theologies of Jurgen Moltmann and Seventh-day
Adventism, it is important that a context for the dialogue is recognized. Both sides
do not operate in a vacuum and it is wise to locate them within a wider discussion.
This chapter will attempt a brief analysis of the various traditions of eschatological
thought, prophetic interpretation, millennialism, and a summary of the main
approaches to Christian mission.
An Overview of the Major Theories of Eschatology
The scholars who seem to be credited with the modern rediscovery of eschatology in
Christian theology are Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Johannes Weiss
and Albert Schweitzer44. The two who may have popularized the term
“eschatology” are Weiss and Schweitzer45.
From the time of Weiss and Schweitzer forward, at least four main eschatological
traditions46 have developed: (1) apocalyptic eschatology, (2) realized eschatology, (3)
existential eschatology, and (4) salvation-historical eschatology. As is still to be seen
in this research, Moltmann’s eschatological hope is a limited blend of all of the four
44 Norman Perrin in his book “The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus” (1963:13) makes
the following statement: “The modern discussion of the Kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus may
be said to begin with Schleiermacher. Not that he was particularly concerned with the concept as it is
used in the teaching of Jesus – far from it! – but he did give the concept itself a central place in his
theology and so brought it into focus for modern theological discussion. Following him Ritschl also
gave a central place to the Kingdom of God and did make some attempt to relate his use of the
concept to the teaching of Jesus. Then came Johannes Weiss, who protested that justice was not being
done to the teaching of Jesus in this regard and offered an interpretation of that teaching radically
different from anything that had gone before him. Finally Albert Schweitzer took up Weiss’s
interpretation of the teaching of Jesus and used it as the basis for a challenging interpretation of the
life of Christ which attracted wide attention, and as a result of which the modern discussion really got
under way”.
45 David Edward Aune in the book “The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early
Christianity” (1972:1; cf. Keener 2009:6-7; cf. Walls 2008:9) states: “The popularization of the term
[eschatology] by Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer with reference to the end of time…has
resulted in a general restriction of the term to national and cosmic expectation alone in the jargon of
Biblical research”. GE Ladd (1974:6, emphasis mine) may not refer to the popularization of the term
“eschatology” but he does make mention of Schweitzer’s popularization of Weiss’ approach of the
interpretation of Jesus: “Weiss…interpreted Jesus’ message of the Kingdom in terms of the milieu of
Jewish apocalyptic. This approach was made famous by Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical
Jesus”.
46 The focus on these four traditions, ‘dated’ as they may be, is largely due to the fact that they
provide the thought-context in which Moltmann rose in scholarly contribution, especially from the
1960’s with his book “Theology of Hope”. More recent scholarly discussion could have been given
focus here. However, one should also consider that Moltmann’s heyday of publishing is now “under
the sunset”, and one may not expect to be able to maintain focal relevance on Moltmann and yet give
due justice to current trends, except through the usage of secondary sources of Moltmann which have
not been freely interacted with in this research.
10
traditions: (1) “apocalyptic eschatology” in that he does speak much of the future
and the cosmic fulfilment of the kingdom; (2) “realized eschatology” because he
does regard the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ as eschatological; (3)
“existential eschatology” because he does speak much of the experiential component
of eschatological hope in believers; (4) “salvation-historical eschatology” because he
does see Christ as a turning point in history and the beginning of the presence of the
future. His main contribution is in that he suggests a “politicized eschatology” 47 in
that he dwells on the political significance of the present future.
In contrast to Moltmann, this research indicates that Seventh-day Adventist (SDA)

eschatological hope is also a limited blend of the above four brands of eschatological
thought, but that SDA eschatological hope is comparatively (to Moltmann) more
apocalyptic and with salvation-historical or prophetic significance placed on some
events in time, thanks to its biblical historicist (see below) stance. SDA
eschatological hope also does not have as much appetite for the political as does
Moltmann’s eschatological hope.
Apocalyptic Eschatology
Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer had the common understanding48 of Christ’s
eschatology as merely cosmic-apocalyptic. Schweitzer refers to this similarity of
thought: “Johannes Weiss shows the thoroughly eschatological character of Jesus’
preaching about the Kingdom of God. My contribution is to find the eschatological
clue, not only to his preaching, but also to his life and work”49. Schweitzer called his
stance “consistent eschatology”50, where “consistent” refers to the interpretation of
Jesus’ eschatology as consistent with late Jewish apocalyptic of his time51. That
Schweitzer sees a Jesus with a futuristic view of the kingdom he had come to
establish is clear in his own words: “Like the Kingdom of God, the Messiah belongs
to the future and supernatural. Jesus expects to be changed into the Messiah-Son-of-
Man, and to be recognized as such when the Kingdom of God arrives. During the
course of his earthly life he is not yet Messiah”52. The kingdom was near but not
then present.
According to Schweitzer, Jesus preached a cosmic kingdom that failed to materialize.

He says: "The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who
preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven
upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed”53. Simply
put, Jesus’ apocalyptic end of the world failed to arrive. He further says: “This
tribulation, however, fails to appear, and with it the coming of the Kingdom of God,
47 Erickson 1998:1167
48 Erickson 1998:1164; cf. Ladd 1974:6
49 Schweitzer 1954:viii, 3rd edition
50 Ladd 1974:6; cf. Eickson 1998:1164
51 Schweitzer 1954:xi; www.wikipedia.org, accessed on the 29th of October 2013
52 Schweitzer 1954:viii; Schweitzer (1954:356) says: “The eschatological insight of Johannes
Weiss made an end of the modern view that Jesus founded the Kingdom. It did away with all
activity, as exercised upon the Kingdom of God, and made the part of Jesus purely a waiting one”.
53 Schweitzer 2001:478;
11
which was to have taken place before the disciples had gone through the cities of
Israel….They return to Jesus without meeting anything of what he had led them to
expect”54. Jesus at that moment revises his eschatology and then believes that he
himself would have to suffer the tribulation so that his disciples do not pass through
it55; “By thus bearing the whole pre-Messsianic tribulation alone, he will inevitably
usher in the Kingdom”56. Christians, in the opinion of Schweitzer, spiritualized the
kingdom of Christ and his identity as Messiah as damage control in view of the
failure of the Parousia to materialize57.
Whereas Schweitzer wrote of an apocalyptist Jesus, with a cosmic kingdom or “end

of the world” kind of eschatology that failed to be realized, another stream of views
have developed that emphasize eschatology as still in the future by the 20th century
CE. The new twist is in the timing of the kingdom; the cosmic and apocalyptic
kingdom has not failed to arrive, and the kingdom that has been established is
spiritual. This stream of eschatology can be called “apocalyptic” eschatology
because of its cosmic and futuristic emphasis although it may not entirely exclude the
notion of the kingdom of God as past and/or present through the ministry of Christ
and the Spirit, as is the case with Weiss and Schweitzer. SDA eschatology is a case in
point as shall be seen later in this research.
Realized Eschatology
The person who popularized “realized eschatology” was Charles H Dodd58. He

himself uses the term “realized” for his eschatology quite a number of times as
well59, and even Rudolf Bultmann uses the term in reference to the same idea60. The
core concept of realized eschatology is that the kingdom of God has been fulfilled in
the “ministry, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ”61. There is no cosmic-
54 Schweitzer 1954:ix; cf. 1954:356-359; cf. Erickson 1998:1164

55 Being saved by the death of Jesus is not synonymous with believing in him, and the saving
is not from eternal physical death but from the great tribulation. “The majority of those saved by his
death are the believers predestined to enter the Kingdom” (Schweitzer 1954:ix).
56 Schweitzer 1954:ix
57 Schweitzer (1954:xv) says: “The Kingdom, expected to come immediately in supernatural
fashion, fails to appear, and so does the Son of Man, who was to arrive on the clouds of heaven. The
situation thus created compelled believers to take a more and more spiritual view of the Kingdom of
God and the Messiahship of Jesus, the former becoming a spiritual and ethical ideal to be realized in
this world, and Jesus the spiritual Messiah who laid its foundation through his ethical teaching. So
obvious did this appear that it was taken to be the view of Jesus himself, and his preaching was
understood in this sense. All this involves overlooking the words of the first two Gospels, which
create a different impression”.
58 www.wikipedia.org under “realized eschatology”, accessed on the 30th of October 2013
59 Dodd 1936:85, 87, 93
60 Bultmann 1957:31
61 Dodd 1936:85; Charles H Dodd (1936:85) states this: “…it is surely clear that, for the New
Testament writers in general, the eschaton has entered history; the hidden rule of God has been
revealed; the Age to Come has come. The Gospel of primitive Christianity is a Gospel of realized
eschatology”.
12
future kingdom to arrive62, but that the biblical writers used apocalyptic language as
a mere vehicle of reference to this fulfilment in Christ as outlined above63.
Charles H Dodd considers three attributes of the “Day of the Lord” that lead to his
conviction that the Day of the Lord if fulfilled in Christ. The Day of the Lord must
(1) be a supernatural manifestation of God’s rule, (2) should be the defeat of “the
powers of evil” with “judgment upon the sin of men”, and (3) it must “bring to those
in whom His will is fulfilled a new life which is both glorious and endless”64. He
then argues in five points, which seem to be a breakdown of the above three, that the
ministry, the death and the resurrection of Christ fulfil the Day of the Lord 65.
It is also significant, as Ladd notes, that Dodd considers the Age to Come as present,
not from the future, but from mere transcendence: “The Age to Come is the wholly
other, the eternal breaking into the temporal, instead of the future age breaking into
the present age….Jesus’ message was the proclamation of the inbreaking of the
eternal into the temporal world”66. There is no future manifestation of God’s
kingdom for Dodd, such that it possibly could be revealed to an extent in the
present.
Existential Eschatology
The scholar credited with being the father of “existential eschatology” is Rudolf
Bultmann. The reason for this eschatology being labelled as “existential” is
seemingly in light of the understanding of the close parallels between existentialism
and Bultmann’s theory of eschatology. Erickson identifies four tenets of
existentialism, and these correspond with Bultmann’s emphasis, particularly the last
three: “irrationalism”, “individuality”, “freedom”, and “subjectivity”67.
Existentialism can also be defined as: “A twentieth-century philosophical movement
emphasizing the uniqueness of each human existence in freely making its self-
62 Ladd (1974:63) would disagree with Dodd where Dodd regards the kingdom of God
without a future manifestation in time but merely a present one with Christ’s ministry, death and
resurrection; he would however agree with Dodd in that the kingdom is present through Christ’s
ministry, death and resurrection: “In these two verses [Matthew 12:28 and Mark 1:28] is embodied the
essential theology of the Kingdom of God. Instead of waiting until the end of the age to reveal his
kingly power and destroy satanic evil, Jesus declares that God has acted in his kingly power to curb
the power of Satan”. Ladd also suggests that Dodd had a later change of mind where “he admits that
the Kingdom yet awaits consummation ‘beyond history’” (Ladd 1974:56).
63 Dodd 1936:87; Dodd’s (1936:83, 96) consideration of apocalyptic descriptions as mythical
and symbolic is inclusive of the notions of the last judgment, as seen in his words: “It is this that is
symbolized in the myth of the Last Judgment, the End of the World. Since no man has ever
experienced the end of history, it can be expressed only in the form of fantasy”.
64 Dodd 1936:83
65 Dodd 1936:85-86
66 Ladd 1974:9, 335; cf. Dodd 1936:83; Ladd (1974:335) further elaborates on his interpretation
of Dodd: “…Jesus thought of a single complex event consisting of his death, resurrection, ascension,
and parousia in which the Kingdom of God broke into history. Jesus indeed used apocalyptic
language to describe this event, but it was only a symbolic way of describing the otherness – the
transcendental character of the Kingdom of God”.
67 Erickson 1998:45
13
defining choices”68. Noting phrases and words as “each human”, “existence”,
“freely” and “self-defining choices”, and the frequency with which Bultmann uses
similar notions and words there is little wonder that his eschatology is described as
“existential”69.
Bultmann’s view of eschatology within Scripture is that it changes and is frequently

mythologized. The Old Testament had no doctrine of a coming end of the world or
cosmic judgment, but that judgment is at times depicted with “ornamental” or
“mythological features such as cosmic catastrophes, earthquakes, conflagrations, and
so on”70. There is however a certain dualism found in the Old Testament that is
developed in later Jewish apocalyptic thought – the Present Age and the Coming
Age (as in Daniel 2, 7)71. The New Testament is seen by Bultmann as possessing
both the Old Testament perspective and that of later Jewish apocalyptic, with
apocalyptic in dominance72. Christian writers however revised Jewish apocalyptic
and thereby enriched the message of Christ73.
Bultmann’s theory of existential eschatology is actually suggested as a solution to

what he calls “the problem of eschatology”. The problem he speaks of is the failure
of the Parousia to the disappointment of the early Christian community74. To them
the Parousia was imminent, but it failed to occur, and Bultmann then suggests that
essential theological changes were made first by Paul and then by John. Bultmann
suggests: “A new understanding of eschatology, which appears for the first time in
Paul and is radically developed in John, is the first stage in the solution of the
problem”. Although he says it is the “first stage” of the solution, he later says it
actually “contains” the solution: “At all events the Pauline conception of historicity
and his unfolding of the dialectic of Christian existence contains the solution of the
problem of history and eschatology as it was raised by the delay of the parousia of
Christ”75. The value of this solution is thus heightened.
In short, Bultmann describes the solution in this way, with the contribution of John76
being considered more radical:
68 www.wiktionary.org under “existentialism”, accessed on the 31 st of October 2013

69 Bultmann frequently mentions the value of “the individual” (1957:32, 43, 49). Between
pages 43 to 48 of the same book, he makes numerous references to “decisions”, “freedom”,
“experiences”, one becoming “himself” and “historicity” of a person as related and eschatologically
essential
70 Bultmann 1957:27-28
71 Bultmann 1957:27
72 Bultmann 1957:31, 34
73 Bultmann 1957:33; Ladd (1974:595-596) seems to have been referring to the same notion of
Christian writers making use of contemporary apocalyptic in a revised form: “we find [apocalyptic
dualism] emerging in Judaism in the first century; and the Synoptics represent it as providing the
basic structure for Jesus’ teachings. However, we have seen that Paul as a Christian made a radical
modification in this temporal dualism”.
74 Bultmann 1957:38:40
75 Bultmann 1957:47
76 Bultmann (1957:47) puts it this way: “The conception of the eschatological event as happening in
the present is still more radically unfolded in John, because he gives up the expectation of future cosmic
14
For both Paul and John the present time is a ‘time-between’. For Paul:
between the resurrection of Christ and his expected parousia at the
end of the world. For John: between the glorification of Jesus through
his crucifixion (which is at the same time his exaltation) and the end of
the earthly life of the individual believer. But for both of them this
‘between’ has not only chronological, but also essential, meaning. It is
the dialectical ‘between’ which characterises the Christian existence as
between ‘no longer’ and ‘not yet’77.
This is the eschatological event that can be experienced by the Christian in the
present; this present can be at any time in historical time and is dynamic 78 as long as
the Christian lives.
Salvation-historical Eschatology
Oscar Cullman, the one credited with the rediscovery of “salvation-historical”

eschatology79, moves from the premise that the New Testament text should speak for
itself and that we should not bring into the text our own philosophical starting
points that may lead to the rejection of certain texts or misinterpretations:
It is amazing to see with what naïve unconcern this or that feature of

the original Christian message is all too often arbitrarily selected and
regarded as central, in accordance with a standard which obviously is
brought to the New Testament from the outside, whereas from the
Primitive Church this feature is indeed present, but instead of really
standing in the center is itself to be explained by reference to another
feature which is the true center. If the representatives of the various
Christian groups, and perhaps even the opponents of the Christian
faith, would for once agree that in determining the essential Christian
kernel they would make an honest effort to renounce all standards
derived from any other source than the most ancient Christian
writings themselves, they would already by this conscious effort have
made a great advance toward a fruitful discussion80.
This conviction seems to be the one which leads him into collision with the
eschatological theories of Schweitzer, Dodd, and Bultmann81.
events, an expectation which Paul still retains. For John the resurrection of the dead and the last
judgment are present in the coming of Jesus”.
77 Bultmann 1957:49
78 Bultmann 1957:46. Bultmann (1957:42) also says: “the real bliss is righteousness, and with it
freedom. The reign of God he says, is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit….And that
means: the conception of bliss is thought of with regard to the individual: and this state of bliss is
already present….The New Aeon is already reality”. This statement excludes any notion of an
earthly Age to Come for which we are to look forward to.
79 www.wikipedia.org under “Oscar Cullmann”, accessed on the 29 th of October 2013
80 Cullmann 1962:xi-xii; cf. 1962:xxvii
81 Cullmann 1962:xiii, xix, xxi
15
Cullmann makes the proposal that the death and resurrection of Christ results in a
tension between the “already” and the “not yet”: “On the basis of New Testament
evidence, I have decided plainly in favour of temporariness being the essence of
eschatology, not as Schweitzer saw it, but from the redemptive-historical
perspective, in which there exists a tension between the present (the already
accomplished) and the future (the not yet fulfilled)”82. He then continues to suggest
that this tension, which is primary in the New Testament, is already present in the
teachings of Jesus, especially in Luke, in as much as there are also some differences
between the writings83. Christ in this way is the midpoint and the divider of time.
His division of time does not however imply “two quantitatively equal halves of the
time before the parousia; it rather means the decisive incision into that time”84. A
functional midpoint is meant here, and not a structural one.
With regard to time as linear, Cullmann denies that this should be inferred from his
position. Cullmann’s primary focus, particularly in his book “Christ and Time”, is
not about showing time to be linear, but about the tension between the “already”
and the “not yet”, with the conception of time as linear as a mere backdrop or
framework of New Testament thought:
I am interested in this concept [of ‘linear time’] merely because it

provides the New Testament background to that which is important to
me: the present-future tension. I am as much interested in the
redemptive-historical moving from plurality to the unique, ‘the
middle,’ and vice versa, as I am in the way all periods are oriented from
this middle, i.e. the events of the first decades of the Christian era.
These three points of interest, and not linear time as such, constitute
the concern of my book. Besides, linear time is weakened by this tension
and by the orientation from the middle, but both presuppose it as the
framework of Biblical thinking about time. In addition, the approach
to them from a point of view of linear time gives a greater
understanding of what they mean in the New Testament….The
‘already and not yet’ tension…is the most essential matter of my
book85.
82 Cullmann 1962:xix, xxii. Cullmann uses “redemptive-history” synonymously with the

tension between the “already” and the “not yet”. There is a process of salvation implied by both.
83 Cullmann 1962:xix-xx, xxii-xxiii. Arguing that the tension between the already and the not
yet was not an afterthought due to a failed Parousia, Cullmann (1962:xx-xxi; cf. 1962:xxii-xxiii) states:
“The tension between ‘already’ and ‘not yet,’ characteristic of all New Testament redemptive history,
is also the basis of Jesus’ thinking because he assumed such a continuation, even if it was a short one.
The fact that subsequently a longer, undetermined period was thought of, does not in any way
change this basis, however important this extension may be in other respects. The decisive incision
remains the same, whether the expected period is long or short”. So Cullmann does acknowledge
that there was a change of expectation after the Parousia delayed, but the change was not in the
nature of eschatology but in its consummative imminence.
84 Cullmann 1962:xx
85 Cullmann 1962:xxv; cf. 1962:xxx-xxxi
16
He then goes on to also say that linear time is not something that he considers
especially Christian, but that only the tension is such86.
George E Ladd considers this “salvation-historical” approach as the most agreed

upon among scholars of his time, and perhaps even still today: “If a majority of
scholars have approached a consensus, it is that the Kingdom is in some real sense
both present and future”87. Note however that Ladd refers to the notion of the
kingdom being both present and future, and not that the consensus is on Cullmann’s
view as a whole.
Ladd agrees with Cullman in that “the New Testament finds its unity in a common
conception of time and history [or that]…theology is the meaning of the historical in
time”88. But Ladd disagrees on the linear [figure 2 below] description of time as seen
in Cullmann; Ladd sees an upward overlapping transition of time, and he uses a
line-system that goes further to indicate that the beginning kingdom was already at
work even during the Old Testament times:
This scheme [figure 3 below] has the advantage of illustrating that the
Age to Come moves on a higher level than this age, and that the time
between the resurrection and the parousia is a time of the overlapping
of the two ages. The church lives ‘between the times’; the old age goes
on, but the powers of the new age have irrupted into the old one….In
the Age to Come, heaven descends to earth and lifts historical
existence to a new level of redeemed life….This diagram also suggests
that God’s Kingdom was active in the Old Testament 89.
To the researcher this disagreement is however not critical since Cullmann does not
have the linear time metaphor as the fundamental point or argument. Actually, he
even shows willingness to receive a better illustration of his point on the midpoint 90.
Although Ladd criticises Cullmann for “overemphasizing the midpoint of history at
the expense of the end” it may be understandable of Cullmann if considered that he
was in reaction to the theories of his time, particularly those of Schweitzer and
Bultmann, which considered the Parousia as a failure.
This Age Midpoint Age to Come
(Old Testament expectation regarding the “Day of the Lord”91)
Figure 1
86 Cullmann 1962:xxvi
87 Ladd 1974:56; cf. Schnelle 2009:98-99; cf. Schreiner 2008:14
88 Ladd 1974:9
89 Ladd 1974:66-67; cf. 1974:596
90 Cullmann 1962:xxviii
91 Ladd 1974:66
17
This Age Midpoint Age to Come
Figure 2
God’s Reign = Kingdom of God
Age to Come
OT Period NT Period
First Coming of Christ Second Coming of Christ
This Age
Figure 3
An Overview of the Major Theories of Prophetic Interpretation
There is no single method of prophetic interpretation that has received consensus in

the scholarly world. The method of interpretation that seemingly enjoyed the widest
use for many centuries is “historicism”, after which the other three major methods
gained92 ground and may have almost obscured historicism. The other three
methods are “preterism”, “futurism” and “idealism”.
This section is designed to take an analytical glimpse into the descriptions of these
methods of prophetic interpretation. It is the position of the researcher that Jurgen
Moltmann is largely a preterist, a mild futurist and also a mild idealist. Seventh-day
Adventist eschatology is on the other hand largely historicist and yet mildly
preterist, futurist and idealist.
Historicism
This approach is seemingly the formerly dominant method of interpretation, taking

seriously the role of history in biblical eschatology: “The historicist approach, which
is the historic Protestant interpretation of the book [of Revelation], sees the Book of
Revelation as a prewritten record of the course of history from the time of the apostle
to the end of the world. Fulfilment is thus considered to be in progress at present
and has been unfolding for nearly two thousand years” 93. This view is also known
92 There is debate as to which theory is the original (www.wikipedia.org under “preterism”,

accessed on the 31st of October 2013)
93 Gregg 1997:2; Cf. www.wikipedia.org under “historicism (Christianity)”, accessed on the
31st of October 2013; Cf. Erickson 1998:1161; Cf. Ladd 1974:672
18
as “continuous-historical”94 where continuity in sequential95 developments of time is
stressed.
As already noted above and will be seen in following chapters, SDA eschatology is
largely historicist in its interpretation. As such it is one of the few 96, if any other
traditions exist, that still utilize this method, and as such its voice regarding the use
of this method should be taken into consideration. It is no secret that the historicist
method has been a means of sensationalism and fanaticism regarding the Parousia in
particular, as seen even from the SDA tradition’s own parent movement – the
Millerite Movement of the early 19th century CE in the United States of America.
SDA theologians do acknowledge the occasional ‘abuse’ of this method by some, but
as may be expected, they consider SDA use as apart from such sensational use:
In contrast with other modes of exposition, historicism – though

sometimes marred by diverse, sensational, speculative, and
contradictory approaches – appears as the most valid hermeneutical
approach to the biblical apocalypses”; “Adventist prophetic
interpretation also steers clear of the pitfalls of speculation and
sensationalism so popular among premillennialists97.
The following chapters will elaborate on the SDA use of historicism.
Preterism
Preterism in general is a method of interpretation that regards the ‘predicted’ (if one
believes in supernatural predictions) apocalyptic events in the bible as already
fulfilled, especially during the time of the first Christians 98, or as then
contemporary99. As it applied to the book of Revelation in particular, Gregg
describes it in this way:
The preterist approach sees the fulfilment of Revelation’s prophecies as

already having occurred in what is now the ancient past, not long after
the author’s own time. Thus the fulfilment was in the future from the
point of view of the inspired author, but it is in the past from our
vantage point in history. Some preterists believe that the final chapters
94 Shea 1992:xi
95 Johnsson 2000:795-797; Stefanovic 2002:10-12; Strand 1992:4-5, 16-19
96 William H Shea (1992:xii) says SDA Christians are for practical purposes alone in this view:
“Today Seventh-day Adventists stand virtually alone as exponents of the historicist principles of
prophetic interpretation”.
97 Johnsson 2000:797, 811; cf. Stefanovic 2002:1; cf. Yorke 1985:3-41
98 www.wikipedia.org under “preterism”, accessed on the 31 st of October 2013. The same
source records: “The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological end times
perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to a pretribulation
rapture. Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and
that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises,
which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ,
upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem[3] for a thousand years”.
99 Erickson 1998:1160
19
of Revelation look forward to the second coming of Christ. Others
think that everything in the book reached its culmination in the past100.
From the foregoing description one may pick up the indication that not all preterists
are identical in as much as they are common with their emphasis on fulfilment or
occurrence in the first century CE or the first generation of Christians. It may also be
significant to note that this is the dominant theory or method to date 101.
The preterist method considers the value of apocalyptic as that of encouragement to

“distressed people” of the first century102. This overlaps with the objective and value
of the apocalyptic according to the theory or method of idealism (see below):
“[Idealism says] the message of the book [of Revelation] is the assurance to suffering
saints”103. The difference will be indicated below.
It has been noted that preterism seems most appealing to liberal104 Christians, in as
much as there are those who subscribe to this theory and yet would consider
themselves conservatives or somewhere in between those two sides. It is one of the
two theories of prophetic interpretation among these four that easily allows liberals
to dismiss any allegedly predictive element in Scripture105: “The message of the
apocalypses is addressed to their own contemporaries and in no way contains
prophecies of the future, but pseudo-prophecies of history rewritten under the guise
of prophecy”106.
Idealism
This theory attaches no significance of prophecies in term of being tied down to

specific historical events, particularly in the book of Revelation; it is all merely
symbolic languages, and hence this method is sometimes called “symbolical”: “[This
method] sees in the Revelation only symbols of spiritual powers at work in the
world. The message of the book is assurance to suffering saints of God’s final
triumph without the prediction of concrete events either in the past or future”107.
Like preterism it is designed for encouragement but the fundamental difference lies
in that preterism is focused on the first century Christians whereas idealism is
timeless.
Again, as in preterism, there may be no literal/historical significance of the book or

language: “The idealist method is based on the preterist ideas. It does not see any
literal or historical significance of John’s vision”108. As noted earlier about the
100 Gregg 1997:2; cf. Stefanovic 2002:9

101 Ladd 1974:671
102 Ladd 1974:671
103 Ladd 1974:672
104 “Liberal” versus “Conservative” is not a black and white situation, but here “liberal”
specifically refers to those scholars who remove or do not see any supernatural element in Scripture,
such as in miracles and predictions of future events.
105 Stefanovic 2002:9
106 Ladd 1974:671
107 Ladd 1974:672; cf. Erickson 1998:1161; cf. Gregg 1997:2-3; cf. Stefanovic 2002:9-10
108 Stefanovic 2002:10
20
preterist approach, this method is enticing as Ladd observes: “One of the most
attractive methods is [the Idealist Method]”109. Ladd however does not indicate for
whom it is enticing.
Futurism
The futurist takes many prophecies and applies them to the last generation. As seen
with the book of Revelation for example, Stefanovic describes futurism thus: “The
futurist method maintains that Revelation (particularly chapters 4-22) is a prophecy
of future events to take place just prior to and after the Second Coming. The book is
relevant for the last generation of Christians living in the time of the end”110. Note
that it is not all prophecies but uniquely most prophecies, particularly apocalyptic
ones.
Dispensational Christians are typically futurist in their eschatological stance:

“Dispensationalism is an evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that understands
God to have related to human beings in different ways under different Biblical
covenants in a series of ‘dispensations,’ or periods in history”111. As such they may
be considered representative of this theory of futurism. This is not an insignificant
branch of Christianity, but one that should be taken seriously according to Norman
Gulley: “Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation that has ‘infiltrated
almost every branch of Protestantism’ and has ‘considerable influence within
conservative circles,’ as demonstrated by the Scofield Reference Bible…and the New
Scofield Study Bible”112. He thereafter goes on (understandably so as he is of a
different tradition) to warn that all should be “aware of dispensational
interpretations and avoid a similar focus on biblical distinctions and preoccupation
with the role of Israel and the Middle East in final events” 113. Futurism seems to be
alive and well and apparently with larger support than historicism, particularly in
the United States of America114.
George Ladd, who is himself a futurist, distinguishes between two kinds of

futurisms: “extreme futurism” and “moderate futurism”115. The former interprets
Revelation with the “dispensational premise of two different divine programs: one
for Israel and one for the church”. He further notes that this view is currently losing
support in the scholarly world of dispensationalists116. The view that he argues for is
the latter one, or “a moderate futurist interpretation” which he summarizes in this
way: “We may conclude that a moderate futurist interpretation understands the
seven letters to be addressed to seven historical churches that are representative of
the entire church. The seals represent the forces in history, however long it lasts, by
109 Ladd 1974:672

110 Stefanovic 2002:10; cf. Erickson 1998:1160; cf. Gregg 1997:2
111 www.wikipedia.org under “dispensationalism”, accessed on the 31st of October 2013; cf.
Erickson 1998:1168-1170; cf. Ladd 1974:673

112 Gulley 1998:71-72
113 Gulley 1998:72
114 Cf. Ladd 1974:673
115 Ladd 1974:673
116 Ladd 1974:673
21
which God works out his redemptive and judicial purposes in history leading up to
the end. The events beginning with chapter 7 lie in the future and will attend the
final disposition of the divine will for human history” 117. A large chunk of the book
of Revelation is still pointing to the future, but considerably less than with the
former “extreme futurism” that starts from chapter 4 of the book of Revelation.
What is perhaps interesting to note is that preterism seems to have more in common
with idealism, and historicism more in common with futurism. The first two seem
more appealing to liberals (where Scripture is devoid of supernatural predictions of
future events) in general, and the other two seem more appealing to conservatives
(where Scripture is capable of supernatural predictions).
An Overview of the Major Theories of Millennialism
The word “millennium” comes from the Latin words “mille” (meaning “thousand”)
and “annus” (meaning “year”), and therefore the word “millennium” means
“thousand years”. There is also the word “millenarian”, used much by Moltmann,
which in Christianity means, as an adjective, “…the belief in an impending period of
one thousand years of peace and righteousness associated with the Second Coming
of Christ”118. Both of these words have the reference, in Christian thought, to the
1,000 years referred to in the book of Revelation 20. The adjective “millenarian”
adds the description of the experiences of peace and righteousness within those
1,000 years or the “millennium”, and the word “millenarian” can also, as a noun,
refer to the person who holds such a belief. Since “millennium” is more flexible in
meaning we shall herein build on it as we categorize the various theories around the
notion of the biblical 1,000 years.
There are three major millennial views in Christian teaching: (1) Amillennialism, (2)
Postmillennialism, and (3) Premillennialism. It shall be argued in this research that
Jurgen Moltmann is an amillennialist and SDA eschatology premillennialist.
Amillennialism
In “amillennial” thought, the present time is the fulfilment of the Revelation 20

millennium, the numerical measure of which is merely figurative. Those who reign
with Christ at this time are the dead who are with Christ in heaven119. There is no
future millennium to come. The Parousia brings about the resurrection of believers
and unbelievers, the judgment120, the new creation of heaven and earth with the
eternal state. The end of time happens at once121.
117 Ladd 1974:675

118 www.wiktionary.org under “millenarian”, accessed on the 31st of October 2013
119 It shall later be seen in this research that Moltmann does not hold to the view that the dead
have spirits that leave and go to heaven, leaving the body behind
120 Moltmann will be shown not to believe in any judicial process of cosmic judgment
121 Erickson 1998:1211-1131; Geisler 2005[vol.4]:547-595; Grudem 1994:1109-1112; Thiselton
2012:79-88
22
Postmillennialism
According to “postmillennial” thought, Christ returns after the future millennium.

The future millennium arrives gradually as most of the earth becomes Christian.
The millennium then begins, the 1,000 years not being essentially a literal number.
Christ then returns after the ‘1,000’ years of peace. The Parousia brings about the
resurrection of believers and unbelievers, the judgment and the recreation of heaven
and earth with the eternal state122.
Premillennialism
Premillennialism is allegedly the longest-held view in Christian history. Christ

comes before the millennium. The Parousia occurs after great tribulation and
suffering on earth. Christ comes to establish a millennial reign on earth 123, the 1,000
years being sometimes considered literally and sometimes figuratively. The Parousia
brings about the resurrection of the righteous with bodies that never die, and
Christ’s Kingship over the entire earth. Some of the unrighteous turn to Christ and
are saved. Some say the earth is renewed at the Parousia, and some say it is
renewed after the judgment that occurs at the end of the millennium. During the
millennium Satan has no influence on earth. At the end of the millennium, Satan is
released from his ‘prison’ and leads the unrighteous that have been alive to rebellion
against Christ. Satan and his followers are however defeated, and Christ then
resurrects those that died outside of Christ from all ages. The final judgment occurs,
and afterward the righteous enter into the eternal state124.
An Overview of the Major Theoretical Approaches to Christian Mission
The theories of Christian mission in the world are less complex and less debated
than in eschatology, hence this section of this chapter will have a relatively
straightforward breakdown of the theories.
It is perhaps not practical to discuss Christian mission without touching on

ecumenism as implied by GE Gorman where he recognizes “the counter-productive
effect that denominational divisions [have] on missionary activity in non-Christian
countries”125. Michael A Fahey also seems to concur with him as he discusses the
beginnings of the ecumenical movement: “…missionary endeavours by the
European and American churches especially in Africa and Asia were being seriously
hampered by the countersign of a divided church” 126. The avoidance of some
discussion on ecumenism is unavoidable.

2012:79-88
123 As to be indicated later in this research, SDA eschatology holds that the righteous are
taken to heaven at the beginning of the millennium, and do not experience it while on earth
2012:79-88
125 Gorman 1992:xiii (in his foreword in the book compiled by Michael A Fahey, entitled
“Ecumenism: A Bibliographical Overview”)

126 Fahey 1992:1
23
This section will therefore briefly describe the ecumenical movement, and then an
outline of the three major theoretical approaches to Christian mission: (1) an
“ecumenical liberal” approach, (2) an “ecumenical evangelical” approach, and (3) a
“non-ecumenical” approach. It will be seen later in this research that Jurgen
Moltmann is neither a clear-cut “liberal” nor a clear-cut “evangelical”, and hence his
approach is a blend of the first two approaches. The SDA approach to mission is
best categorized as a blend of the “ecumenical evangelical” and the “non-
ecumenical” approaches.
The Ecumenical Movement
The word “ecumenism” comes from the Greek word “oikoumene” which means
“the whole inhabited world”. This meaning speaks to the vision of the ecumenical
movement that is to visibly unify all Christians for the whole world’s needs in all its
facets, i.e. the physical, the social and the spiritual 127.
There seems to have been two separable ecumenical movements: (1) the ecumenical
movement among evangelicals, leading to the formation of the World Evangelical
Alliance; and the (2) ecumenical movement among the mainstream churches that led
to the formation of the World Council of Churches. The former seems to have been
initially a British phenomenon as early as 1846: “WEA's roots began in 1846 with the
establishment in England of the Evangelical Alliance, incorporated in 1912 as the
World's Evangelical Alliance (British Organization)” 128. This organization has
however become an international phenomenon: “WEA today is a network of
churches in 129 nations that have joined to give a worldwide identity, voice and
platform to more than 600 million evangelical Christians”129. The Lausanne
Movement, which may be considered a sister movement to the World Evangelical
Alliance, was started through the initiative of Billy Graham in 1974130 through what
is known as “The First Lausanne Congress”. The second major Congress was held in
1989 at Manila, and the third major Congress was in 2010 in Cape Town.
The latter ecumenical movement, leading to the formation of the World Council of
Churches that was formally inaugurated in 1948, seems to have started from the
1910 World Missionary Conference: “Most historians consider that the modern
ecumenical movement originated in the year 1910 at the World Missionary
Conference held in Edinburgh”131. This movement also seemingly has long roots
stretching prior to 1910: “However this conference [1910] would not have been
possible without the pioneering ecumenical work of the Christian youth movements:
the Young Men's Christian Association (founded 1844), the Young Women's
Christian Association (founded 1855), the World Student Christian Federation
(founded 1895), and the Federal Council of Churches (founded 1908), predecessor to
127 www.wikipedia.org under “ecumenical movement”, accessed on the 1 st of November 2013;

cf. Fahey 1992:1
128 www.worldea.org, History, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013; cf. Howard 1986:7, 22
129 www.worldea.org, History, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013
130 Howard 1986:96
131 Fahey 1992:1; cf. Joseph Daniel 2008:10; cf. VanElderen and Conway 2001:22
24
today's National Council of Churches USA”132. It appears 1910 was not the
beginning in some ways.
The World Council of Churches is much more recognizable compared to the World
Evangelical Alliance probably due to its relatively less restrictiveness as will be seen
below. The World Evangelical Alliance claims to be a platform of about 600 million
Christians in 129 nations133, whereas the World Council of Churches claims to
represent “over 500 million” Christians in “more than 110 countries” 134. It may be
another study to ascertain the significance, if any, of the words “platform” in
contrast to “represent”.
The next section will describe the three approaches to Christian mission, largely in
concurrence with the above noted two streams of the ecumenical movement, the
third approach to Christian mission being “non-ecumenical”. The three approaches
to Christian mission need not be confused with the three major approaches135 to
ecumenism: (1) Catholic, (2) Eastern Orthodox, and (3) Protestant. These are merely
conceptions or views of ecumenism and not actually recognized movements of
ecumenism.
The Ecumenical Liberal Approach
Perhaps the World Council of Churches is a representative organization of the

“ecumenical liberal” approach. Probably due to theological reasons some churches
did not join this organization but opted to form another organization: “Many
churches who refused to join the WCC joined together to form the World
Evangelical Alliance”136. In light of the above indication that the World Evangelical
Alliance has further roots besides the reactionary impression given in the above
statement, the researcher sees it best to interpret the immediately above statement as
indicating a boost to globalism rather than beginning from scratch. These two
organizations are useful icons of their ecumenical theology, the former being
“ecumenical liberal” and the latter being ‘ecumenical evangelical”.
As already noted in the Introduction of this research, for “ecumenical liberals” there
are some general but not absolute characteristics: (1) humanisation is the key
objective of mission, and may involve participation in violent liberation movements;
(2) there is no dualism between church and the world, the body and the soul, the
“vertical” and the “horizontal”, between salvation and social involvement, etc; (3) it
132 www.wikipedida.org under “ecumenism”, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013; cf.
VanElderen and Conway 2001:21-22

133 www.worldea.org, History, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013
134 www.oikoumene.org, About Us, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013
135 The Catholic Church wants nothing short of full unity with its teachings of Scripture and
tradition, and the same seems to be true of Eastern Orthodox church, whereas Protestants generally
require agreement on central issues of faith and not on every point of teaching and faith
(www.wikipedia.org under “ecumenism” and under “Catholic Church and ecumenism”, accessed on
the 3rd of November 2013)
136 www.wikipedia.org under “World Council of Churches”, accessed on the 31 st of October
2013
25
is the current situation in the world that drives the agenda of mission137. These
characteristics however do not seem to be fully typical of the World Council of
Churches, particularly the first one, in light of the current constitution of the World
Council of Churches as it gives its “primary purpose” and two of the mandates of
the Council:
The primary purpose of the fellowship of churches in the World Council

of Churches is to call one another to visible unity in one faith and in
one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in
Christ, through witness and service to the world, and to advance towards
that unity in order that the world may believe. In seeking koinonia in
faith and life, witness and service, the churches through the Council
will: [1] promote the prayerful search for forgiveness and reconciliation in
a spirit of mutual accountability [and also to] express their
commitment to diakonia in serving human need, breaking down barriers
between people, promoting one human family in justice and peace, and
upholding the integrity of creation, so that all may experience the
fullness of life138.
The constitution’s stipulation of “forgiveness and reconciliation” with “justice and

peace” seems far from the first characteristic listed above that mentions participation
in violent protests. Perhaps the key element that distinguishes “ecumenical liberals”
from “ecumenical evangelicals” is the lack of centrality being given to evangelization
where that refers to proclamation or the kerygma.
The Ecumenical Evangelical Approach
As noted above, the key difference between “ecumenical liberals” and “ecumenical
evangelicals” seems to be that “ecumenical evangelicals” place the proclamation of
the gospel as central to the larger task of the church in its mission to the world. In as
much as the constitution of the World Council of Churches does include
proclamation as part of its task139, it does not give it centrality, whereas the World
Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Movement both highlight proclamation
above all else, as seen in this Lausanne Covenant statement: “In the Church's
mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary”140. Emphasis on evangelism
does not however mean the exclusion of the other facets of mission, as seen from this
mission statement: “The World Evangelical Alliance exists to foster Christian unity
and to provide a worldwide identity, voice and platform to evangelical Christians.
Seeking empowerment by the Holy Spirit, they extend the Kingdom of God by
137 Bosch 1980:28-40

138 www.oikoumene.org, About Us, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013, emphasis mine
139 References to “witness and service” and “mission and evangelism” in the constitution are
found, www.oikoumene.org, About Us, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013

140 www.lausanne.org, accessed on the 3 rd of November 2013; cf. Howard 1986:1-5
26
proclamation of the Gospel to all nations and by Christ-centered transformation within
society”141. The Lausanne Covenant also affirms:
We therefore should share his concern for justice and reconciliation

throughout human society and for the liberation of men and women
from every kind of oppression….Although reconciliation with other
people is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism,
nor is political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that
evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our
Christian duty142.
It seems the role of evangelism is the key differentiator.
“Ecumenical evangelicals” have the following characteristics in contrast to

“ecumenical liberals”: (1) they move from Scripture to the situation such that it is the
one that drives the agenda of mission; (2) there is a sharp dualism between the
church and the world, the spiritual and the physical, Christianity and other religions
(the former in each case being more important); (3) they may prefer the name
“evangelisation” to “mission” for the reasons that the former is more active,
dynamic and specific-goal oriented rather than general; (4) in the relationship
between social transformation and evangelisation, there seems to be two groups (but
not sharply distinguished) – those who try to use evangelisation as a means of social
change, and those who see social change as an opportunity-creator for
evangelisation143.
Gabriel Fackre, in his book “Ecumenical Faith in Evangelical Perspective”,

distinguishes between “evangelical ecumenicists” and “ecumenical evangelicals”.
The former “shares…the centrality of justification by faith and Holy Scripture” while
also “vigorously” participating “in an ecumenical movement that both seeks
ecclesial unity and is deeply immersed in today’s struggles for justice, peace, and the
integrity of creation”. The latter describes those who are associated “first and
foremost with self-consciously evangelical constituencies and their networks” with
the adjective “ecumenical” meaning an “openness to connect and to associate with
those in the formally designated ecumenical movement”. They often “share the
mission agendas – both evangelization and social action – of this larger ecumenical
community”144. Nuances of differences are indicated to exist.
The Non-Ecumenical Approach
This “non-ecumenical” approach means that the protagonist is concerned with the
issue of uniqueness of identity and doctrinal purity which makes it nervous about
equal partnership with any tradition outside of itself in the carrying out of its
mission to the world. It has a greater sense of self-sufficiency. For the purposes of
141 www.worldea.org, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013, emphasis mine; cf. Howard
1986:2
142 www.lausanne.org, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013; cf. Howard 1986:2-3
143 Bosch 1980:28-40
144 Fackre 1993:ix
27
this study, two churches stand out, the Roman Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist.
The former stands out because of its numerical size and historical prestige, and the
latter because the researcher belongs to it. Both of these traditions hold “observer
status” at the World Council of Churches, and both have full membership
representatives at the Council’s Commission on Faith and Order145. One may label
these churches “ecumenical” only in the sense of being open to dialogue and making
conversational contributions to the mission of the World Council of Churches. The
Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons may also fit this category of “non-
ecumenical” Christian mission, but may be slightly extreme in relation to the
Catholic and the SDA churches.
Conclusion
The key objective of this chapter has been to outline the context of this research into
eschatology and Christian mission. Major theories in eschatology and in Christian
mission have been outlined with that intent. Also, it has been indicated as to where
Moltmann and SDA theologies fit in relation to the larger conversation.
Now that the groundwork has been done in acknowledging and surveying the
context of the dialogue between Moltmann and SDA theologies, the next chapters
will analyse the relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in
Moltmann and SDA theologies, starting with Moltmann.
145 www.oikoumene.org, About Us, accessed on the 3rd of November 2013
28
Chapter 3

MISSION IN THE THEOLOGY OF JURGEN MOLTMANN
Introduction
This chapter is dedicated to the critical analysis of the relationship between

eschatological hope and Christian mission in the theology of Jurgen Moltmann 146.
However, this chapter will first examine what is meant by eschatological hope and
Christian mission.
Eschatological Hope
This section analyses the views of Jurgen Moltmann on the question of

eschatological hope. It is structured according to the definition, basis, ambivalence
and components of eschatological hope in Jurgen Moltmann.
The Definition of Eschatological Hope
Jurgen Moltmann does not give a direct and exhaustive definition of eschatological
hope in one paragraph or statement. Therefore, it should be derived inductively.
For him, eschatological hope is not only that which is hoped for (objective) but also
the hope (subjective) that is inspired by it147. Furthermore, the essence of
eschatological thought is the kingdom148 and lordship of God: “The real heart of
eschatology, and the basic concept which it constantly employs with varying
content, is doubtless to be found in the promise and expectation of what is known as
the ‘kingdom of God’ and the ‘lordship of God’” 149. From the notions of “promise”
and “expectation”, there arises the notion of anticipation150. This anticipation is an
expectation for the redemptive or liberating kingdom of God to arrive in greater
measure than already has. He argues that the “lordship of God” has two elements –
the historic rule through the death and resurrection event and the future universal
lordship when “all nations and things become his universe” 151. The preceding
notions are probably the reason for him to view eschatological hope as that which
defines Christianity: “eschatology means the doctrine of Christian hope.... From first
to last...Christianity is eschatology”152. Eschatological hope becomes “the medium of
146 The use of secondary sources regarding the interpretation of Moltmann is very limited in
this research. While the use of such sources would be beneficial in the interpretation of Moltmann,
one may end up distracted from the primary ones due to the large number of the secondary sources
because Moltmann’s works enjoy wide usage in the scholarly world.
147Moltmann 1967:16; cf. 1977:197
148There are other scholars who also see the crucial role of the kingdom of God in the
discussion of eschatology (Bosch 1991:508; Geisler 2005:459; Ladd 1974).

149 Moltmann 1967:216; cf. 1967:223
150 Moltmann 1967:16
151 Moltmann 1967:217; 1977:99-100, 190; 2010:77; cf. 1967:17, 42-44, 46, 85-86, 89, 196, 224;
1974:256; 1977:74, 190; 1996:104-105

29
Christian faith”, “the key” and the “outlook” of all Christian proclamation, existence
and of the whole Church153.
The Foundation of Eschatological Hope
Jurgen Moltmann154 argues that eschatological hope – the liberating kingdom and
lordship of God - is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ155. If Jesus
did not die and rise from death there would be no hope for humankind. The notion
of Christ’s death and resurrection pervades the writings of Moltmann and should be
understood as the heart of eschatological thought. It is also the hallmark of Christian
theology, its distinguishing feature. For Moltmann, “What is distinctively Christian
is the confession of Christ and belief in the resurrection”156. The salvific significance
of Christ’s death is seen in light of the resurrection, and even the resurrection’s
significance is seen in light of Christ’s future eschatological advent. This backward
reading of Christ-events is called by Moltmann157 the “noetic-eschatological” and the
“reversed ‘eschatological reading of history’”158. This makes Christ’s death on the
cross also eschatological.
Christ’s death and resurrection make him the “eschatological person”, and therefore
the personification of eschatological hope, its beginning and appearance159. The new
creation of the world has begun through his resurrection because it was not a
“revivification” (a return to this life) but a “resurrection” (a transition into the next
life) which implies creatio ex nihilo160. The kingdom of God is therefore present now
in “promise and hope” as we expect it in the future 161. With the preceding notion in
mind, Moltmann further refers to Christ as “the anticipator of the future”, the
“realization of the promise”, “God’s lieutenant” and the “provisional representative”
of God162.

154 Ladd (1974:337) affirms Moltmann theology in that the future reign of Christ is based on
the reign achieved through his death/resurrection: “[The church’s] witness to God’s victory in the
future is based on a victory already achieved in history”. While on that thought, it might be
noteworthy to consider the symbols of the “cross of Christ” and the “resurrection of the Christ” as
inseparable without them losing meaning (Tillich 1957:176 [vol. 2]).
155 Moltmann 1977:74; 2010:43; cf. 1967:17; cf. 1996:230-231; cf. 2012:5; cf. Bosch 1991:426; cf.
1991:442
156 Moltmann 2010:3; cf. 2004:88
157 Ladd (1975:42) seems to agree with this notion of backward reading: “[The disciples]
believed that the real mission of Jesus could be understood only when viewed through the eyes of the
resurrection faith”.
158 Moltmann 1974:162-165; cf. 1977:74; cf. 2010:43
159 Moltmann 1977:74; 1990:149; cf. 1967:17; 1977:99; 1981:122; 1996:196
160 Moltmann 1967:226; 1974:169, 188-189; 1981:123; 2004:47, 151; 2010:62, 68; cf. 1996:27-28,
232
161 Moltmann 1967:223; 2012:228, 238; cf. Hodge affirms the notion that the kingdom of Christ
is already here but yet future at the same time (Hodge 1960:857 [vol. 3]; cf. Pannenberg 1991:391 [vol.
1]; 1994:137 [vol. 2]). Paul Tillich (1964:381, 383 [vol. 3]; cf. 1964:385 [vol. 3]; cf. Barth 1962:558 [vol. 4.
Part 3, second half]) puts it this way: “[There is] a double character of the Kingdom of God. It has an
innerhistorical and a transhistorical side”; “the symbol ‘Kingdom of God’...must be immanent and
transcendent at the same time”.
162 Moltmann 1974:256
30
Moltmann seems to believe that Christ’s death on the cross, which happened
millennia after the fall of humankind, possesses salvific effects that cover even those
who lived and died prior to it. He says:
The Easter hope shines not only forwards into the unknown newness
of the history which it opens up, but also backwards over the
graveyards of history, and in their midst first on the grave of a
crucified man who appeared in that prelude. The symbol of the
‘resurrection of the dead’ which is used by eschatological belief
combines God’s future with the past of the dead and expresses not
only hope for those to come, but also for those who have passed on in
God163.
The significance of this point is better understood in light of the note made below of
the fact that Moltmann distinguishes between Jewish religion and Christian religion
in that these signify two parallel but not identical communities of a common faith or
hope.
The Ambivalence of Eschatological Hope
Through the death and resurrection of Christ, the “eschatological era begins”164.
Also with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the “messianic era” and “end-time”
begins165. The Holy Spirit brings to believers the experience of what is still to come,
“the beginning of the world’s future”166. Moltmann explains: “The experience of the
Spirit begins the completion and perfecting of the creation of human beings and all
things”167. Inasmuch as there is a transcendent/future counterpart of the kingdom
of God, it is present through the Spirit and the word. Moltmann argues: “In history
God rules through the word of promise and the Spirit of freedom”168.
However, since “this presence of the Spirit is the presence of the future glory” but
not the “presence of eternity, which obliterates time altogether”, the present world
condition of “corrupt reality” is at variance with it169. This can be described as a
kingdom present in “paradoxical form”; “its freedom is hidden under trial, its
happiness under suffering, its right under rightlessness, its omnipotence under
weakness”170. This variance and contradiction is not natural but supernaturally
produced by the “promise and the hope” that “make it no longer possible to put up
with” the experiences of corrupt reality171. This is what is meant by the
163 Moltmann 1974:163; Moltmann (2004:48) also says: “The risen Christ pulls Adam with his
right hand and Eve with his left, and with them draws the whole of humanity out of the world of
death into the transfigured world of eternal life”.
164 Moltmann 1981:122
165 Moltmann 1981:124
166 Moltmann 1981:124; cf. 1974:256; 1977:191; 1996:196; 2012:38
167 Moltmann 1981:125
168 Moltmann 1977:190; cf. 1977:205; 1990:95-97
169 Moltmann 1967:223; 1977:190; 1981:125; cf. 1974:256; 2004:89-92
170 Moltmann 1967:223; 1977:190-191; cf. 1996:234; 2010:82; cf. Bosch 1991:374, 377, 387-388,
415, 508-509
171 Moltmann 1967:224; cf. 1996:234-235; 2012:41
31
“ambivalence of eschatological hope”- the coexistence of opposites between the
present influence of the future and the present condition of the world. This
ambivalence does not create doubt and uncertainty, but it creates greater
anticipation.
The First Component of Eschatological Hope: Personal Eschatology
Eschatological hope has a personal component to it, as part of a universal whole 172.
However, this personal component does not include the idea of individual
resurrections because resurrection into eternal life is a community experience173.
Central to the issue of personal eschatology is that of the relationship between the
body and the soul. Moltmann argues that the soul and the body are
“interdependent” and inseparable174. Therefore, there is no immortal soul that
leaves the body in a kind of resurrection; the resurrection is the rising of both body
and soul. For Moltmann, “the soul separated from the body is not a person”175.
However, Moltmann gives the impression of one trying to close the gap between the
views of the natural immortality of the soul and that of its conditional immortality
when he talks about how Christ’s fellowship with the dead has “potentialities” and
says “that those who died earlier can also arrive at faith”. Talking about how Christ
also has “time” for the dead, Moltmann argues: “In that world [of the dead] the
gospel also has retrospective power”176. In the next paragraph he closes by saying,
“the dead also have time...that is the time of love, the accepting, the transfiguring,
the rectifying love that leads to eternal life. That is a true element in the doctrine of
purgatory”. Hence he talks of Christian forms of veneration and remembrance for
the dead, since in Christ there is a community of both the living and the dead, Christ
being Lord of both177.
While the soul might not have its own immortality beyond the body, Moltmann
believes that there is a kind of immortality – that of “sonship” and “daughterhood”.
In this sense, when one dies he/she is not annihilated but relationally remains
“before God”178. Writing about this kind of immortality, Moltmann says: “The
history of our lives is fleeting, and we ourselves quickly forget it; but for God it is
like a ‘book of life’ which remains eternally in God’s memory in just the way God
has experienced our lifetime…. [Death] is of course the limit of our lives, but it is not
172 Moltmann 1996:21, 70, 92-93, 131

173 Moltmann 1996:71; cf. 2010:72
174 Moltmann 1996:75; 1994:82, 85-87; 2004:161; 2012:154. Bosch de-emphasizes dualism
(Bosch 1980:4; 1991:447). This de-emphasis is typical of an eschatology that is not escapist in the sense
of viewing this world as evil and having a desire to go to heaven; this de-emphasis tends to enhance
the value of the physical body and the physical earth, and thus the recognition of the need to
transform it for the better.
175 Moltmann 1996:66, 68, 76, 100-101, 260; 2010:72; 2012:54, 220, 222; cf. Some scholars would
argue that the soul is distinct and separable from the body and can exist in consciousness outside the
body (Geisler 2004:46-78; 2005:248-262; Hodge 1960:42-47; 1960:723). Geisler (2005:253) states: “The
Bible teaches that between death and resurrection, the human soul/spirit survives consciously apart
from its body. This is neither a state of annihilation nor a state of unconscious ‘sleep’”.
176 Moltmann 1996:106; cf. 2004:117, 134-138
177 Moltmann 2004:134-138
178 Moltmann 1996:74, 76; 2004:105-107
32
the limit of God’s relationship to us”179. This “objective immortality” is not
“exclusive” but “inclusive”; not “particularist” but “universal”; it applies to every
human being180.
Perhaps what leads Moltmann to come to the conclusion that a person receives
immortality only at the resurrection is his conception of immortality as that which
never existed from the very beginning for mankind. For Moltmann, Adam and Eve
did not have immortality but had “possible immortality” and eventually “actual
mortality” after failure. Affirmatively referring to Augustine, Moltmann writes:
“The question about the immortality or mortality of Adam was brilliantly solved by
Augustine with the aid of a three-stage doctrine. In the Garden of Eden Adam
enjoyed possible immortality.... When he sinned, humanity lost this possible
immortality and arrived at the condition of actual mortality” 181. As a presupposition
to Moltmann’s view of Adam’s “possible immortality”, he makes the following
considerations: (1) “True immortality” cannot be forfeited. The notion that Adam
and Eve had immortality prior to their first act of sin, leading them to their eventual
state of mortality, is incorrect. He says that it could not have been the case that they
had immortality, because immortality, once possessed, cannot be lost. (2) “True
immortality” is incompatible with sexual reproduction. The possession of
immortality and the experience of sexual reproduction are mutually exclusive
realities; an immortal being cannot experience sexual reproduction. Therefore,
Adam and Eve could not have had immortality since they experienced sexual
reproduction. (3) Mortality does not necessarily result from sin; Adam and Eve were
179 Moltmann 2004:107-108

180 Moltmann 1996:72, 110, 132
181 Moltmann 1996:86; cf. 1990:128; 2010:34. Moltmann’s theology on immortality seems to
bare some similarity to that of Paul Tillich. Tillich uses the premise that the creation and fall story in
Genesis is “poetic-mythical”, and he goes against “biblical literalism” or the “literal interpretation” of
the story. He argues that only a person who adopts “biblical literalism” would be consistent in
opposing his view (Tillich 1957:49-50 [v. 2]). Essentially, Tillich denies any natural innocent state for
the first humans. Actually, he (1957:47 [v. 2]) seems to argue in favour of a kind of evolutionary
process: “It is impossible to say at which point in the process of natural evolution animal nature is
replaced by the nature which, in our present experience, we know as human.... The possibility that
both natures were in conflict with each other in the same being cannot be denied”. Although Tillich
does not use the word “immortality” in the above words, it is clear through his evolutionary theology
that human beings are not considered by him, as with Moltmann, as having moved from the state of
immortality to one of mortality.
Moltmann shares at least one notion of the original creation with Wolfhart Pannenberg.
Pannenberg (1994:139, 146 [v. 2]) links creation with eschatology, as does Moltmann: “Creation and
eschatology belong together because it is only in the eschatological consummation that the destiny of
the creature, especially the human creature, will come to fulfilment”; “Only in the light of the
eschatological consummation can we of the world understand the meaning of its beginning”. He also
sees the biblical stories of creation as not mythical but in use of mythical views of time (Pannenberg
1994:146). He does not use the word “immortality” in the above words, but his consideration of
eschatological consummation as the only time when human beings will fulfil their destiny may
suggests that human beings did not possess at creation what Moltmann would describe as
“immortality”.
Hodge (1960:123 [v. 2]) would disagree with both Moltmann and Tillich as he uses “literal
interpretation”: “That this account of the probation and fall of man is neither an allegory nor a myth,
but a true history, is evident”.
33
mortal even prior to their act of sin, at least in some way. They gained “actual”
mortality after sin. He does not seem to develop this third notion well enough182.
The Second Component of Eschatological Hope: Historical Eschatology
Between personal and cosmic eschatology you have historical eschatology 183. When
discussing personal eschatology, “eternal life” is the theme, but for historical
eschatology “the kingdom of God” is the theme. The rationale for considering “the
kingdom of God” as a broader or “integral” symbol is that “there is eternal life only
in God’s kingdom [and] no one possesses...eternal life for him or herself alone,
without fellowship with other people”. Therefore these hopes complement and
blend into each other as much as they are distinct 184.
History without the eschatological dimension is meaningless and goal-less.

Moltmann states: “Only the idea of history’s ultimate goal makes the experience of
the transitoriness of all things endurable.... Historical eschatology has de-fatalized
the experience of history”185. This goal of history is described as the kingdom of God
and divine glory. The emphasis is on “goal” and not “end” because the latter does
not give any meaning to history. Actually, “end” is terrifying to one that is
historically in power and yet joyful to the one suffering under that power. Within
historical eschatology, the emphasis on “end” is characteristic of apocalyptic
eschatology186.
Moltmann argues against both what he calls “linear time”187 or “calendar time” and
“cyclical time”188; he argues in favour of “rhythmical time”189. Time is apparently
made rhythmical by the eschaton, as he seems to refer to in the words: “It would
seem much more obvious to perceive the shadows which the great eschatological
event casts ahead of itself in a rhythmicization of the times of history”190. Because of
the approaching eschaton, there are “in-streaming powers” or “in-streaming
energies” of the future world, “time vibrates and dances”, and “life-time is ordered,
not in a linear sense but rhythmically”191. For the Jews this rhythm could be
182 Moltmann 1996:85-86, 90; cf. 2004:93; 2012:56

183 Moltmann 1996:132
184 Moltmann 1996:131
185Moltmann 1996:133-134; cf. Bosch 1980:236; cf. 1977:192. Ladd (1974:331, 332; cf.
Pannenberg 1991:389-390 [vol. 1]) is in agreement with Moltmann about the notion of history having a
goal: “The Kingdom of God means that God is King and acts in history to bring history to a divinely
directed goal”; “he will bring history to his Kingdom”. Moltmann (1977:190; cf. 2012:36-37), writing of
the immanent and transcendent dimensions of the kingdom, also affirms that we can never identify
anything in history as identical to the coming kingdom of God: “it forbids us to identify the kingdom
of God with conditions in history, whether they be already existing or desired”.
186 Moltmann 1996:132, 134-135, 137, 193; cf. 2004:48-52
187 “Linear understanding of time [does not recognize] any qualitative difference between
past and future, but reduces the different times to one and the same temporal line, distinguishing
between them only quantitatively” (Moltmann 1996:138).
188 Moltmann does not define it here but it would seem that this is a repetitive understanding
of historical events within time (cf. Moltmann 2010:203).

189 Moltmann 1996:138, 199-202; cf. 2012:155
190 Moltmann 1996:138; cf. 1996:139
191 Moltmann 1996:138-139
34
experienced practically in the weekly Sabbath rest “which healingly interrupts the
flux of time”. Coming to today, Moltmann proposes that even Adventists
(presumably Seventh-day Adventists) keep the Sabbath “by virtue of their hope”.
Christians who regard Sunday also experience this rhythmical time through the
“eschatological celebration of Christ’s resurrection” as “every Sunday points beyond
itself to the first day of the new creation”192. Moltmann defines time by the events
occurring in it (theologically, it is by the different modes of God’s presence in time),
therefore, when the Parousia of Christ occurs, “not only will everything in time be
different”, but “time itself will be different”193.
Moltmann argues against Christian historicism, which he refers to as “salvation-

history” thinking194. He calls it a “speculative theology” and a “one-sided” sense of
understanding the end of history as history’s goal. Describing it, he says: “World
history is then a giant, purposeful, providential sequence [of events], and a
tremendous realization of a divine master plan”. “Eschatologies that are oriented
towards a goal have always tried to order history by distinguishing periods, epochs
and times. They have assumed that the course of world history is articulated in a
unified way”195. Moltmann opposes this view of historical eschatology at its
theological premise that history is fulfilled prophecy and a revelation of a
predetermined divine plan. He argues that that would make the Bible merely a
revelation of God’s providence instead of it being a God’s self-revelation and self-
communication. He further makes the statement that “the Bible is the book of God’s
promises, not of God’s providence”196. To Moltmann Christian historicism works
against the sovereignty of God: “the promises of the coming God are not
surrendered to a so-called divine historical plan or ‘plan of salvation’. They remain
in God’s hand”197. Perhaps one of the key presuppositions to his view in opposition
to Christian historicism is that Moltmann dates the book of Daniel to the period of
the Maccabees198. Moltmann does not recognize a basis of this historicism in books
like Daniel 2 and 7 that are popularly referred to by prophetic historians or Christian
historicists; he interprets Daniel 7 as originally explained by the “struggles” of the
Maccabean period199. The dating of the book of Daniel is important because biblical
historicists (SDA’s in particular) consider chapters 2 and 7 as pre-revelations of the
historical rise and fall of some world empires, Neo-Babylonia rising in 605 BCE and
falling in 539 BCE, Medo-Persia rising in 539 BCE and then falling in 331 BCE,
followed by the Macedonian empire until sometime in the 2 nd century BCE when the
Roman empire takes over200. However, if the authorship of the book is dated some
192 Moltmann 1996:138; 2010:67-68; cf. 2012:112-113, 233

193 Moltmann 1996:199-200, 280
194 Moltmann 1996:188, 199, 201; cf. 1967:195; cf. 1977:48
195 Moltmann 1996:137, 141, 146; cf. 2010:201; cf. Bosch 1980:230-231
196 Moltmann 1996:145. Hodge and Geisler would argue against Moltmann about the
statement that Scripture is of promises and not God’s providence. To Hodge, Scripture is a book that
teaches both of God’s promises and his providence (Geisler 2003:563-594; Hodge 1960:574-616 [vol.
1]).
197 Moltmann 1996:200
198 Moltmann 1996:139
199 Moltmann 1996:139, 141-142; cf. 1977:101
200 See Appendix VI
35
time during the Maccabean period of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, what historicist
recognize as a pre-revelation merely becomes a post-revelation, or history written
after the fact, and the basis for historicism is removed.
Another result of stressing history’s goal one-sidedly, according to Moltmann is that

of Millenarianism. His major concern is about eschatological millenarianism201. On
this issue he opposes both sects (for heretical ideas) and mainline churches (“for
excluding the future hope for Christ’s kingdom in history”). However, an error
worth noting here, is that in the list of the so-called “sects” (for having a belief in a
“thousand years’ empire...on earth”) among which he names the Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Mormons, he names Adventists (presumably Seventh-day
Adventists). The error is in the fact that Adventists do not believe in a millennium
spent by the righteous on earth but in heaven (see below)202.
Instead of emphasising the millenarian “period” of a thousand years, Moltmann

emphasises the “reigning” aspect.
The seer John [Revelation 7 and 20] evidently took over the Jewish
apocalyptic tradition about the messianic kingdom before the Last
Judgment...but he gave the concept a new function...in order to present
the victory of the martyrs over ‘the beast’.... His Thousand Years’
empire is the pictorial presentation of their justification and the divine
counter-image for godless Rome203.
Moltmann further states that this millenarian hope is for the martyrs, the purpose of
which is to encourage resistance against the godless kingdoms of the world, contrary
to resignation and “spiritual escape”. This is regarded by him as characteristic of
apocalyptic204. Moltmann finds this ‘refined’ view of eschatological millenarianism
necessary for the saints’ resistance against the godless kingdoms of the world.
Eschatology becomes relevant to history because of millenarianism; “eschatology is
more than millenarianism, but millenarianism is its historical relevance” 205. He
further argues: “It is only the millenarian hope in Christian eschatology which
unfolds an earthly and historical future for the church”206.
Moltmann extends this millenarian hope to include the Jews or Israel as its
beneficiaries. He argues that the eschatological hopes of the church and Israel have
always corresponded, and that the Christian hope maintains a future for Israel
without Israel becoming Christian first. Moltmann suggests three presuppositions to
the preceding conclusion: (1) the salvific calling that God gave to Israel is enduring
and runs simultaneously to that of the church; (2) the promises that God gave to
201 Eschatological Millenarianism “hopes for the kingdom of Christ [reign on earth] as the
future which will be an alternative to the present, and links this future with the end of ‘this world’
and the new creation of all things” (Moltmann 1996:146).
202 Moltmann 1996:146-147
203 Moltmann 1996:152
204 Moltmann 1996:137, 139, 152-153, 192, 201, 230
205 Moltmann 1996:197
206 Moltmann 1996:197
36
Israel are as yet fulfilled only in principle “in the coming of the Messiah Jesus” and
the outpouring of the Spirit “on all flesh”; and (3) Christianity to God is considered
as another community of hope which is parallel to Israel and not “the fulfilment of
all hopes”207. Therefore, for Moltmann, the Thousand Years’ reign in Revelation 7
and 20 is the “messianic kingdom of Jews and Christians, the “sealed [from] every
tribe” joined by “a great multitude from every nation”. Revelation 14 verse 6 now
becomes a proclamation and preaching of that gospel of the kingdom that is
“universal” in the sense that it no longer calls people to Christianity but to the hope
of the kingdom208.
Moltmann does not subscribe to what he calls “naive modern faith in progress”; he
does not believe that the future of everything in the world is a matter of getting
better and better. At the same time, Moltmann argues against the view that
everything will get worse and worse, calling this thinking “naive modern
apocalypticism”. He prefers to describe the progressing future condition of the
world as becoming “more and more critical” or “more and more dangerous”; it is a
matter of increasing concentrations of constructive and destructive opportunities209.
The two leading threats to humanity’s survival are nuclear potentialities and
ecological disasters210.
Moltmann discusses Christian catch phrases such as “signs of the times”, “signs of
the end”, “signs and wonders” and “the Sign of hope”. He explains “signs of the
times” as a phrase that can be interpreted as “signs of the end” or “signs and
wonders”211. “Signs of the end” are negative announcers of the end of which we
should not have “apocalyptic pleasure” as they are evil. They should be of
secondary focus212. Our primary focus should be the “signs and wonders” which are
positive announcers of the end, the “visible heralding of the salvation which frees
men and redeems the world”. This is the balance Christians should have; the
“christological concentration of the ‘signs of the times’” 213. For Moltmann this is
possible when Jesus is focused on as “the Sign of hope”: “This christological
concentration by the church on the one sign with which it began is necessary [and]
207 Moltmann 1996:197-198; 2010:29; 2012:38; cf. 1990:147-148. Moltmann (1994:125, 129)
argues the view that God is responsible for the ‘non-acceptance’ of Christ by the Jews: “Israel’s ‘no’
[to Jesus] is not the same as the ‘no’ of unbelievers….It is not because it says ‘no’ that Israel’s heart has
been hardened. It is because God hardened its heart that it cannot do anything but say ‘no’. Hardness of heart
is not the same thing as rejection, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a moral judgment. To harden the
heart is a historically provisional act on God’s part, not an eschatologically final one….Cannot Israel, in spite
of its own observance of the Jewish ‘no’, view Christianity as ‘the messianic preparation’ of the
nations, and so see in it the way which its own hope for the messiah takes to the nations?”
208 Moltmann 1996:198-199
209 Moltmann 1994:140-141; 1996:200-201. Ladd (1974:327) appears to see everything getting
“worse and worse”: “The motif of the apocalypses is that the evil which has dominated the age will
become so intense at the end that complete chaos will reign, both in human social relationships and in
the natural order.... Jesus agreed with the apocalyptists that evil will mark the course of the age”.
210 Moltmann 1996:201; 2004:49; 2010:38-39
212 Moltmann 1977:40, 49; cf. Bosch 1980:9. Bosch is reluctant to interpret signs in any
objective way, but tends to leave the interpretation to the individual (Bosch 1980:233-234).
213 Moltmann 1977:40, 49, 193; 2010:201; cf. 2012:6; cf. Bosch 1991:428, 430, 508
37
unavoidable, if the political interests which tacitly dominate those depictions of our
times and our morality are to be submitted to the interest of Christ”214. We should
keep in mind that the world crises do not bring the Parousia but it is the Parousia
that brings this world to an end215. Also, the fulfilment of Christian mission does
not bring the Parousia closer in time, but it does so in the Christian experience of the
future in the present through the Spirit and the word.216
The dilemma of the two resurrections of Revelation chapter 20 is solved by

Moltmann through spiritualizing the first and applying the second one to the body
or the physical. The first one is “the beginning of the general resurrection” because
death’s defeat begins in the life lived with Christ here and now (experienced through
the Spirit), and this life is given to the body at the second or general resurrection. In
this way the second resurrection is the goal of the first. He finds as an
“unsatisfactory solution” the idea of two separate resurrections (the righteous and
later the lost), with a millenarian intermediate. He finds this arrangement of things
lethal to the assurance of salvation to be enjoyed by the saints217.
The separation of believers from unbelievers in the Last Judgment, to Moltmann,

results from “legalistic” and “apocalyptic” ideas of judgment. It leads to a triple-
phased judgment process where there is the (1) “Judgment Seat of Christ”, (2) “the
judgment passed on the nations by believers with Christ” in the millennium, and (3)
the “Last Judgment” or “eternal judgment”218. He also calls this concept of
separation a “deadly declaration of doom” for everyone else who is not saved219.
Moltmann also makes the assertion that this would cast away as lost and hopeless
everyone who lived prior to the time of Christ on earth, presumably because only
those who believe in Christ can be saved220.
For Moltmann the Last Judgment is not a trial/verdict process221 but one that “puts
things to rights” by the condemnation and annihilation of every wickedness, violent
act and injustice. This process of judgment does not condemn people for their sins
because “Jesus can judge but not condemn”. In our stead Jesus was condemned and
on the cross suffered the hell of God-forsakenness222. Moltmann is an “open
universalist” who believes that not even one creature of God will be eternally lost,
but that all creatures of God, good (victims of evil) and evil (perpetrators of evil) will
be recreated (both are tormented by “hunger for justice and righteousness”).

216 Moltmann 2012:8, 36-37, 41, 228; cf. Bosch 1980:235; 1991:418-419
217 Moltmann 1996:109-110, 196
218 Moltmann 1996:196
219 Moltmann 1996:92, 235-236
220 Moltmann 1996:110; cf. 2012:174
221 Moltmann credits Egyptian mythology for its influence on Israel and Christian tradition
about the double-outcome judgment (Moltmann 2004:140-143; 2010:127-142). Moltmann (2004:141),

talking about the double-outcome verdict notion, says: “Whether the judging God or the responsible
human being is at the centre, nothing Christian can be detected in these ideas. We find them in
exactly the same way in the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, in the Koran, or in the Chinese myth
of the Ten Judges of the Dead”.
222 Moltmann 1994:142; 1996:249-255; 2004:117; 2012:114, 177
38
Moltmann applies this even to Satan: “In the divine Judgment all sinners, the wicked
and the violent, the murderers and the children of Satan, the Devil and the fallen
angels will be liberated and saved from their deadly perdition through
transformation into their true, created being”223. He continues to show how God
guarantees that evil will never again exist by the eternal transformation of all sinful
people: “It is a source of endlessly consoling joy to know, not just that the murderers
will finally fail to triumph over their victims, but that they cannot in eternity even
remain the murderers of their victims”. For Moltmann, unbelievers are lost
temporarily and not for eternity; everlasting death is penultimate, but recreation is
ultimate; God creates the new out of the old creatio ex vetere224.
223 Moltmann 1996:256; cf. 1994:143; 1996:248-249. This, to Moltmann, is “saving justice” or
“creative justice” and not “retributive justice” (Moltmann 1994:142; 2004:142-143; 2010:127-128, 134;
2012:177-178). He (Moltmann 2004:143; cf. 2010:137; 2012:179) says, writing of the perpetrators of evil:
“The victims of injustice and violence are first judged so that they may receive justice. The
perpetrators of evil will afterwards experience the justice that puts things to rights. They will thereby
be transformed inasmuch as they will be redeemed only together with their victims. They will be
saved through the crucified Christ, who comes to them together with their victims…. The image of
the End-time ‘fire’ is an image of the consuming love of God”. He considers the final judgment as a
social and cosmic one, between human beings themselves and between human beings and the rest of
creation (Moltmann 2004:145; 2010:139, 141). Moltmann (2010:148, emphasis mine) states that
Scripture is self-contradictory on the question of whether the last judgment operates on a universal
theology of grace or a particularist theology of faith: “Every theology of grace tends towards
universalism because it issues for God’s sake in the triumph of grace. Every theology of faith tends
towards particularism because it starts from the decision of the believer…. I have only entered into
the biblical tradition of Paul and the deuteron-Pauline epistles Ephesians and Colossians. I recognize
that Matthew, the Synoptic Little Apocalypse [Matt 24-25; MK 13], and the book of Revelation talk
about an anthropocentric dualism rather than about a theocentric universalism. For me, the casting
vote was given by the Old Testament concept of divine justice for the victims and the all-rectifying
judgment of God. The different biblical traditions about judgment cannot be harmonized. A decision has to
be made on the foundation of theological arguments”. Moltmann therefore chooses the theology of
grace that is universalistic. A scholar like Geisler (2004:409; cf. Hodge 1960:850 [vol. 3]; 1960:535-549
[vol. 1]) would argue contrary to Moltmann theology on this point: “there is no support in Scripture
for the illusory hope that everyone will be saved. The basic reason is rather simple: God created
human beings with free will, and those who choose not to believe cannot be forced to believe. God is
love, and love works persuasively, but never coercively”.
Regarding the existence of Satan and demons, it actually appears that Moltmann interprets
Biblical references to them figuratively. To him they are not literal beings. Moltmann (1990:106, 109,
emphasis mine) says, speaking of Christ’s healing of the demon possessed people: “These demons are
apparently forces, conceived of in personal terms, which are destructive of life and annihilate being
itself…. According to earlier personal imaginings about demons, they are ‘fallen angels’ under the rule
of the Devil, who in relation to God is called Satan – that is, the Accuser – and in relation to the
human world Diabolos – the Disorderer or Confuser. If angels are God’s potencies of good in heaven,
then ‘fallen angels’ are self-isolating and thus perverted potencies, which when they are cut off from
God fall, pulling other creatures down with them into the abyss of annihilation…. Today too there are
possessions and dependencies which rob men and women of their freedom, making them ill, and
subjecting them to external compulsions. The ‘demons’ have simply been given other names. We do
not have to believe in a particular, separate world of spirits in order to see how human life is
destroyed by the powers of annihilation”.
224 Moltmann 1996:242, 265, 271; cf. 2004:143; 2010:138
39
The Third Component of Eschatological Hope: Cosmic Eschatology
Cosmic eschatology is the mother of personal and historical eschatology, as it

already has been stated above. Cosmic eschatology, furthermore, is not the “last Big
Bang” in catastrophe, but is “healing and saving”; “the new creation of all things” or
life’s interpenetration of “everything” is the symbol of cosmic eschatology. And this
occurs in a transition that is not all instant but “through a series of events and the
succession of various different phases”225. A key element of Moltmann’s view of the
new creation of everything is its relation to the original or first creation. Moltmann
argues that original creation should be interpreted in light of eschatology. In other
words, the original creation was not intended by God to be a final condition (“closed
system”) of the world so that “the end of things corresponds to the beginning”
(“circular course of time”), but that it was an “open system” that, regardless of sin,
was destined for newness. Therefore, he reasons, the future new creation is not
“restorative” but better than the original creation226.
This reasoning allows Moltmann to interpret the Sabbath of creation as a promise of

future creation: “It is ‘hallowed’, ‘sanctified’, and therefore points to creation’s future
glory. The Sabbath is, as it were, the promise of future consummation built into the
initial creation”227. The weekly Sabbath, as “a promise of future consummation” has
the role of being the connection between the current world and the future one, and
thus bringing “remembrance and hope”. In the weekly Sabbath we find God’s
presence in time, but in the new creation we find God’s presence in space228.
Regarding the present significance of a Seventh-day Sabbath, Moltmann believes
that the Sunday Christian Sabbath is not its replacement229. He sees value in both
days.
On the day of the resurrection, Christians perceive the beginning of the

new creation of all things into their true and abiding form. Whereas
Israel’s Sabbath lets us look back to creation in the beginning, the
Christian feast day points forward to creation’s future. Whereas the
Sabbath lets men and women share in God’s rest, the feast of the
resurrection confers a share in God’s life-awakening power230.
He recognizes eschatological value even for the Saturday Sabbath or “Jewish

Sabbath” because it has double significance by pointing backward towards creation
and forward towards recreation231. Whereas the Sunday Sabbath, the “Christian
Sunday” or “Christian feast day” has a single significance in that it merely points
225 Moltmann 1996:132, 196, 201-202

226 Moltmann 1996:261-267; 2010:67; 2012:121-123, 128-129
227 Moltmann 1996:264; 2010:72-73, 203; 2012:129, 231-236. Scholars like Charles Hodge would
argue that the Sabbath of creation was not metaphoric and a mere promise of future creation; it was a
literal 24-hour period of holy time in which mankind was to enter into physical weekly rest. Its
significance was both creation and redemption. This Sabbath is still obligatory in the New Testament
times (Hodge 1960:323-348 [vol. 3]).
228 Moltmann 1996:266; 2010:72-73
229 Moltmann 2012:235
230 Moltmann 2012:235
231 Moltmann 2012:233-234
40
forward232. He makes direct mention of the Seventh-day Adventist church which he
describes as one that “radically detached itself from the Sunday of the Constantinian
Christian imperium and celebrates the Jewish Sabbath in a Christian way”233.
Moltmann then suggests that Christians should keep both Saturday and Sunday
Sabbaths from Saturday midday till Sunday midday234.
The key difference between the original creation creatio ex nihilo and the new creation
creatio ex vetere, separated by “continuous creation” or creatio continua, is the
“different presence of the Creator in the community of those he has created”235. For
Moltmann, this world is not to be annihilated reductio in nihilum but this world is to
be transformed transformatio mundi and transfigured transfiguratio mundi. The only
thing to be annihilated is its present condition236. Here we also see Moltmann’s
ecological theology emerging. Moltmann sees a strong and inseparable bond
between human beings and nature. Whatever happens to the one affects the other,
such that he even says “whatever redeems the person...also redeems the nature”. He
calls this “hypostatic unity of nature and person”. Therefore, reasons Moltmann, if
people are to be redeemed, transfigured and deified, the same should be experienced
by nature237. The image of God (imago Dei) for Moltmann is not limited to human
beings as much as God’s glory is not only revealed through human beings. Nature
is to share in this imago Dei as much as it shares the glory of God. “To be in the
image of God is not something that divides human beings from non-human nature.
It is the very thing that binds them hypostatically to all the living and the whole
cosmos”238. The image of God is about God’s relationship of love towards humanity.
This relationship is immortal.
Human beings have been created to be God’s image on earth; that is to

say, God put himself in a relationship to these created beings of such a
kind that they become the mirror, the reflection and the resonance of
God himself…. God’s relationship to his image cannot be destroyed
either through the contrariety of sin or through the death of human
232 Moltmann 2012:234-235

233 Moltmann 2012:236
234 Moltmann (2012:236) says: “Why don’t we on Saturday evening let the week merge into
the Sabbath stillness and begin the new week on the following day with the feast of the resurrection
and the new beginning? Why don’t we celebrate from Saturday midday until Sunday
midday….From Saturday midday onwards, I should like to let the week draw to a close, finish work
or lay the work aside, and love and marvel over the created things round about me, then on ‘Sunday’
morning begin afresh with Christ’s resurrection and anticipate the new creation”.
235 Moltmann 1994:98; 1996:265, 295; 2010:31, 205
236 Moltmann 1996:269-272; 2010:4, 62. Hodge (1960:852 [vol. 3]) concurs with Moltmann: “the
destruction [of the world] is not annihilation”; “there are to be new heavens and a new earth, just as
we are to have new bodies. Our bodies are not to be annihilated, but changed”.
237 Moltmann 1994:88; 1996:272-275; 2004:151, 160-161; 2010:32-34, 71-73, 136, 191-192. This
bond might be what Paul Tillich (1957:49 [vol. 2]) refers to, and in that way being affirmative of
Moltmann: “Man reaches into nature, as nature reaches into man. They participate in each other and
cannot be separated from each other. This makes it possible and necessary to use the term ‘fallen
world’ and to apply the concept of existence (in contrast to essence) to the universe as well as to
man”.
238 Moltmann 1996:273; 2010:34; 2012:72, 102, 148-150, 215, 219-220, 226-227
41
beings. Only God himself could dissolve the relationship he has
entered into towards those he has created239.
So Moltmann does see a special relationship between God and human creatures
which does not however make human creatures separable from and independent of
the rest of creation240.
Moltmann gives the impression that the visions of the heavenly Jerusalem should
not be understood literally but that it is language used for “prophetic
encouragement”. It was understood by the first readers relevant to their
circumstance in which they were “resisting men and women in this world of
Babylon/Rome”. He further speaks of the book of Revelation as “underground
literature” with an “encoded message”241. For the first Christians, the earthly
Jerusalem was not only a “place of terror” because of Jesus’ crucifixion but also a
“place of hope” because it was there where Jesus appeared to the women and it was
there where according to “prophetic promise” the Messiah would appear. With the
loss of the earthly Jerusalem in AD 70, Christians increasingly used “the heavenly
Jerusalem” as the “image of hope”, the idea of heavenly archetypes for earthly
religious objects being traced back to Israelite inclination and reinforced by Platonic
influences242. The New Jerusalem is both the holy city and the cosmic temple; as city
it becomes the central point of God’s reign, and as temple it becomes the place of the
dwelling presence of God243. Furthermore, the holy city/temple does not
correspond to any earthly city/temple, but it does have correspondence with the
Holy of Holies in Israel’s temple. “The innermost heart of the vision of the new
Jerusalem and the new creation of heaven and earth is nothing other than the
immediate, omnipresent and eternal indwelling of God and of Christ”244.
Christian Mission
This section analyses the views of Jurgen Moltmann on the question of Christian
mission. Moltmann has not attempted to formulate a very systematic theology of
mission in his writings. For that reason, some of his principles of mission are not
specifically labelled and clearly defined. The researcher has formulated his own
titles for the various aspects of Christian mission in Moltmann’s theology. It will be
noticed, that there are some aspects of mission that Moltmann does not write much
about, at least directly, but mission in the contexts of love for life, ecology and social
justice stand paramount in his works.
Mission as Universal
Christianity to Moltmann is one religion amongst many, but with a mission that is
relevant to every human being on earth. The mission is that of presenting a
239 Moltmann 2004:106

240 Moltmann 2004:113-114; cf. 2010:32-34; cf. 2012:150
241 Moltmann 1996:308; cf. 2004:49, 51-52, 91
242 Moltmann 1996:308-310
243 Moltmann 1996:313; 2010:31, 34; 2012:116-117, 150
244 Moltmann 1996:315
42
“comprehensive” or “all-embracing” hope for all humanity and the earth.
“Sociologically speaking, in our multifaith society the church is one religious
community among others. But that is not the way is sees itself. It sees itself as a
minority with a universal mission, and as a community with a comprehensive hope
for the peoples of the world and for this earth”245. The raising of Jesus is not relevant
only to Christians but the whole earth246.
This universal mission does not mean that Christianity is to establish a full theocracy
on earth, or to convert the world into a church. However, it means that Christianity
is instrumental in preparing the world for God’s future which is the kingdom of
God. This is done by now respectfully “drawing everything into its worship of
God”247.
Perhaps one may also note that what is universal is not only the object of
Christianity’s mission (the world and the earth), but also the subject itself
(Christianity).
As regards their gathering into a community, Christians see themselves

as brothers and sisters and as friends, but where their sending into the
world is concerned they are all their own experts in their own lives,
and in their callings and work in society…. [In] their professions and
the work they do Christians will stand up for a more just and more
peaceful world…. [It] is not bishops and theologians who have the
responsibility, it is Christian people worldwide248.
The meaning here is that Christian mission is not limited to some Christians in
leadership positions, but that every believer shares in the responsibility of the
mission.
Mission as Missio Dei
Moltmann does not make many direct statements that describe Christian mission as
God’s. However, he abundantly and indirectly says so every time he speaks of the
kingdom of God as that which the church prepares the world for through
anticipation. It has already been noted that Moltmann makes the future indwelling
of God in the new creation that which God himself planned prior to the first or
original creation of the world and humanity. God is the one who is revealed as
being in control of everything. Now and again, Moltmann talks of the Christian’s
245 Moltmann 2010:29; cf. 2010:69

247 Moltmann 1994:93; 2010:17, 30, 32, 69; 2012:23, 206; cf. 1999:241; 2012:23, 225
248 Moltmann 2010:29-30; cf. 1967:328; 1977:300-314. This notion is also reflected in Bosch’s
theology of mission (Bosch 1991:467, 472). Bosch (1991:474) writes: “The clergy do not do this
alone...but together with the whole people of God, for all have received the Holy Spirit, who guides
the church in all truth”. This understanding of mission does not remove all necessity for the ordained
ministry, but gives it more purpose in guardianship and empowerment. Bosch (1991:474) argues:
“Some form of ordained ministry is indeed essential...to help keep the community faithful to the
teaching and practice of apostolic Christianity.... The priesthood of the ordained ministry is to
enable...the priesthood of the whole church”.
43
“sending into the world”, without emphasizing and elaborating on the point that
they are sent by God and in God’s mission249.
Mission as the Quest for Justice
Christians, according to Moltmann, have a responsibility and mission of striving to

bring about justice and peace in the world250. The only way to peace on earth is
through social justice and righteousness 251. It is also the responsibility of Christians
not to wait for victims to approach them, but for the church to go seeking them
out252. In the Christian process of seeking them out, Moltmann affirms the notion of
church-with-others in his statements of how a Christian “becomes homeless with the
homeless” and “restless with the restless”253.
The Christian responsibility of the quest for justice is derived by Moltmann on the
Christian theology of the cross of Christ, but not that the cross is made to have a
merely political relevance:
Political hermeneutics of faith is not a reduction of the theology of the

cross to a political ideology, but an interpretation of it in political
discipleship….Faith gains substance in its political incarnations and
overcomes its un-Christian abstraction, which keeps it far from the
249 Moltmann 2010:29, is an example; cf. 1967:325, 327; 1977:300-314; 1999:240-241; 2012:23. Of
great importance in Bosch’s theology of Christian mission is the conviction that God is a missionary –
mission is God’s activity and his attribute; mission originates in the heart of God (Bosch 1980:75-83,
239; 1991:389-392). For Bosch the church is an instrument of God’s mission; mission precedes the
church (Bosch 1991:390). There should not be an ecclesiocentric mission rather a missiocentric church.
The church is one that should participate in God’s mission (Bosch 1991:391, 510).
250 Moltmann 2010:30; 2012:206. Bosch views the quest for justice as one at the heart of
Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments. The only reason assumed for the apparent lack of
interest in social justice in the New Testament is that the authorities were not Christian so as to be
confrontable on the matter based on Christian principles; there seems to be only a spiritual/vertical
concern (Bosch 1991:401). Bosch goes further to link the spiritual with the social in a cause and effect
relationship, the former inseparably causing the latter (Bosch 1991:403, 405-406).
251 Moltmann 2012:64-65
252 Moltmann 2010:122, 126; cf. 2012:36
253 Moltmann 1967:224; cf. 1973:86; 1990:149. Mission to Bosch implies service to the church,
“the church for others”, but more definitely “the church with others”. The former emphasizes service
in a one-way direction, and the latter emphasizes “coexistence” and solidarity in two-directional way
(Bosch 1991:374-375, 379). The church and the world are inseparable through mission (Bosch
1991:377, 388). For this reason the church cannot sever itself from involvement in the world. Bosch
(1991:377) argues: “Those to be evangelized are, with other human beings, subject to social, economic,
and political conditions in this world. There is...’convergence’ between liberating individuals and
peoples in history and proclaiming the final coming of God’s reign”. Also (Bosch 1991:388; cf.
1991:389): “The church exists only as an organic and integral part of the human community”. For a
church-with-others, there needs to be a balance such that the church does not see itself as merely the
sole bearer of the message of salvation, or merely as an illustration of God’s involvement in the world.
The former leads to escapism which makes Christianity a mockery, the latter makes the church
identical with the world (Bosch 1991:381-382). The church’s mission will be guaranteed of success
only if it is one that is “being in the world” (relevance) while at the same time “being different from
the world” (able to contribute) or “identifiably different” (Bosch 1980:219, 222; 1991:386, 388). This
church-with-others is not perfect, but needs reformation rather than rejection. For this reason, a
church cannot congratulate and pride itself in itself (Bosch 1980:246; 1991:386-388).
44
present situation of the crucified God…. The crucified God is in fact a
stateless and classless God. But that does not mean that he is an
unpolitical God. He is the God of the poor, the oppressed and the
humiliated. The rule of the Christ who was crucified for political
reasons can only be extended through liberation from forms of rule
which make men servile and apathetic and the political religions
which give them stability254.
Moltmann attempts to show the relevance of Christian theology through his

interpretation and application of it in social contexts of justice.
In this quest for social justice on earth, Moltmann argues for what he calls God’s
“preferential option” for those who are poor:
Christian universalism is no hindrance to partisanship for the victims

of injustice and violence, but promotes it. In a divided and hostile
world the universalism of God’s mercy with all can only be vouched
for by way of the familiar preferential option for the poor. God himself
acts in history with a bias in favour of the victims, so that through them
he can save the perpetrators too…. For Paul [in 1 Cor. 1:26-29] the
community of Christians is itself a witness to this one-sided activity of
God on behalf of all human beings255.
In this sense, Moltmann argues, God is not an impartial Judge256. Examples of “the
poor” or the beneficiaries of God’s bias are “people crippled by debt, the
impoverished, the unemployed, the homeless, the HIV infected, the profoundly
depressed and the abandoned children”257. Justice includes equality258. Moltmann
also argues that victims of injustice are awarded by God the right to his liberation
through his covenantal promise: “[The poor] don’t have to whimper for grace, and
beg for mercy. No, they actually have a right to God’s help, for he has promised it to
them in his covenant, promised it on his honour…. In their poverty and despair they
have a right to God’s saving justice”259. This right to God’s help is not dependent on
254 Moltmann 1974:318, 329

255 Moltmann 2010:145, emphasis mine; cf. 1990:101-102; 2000:298; 2010:120; 2012:181-182
(“victim-oriented”). In Bosch’s theology, the Bible has significant focus on the poor, by “poor”
referring to the marginalized; racism is a form of poverty (Bosch 1991:436-437). Liberation theology
has three interconnected but different levels of focus: liberation from (1) social situations of
oppression and marginalization, (2) personal servitude, and (3) sin (Bosch 1991:443). The contrast
between liberation theologies and liberal theologies is that liberation theologies (1) have the cross as
central, and (2) do not see history evolutionarily but revolutionarily hence one can find liberation
theology standing in the traditions of the evangelical awakenings (Bosch 1991:438-439, 444).
Furthermore, liberation theologies differ from Marxism in that liberation theologies (1) give space to
the spiritual and (2) do not thrive on revolution and rebellion (Bosch 1991:441).
256 Moltmann 2010:122
257 Moltmann 2010:122-123; cf. 1990:99, 105
258 Moltmann (2012:179; cf. 2012:66) notes: “One can live in poverty if everyone is in the same
plight, but not if things are going undeservedly well for other people. It is not the poverty that hurts;
it is the injustice”.
259 Moltmann 2010:124
45
their knowledge of whether they belong to God or not 260. God’s preferential option
for the poor is therefore not affected by the religious affiliation of victims.
Moltmann proposes four social dimensions of salvation: (1) economic justice and
anti-exploitation, (2) human dignity, (3) solidarity, and (4) anti-despair by hope. He
considers these dimensions as not being independent from each other but as
interlinked. They also have a dynamic or changing relationship of priorities as
demanded by circumstances261. Perhaps related to that, Moltmann suggests three
steps for the “raising up” of the victims of injustice and notes three “tested and
tried” steps in the conversion of perpetrators of injustice. The victims: (1) they need
to be “brought out of their humiliation” and be listened to as they express what they
have suffered; (2) they need conversion themselves – a new direction – as they turn
and “lift their hearts to God”; (3) they also need to renounce all retaliation for their
experienced injustices, as this would also held them not to be “dominated by what
has been suffered”, and open the door to a new start of a community together with
former perpetrators262. The perpetrators: (1) they need to recognize the painful
injustices committed against the victims and also confess their guilt as instruments
of injustice; (2) they need to experience a change of mind which would be reflected
in the deconstruction or reformulation of ruling and unjust systems; (3) they also
need to implement restitution for the damage they have caused so as to open the
way for a new and just community between themselves and their former victims263.
These steps seem to sound familiar in the South African context of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of the 1990’s.
Mission as Ecological
Moltmann develops a theology of the kingdom of God that does not only concern
itself with the world of human beings, but also the whole of creation, as these are
inseparable. “It is modern narrow-mindedness to relate the church only to the
world of human beings…. [There should be] reverence [for] God’s hidden presence
in all living things and hope for their future in the kingdom of God” 264. Actually,
social justice and ecological justice correspond with each other and are inseparable.
In fact, human rights and the rights of nature must be in the same rank265.
Human beings must respect and cultivate nature for God’s sake who is its creator.
The use of nature is a God-given right to humans (and other creatures). But human
beings must realize that the use of land rightly belongs to one that cares for it,
260 Moltmann 2010:124

261 Moltmann (2012:37; cf. 1974:317, 332-334) says: “I saw four social dimensions of salvation:
1. Salvation takes effect in the struggle for economic justice and against the exploitation of human
beings by human beings; 2. Salvation takes effect in the struggle for human dignity against political
oppression by other human beings; 3. Salvation takes effect in the struggle for solidarity against the
alienation of human beings; 4. Salvation takes effect in the struggle for hope against despair in
individual life. Without social justice there is no political liberty; without political liberty cultural
alienations cannot be overcome; without cultural identity there is no personal hope – vice versa”.
262 Moltmann 2012:183-184; cf. 2000:186
263 Moltmann 2012:182-183; cf. 2000:186
264 Moltmann 2010:32; cf. 2012:65-69
265 Moltmann 2010:124; 2012:147, 150; cf. 1974:334; 1999:128-133
46
cultivates it and protects it 266. Besides the fact that we don’t own the earth, and
therefore should care for it as stewards, human beings cannot afford to abuse the
earth for practical reasons of our dependence on it:
The earth can exist without human beings and did so for millions of
years, but the human race cannot exist without the earth and the other
living things. So human beings are dependent on the earth, but the
earth is not dependent on human beings. The simple conclusion from
this realization is that human civilization has to be integrated into the
ecosystem of the earth, not conversely, that the earth must be
subjugated to the human system of domination267.
Moltmann argues for a vegetarian diet, for those whose bodies can cope with it.
It is also useful not to eat the foods which top the food chain but to
move away from meat to vegetarian dishes. How much grain has to be
used in order to produce one kilo of meat? It is not just cheaper to eat
vegetarian food but fairer too, and healthier in addition. No one must
suddenly become a vegetarian if his body cannot cope with the
changeover to vegetarian food, but everyone can reduce his
consumption of animal food to some extent, as long as this is not
distasteful268.
The negative effect on natural resources seems to be at the top of his mind.
Mission as Love for Life
Life is descriptive of the kingdom of God. This life is bodily and earthly.
The kingdom of the living God is health and life, and the fullness of life….
In its fullness it is earthly and bodily and is experienced with the
senses…. Everything that lives and has to die longs for the fullness of life of
God’s kingdom…. For human beings, this bodily dimension of the
kingdom is especially important, because men and women are inclined to
flee from the mortality of the body into a dreamed of immortality of the soul
and to leave earthly life with its infirmities and frailties to itself. But the
life Jesus brings and makes a truly living life is the harbinger and
beginning of the bodily life of the new creation269.
This stress on a bodily life in eternity is characteristic of Moltmann since he teaches

that the body and the soul are inseparable, as mentioned above. The life described
here is also said to be one liberated from “terror, from death, and anxiety”270.
266 Moltmann 2012:149

267 Moltmann 2010:34; cf. 2010:71; cf. Bosch 1991:398
268 Moltmann 2012:157, emphasis mine
47
Life should not just be experienced, but it should be loving and loved – that is
eternal life271. Loving life gives one the capacity of happiness. “The person who
loves life in the light of the resurrection hope becomes capable of happiness…. We
experience what life and death really are when we love, for in love we go out of
ourselves, become capable of happiness and at the same time can be hurt”272.
According to this view, anyone wishing to be happy must start by loving life.
Moltmann therefore encourages a change of attitude towards life273. Love for life is
not all about the individual, but it requires relationships with people around you.
Affirmation and communication are part of it: “Human livingness means being
interested in life, participating, communicating oneself, and affirming one’s own life
and the life of other people”274. For this reason, life is not merely defined in
biological terms, but sociological and political ones as well. Social death can be
experienced “through rejection, isolation and growing loneliness”; political death
may be known “through exploitation, oppression and alienation”275. Christians
should therefore make it their loving duty to help others love life.
Mission as Proclamation
Moltmann understands God as one who rules in history through the Spirit and
through the word. By “word” is meant the proclaimed gospel of Christ. Therefore,
anyone who preaches the gospel is in that way bringing the future kingdom of God
into the present.
The gospel is the light which salvation throws ahead of itself. It is nothing
less than the arrival of the coming God in the word…. Salvation runs ahead
of itself and appears in the gospel; and the gospel is the beginning in
word of the epiphany of the coming God. In the very act of its
announcement, the messianic era is already put into force…. It is the daybreak
of this future in the pardoning, promising word that sets people free…. It
becomes the creative word which effects what it utters…. The gospel of
the kingdom of God is the gospel of the liberation of the people: the
person who announces God’s future brings the people freedom 276.
Proclamation, however, is not about mere speech or evangelization, but also a

Christian lifestyle277.

272 Moltmann 2010:64; cf. 2004:105
273 Moltmann 2012:67; cf. 2012:55
274 Moltmann 2004:105; cf. 2010:75, 77
276 Moltmann 1990:95-96, emphasis mine; cf. 1967:325-326; 1990:101
277 Moltmann 1999:244; cf. Bosch 1991:414, 417-418, 420. Bosch would describe evangelism as
an inseparable part of mission; evangelism and mission are inextricably linked together but not
synonymous; mission is the total task of the church whereas evangelism is an essential and
indispensible element of mission (Bosch 1980:15-20; 1991:411-412). Bosch describes evangelism is
various ways. He describes it as that work which is response objective and always invitational (Bosch
1980:246; 1991:413). It is also a call into service and mission (Bosch 1991:418). The evangelist is never
48
Moltmann views the proclaimed gospel as one that primarily touches on practical
problems faced by people, rather than on doctrine: “The gospel is realistic, not
idealistic. It does not bring new teaching; it brings a new reality. That is why what
is most important for Jesus is his quarrel with poverty, sickness, demonism and forsakenness,
not his quarrel with the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees”278. This view concurs
with Moltmann’s presupposition that the gospel is first for the poor – God’s
preferential option and bias coming into play.
Moltmann argues for the notion that mission should also be understood as “an
invitation to God’s future”. This does not emphasize the element of inviting people
into a church structure, but it invites them to accept the resurrection hope in God’s
future279; he is anti-Christian in terms of a fixed structure or religion280. He promotes
the idea that the people who accept the gospel do not have to destroy their culture
and religion, but have to sift through it, using “life” as a criterion (see below on
Inculturation).
Mission as Inculturation
Moltmann argues for a need for Christian theology to show its compatibility with
various cultures and for those cultures to enrich it. Speaking of liberation theologies,
he says: “These are important if we are to perceive the riches of Christian theology,
which has come to be at home in such different cultures, so that we can banish the
narrow-minded Eurocentricism of our own theology to the confines of its own
limitations”281. It is not only other cultures and religions that have to change but
Christianity itself may be confronted with a need for reformation as it encounters
various other religions or cultures282.
a judge but a witness (Bosch 1991:413). Evangelism is the presentation of hope and assurance of
eternal bliss (Bosch 1991:414).
278 Moltmann 1990:99, emphasis mine; cf. 1990:101
279 Moltmann 1967:328; 1999:239
280 Moltmann 1999:241
281 Moltmann 2000:183; cf. Walls 1996:3-54; 2002:68-70. Contextualization (an umbrella for
inculturation in Bosch) involves the formulation of a variety of “local theologies” (varying content)
without celebrating relativism and mutually exclusive theologies (Bosch 1991:427, 432).
Contextualization does not rob theology of its “context-transcending dimensions” or the
“metatheological perspectives”. Bosch (1991:428) states: “any theology is a discourse about a
universal message”. Contextualism should therefore guard against relativism and absolutism (Bosch
1991:428). There are scholars who have noted the contextualization trend in the world. Camps,
Hoedemaker, Spindler and Verstraelen (1995:467) see this trend growing: “Global Christianity has
detached itself from the formerly predominant framework of Western missionary expansion.... The
globalization and contextualization involved in this detachment will undoubtedly be extended and
deepened in the twenty-first century”. Seemingly on the affirmative, Walls (2008:202-203) notes: “In
the multi-centric Christian church there can be no automatic assumption of Western leadership;
indeed, if suffering and endurance are the badges of authenticity, we can expect the most powerful
Christian leadership to come from elsewhere”.
282 Moltmann (1999:240-241, 243) writes: “We invite people of other religions and ideologies to
work together for that future which we try to imagine in the symbols of the kingdom of God, eternal
life, and the new creation of heaven and earth. The religions and cultures of other people will not
thereby be destroyed; they will be interpenetrated by the Spirit of hope, and opened for the future of
the world…. Jesus didn’t bring a new religion into the world. He brought new life. He didn’t found
49
Speaking about discussions of the need for intercultural dialogues, Moltmann notes
its value but also states that it is too late in some sense, since the world has been
culturally globalized in many respects.
The global culture debases the cultures into becoming the objects of
World Heritage programmes. This unified global culture is not a
culture of solidarity. In destroying the multiplicity of the cultures it
also destroys interest in other civilizations, languages, traditions and
ways of living…. An ethics of hope for the fullness of life resists the
unified global culture and preserves cultural multiplicity because it is
in that that the potentialities for the future lie. It is multiplicity that is
universal, not uniformity283.
In this way, Moltmann takes the principle of inculturation beyond Christian

theology, and applies it to other areas of life.
‘Christianity’, nor did he set up an ecclesial rule over the nations. He brought life into this violent
and dying world…. The mission to which God sends men and women means inviting all human
beings, the religious and the non-religious, to life, to the affirmation of life, to the protection of life, to
shared life, and to eternal life. Everything which ministers to life in other religions and cultures is
good, and must be absorbed into the coming ‘culture of life’. Everything which among us and other
people is a hindrance to life, destroys it, or sacrifices it as bad, and must be overcome as a ‘barbarism
of death’…. According to the new pluralistic theology of religions, people don’t have to become
Christians at all if they have found the divine truth in their own religion. In my own view, everything
a person is, and everything that has moulded that person culturally and religiously, can become a
charisma, if he or she is called by Christ, and loves life, and helps to work for the kingdom of God”.
Inculturation implies a “double movement” in which not only the culture changes but also
the gospel/theology brought into contact with it; this change in culture is neither its endorsement nor
its destruction (Bosch 1991:448-449, 453, 455). Bosch (1991:452) argues for this notion in these two
quotes: “a plurality of cultures presupposes a plurality of theologies”, and “the Christian faith must
be rethought, reformulated and lived anew in each human culture”. Bosch describes inculturation in
these six emphases: (1) the local community is in control, and not the missionary; (2) the entire context
is involved – social, economic, political, religious, educational etc; (3) it leads to friction resulting
more from regional differences rather than confessional ones; (4) it follows the model of the
incarnation in that the church is in a sense “born anew in each new context and culture”; (5) it is
Christological in that the gospel remains good news as much as it becomes to an extent a cultural
phenomenon; (6) it “embraces” all the elements of culture as they are impossible to isolate from each
other and use only some (Bosch 1991:453-455). To Bosch the gospel is foreign to every culture and all
theologies need each other to be in a “mutual solidarity and partnership” or “interculturation”; there
needs to be a local act with global thought (Bosch 1991:455-457). Furthermore, a “homogenous unit”
church is wrong in its thought that its understanding of the gospel is the only legitimate one in the
world (Bosch 1991:456).
There are other scholars that have observed the reality of inculturation throughout the world.
Camps, Hoedemaker, Spindler and Verstraelen (1995:1) have noted: “The Christian faith has sought
its way and continues to seek its way in a diverse world of cultures, religions, socioeconomic systems,
and political institutions. As it does, it exerts influence on those cultures, religions, systems, and
institutions. But the Christian faith itself is also influenced by that varied world: Changes occur in its
forms of fellowship, in its self-expressions, and in its theological reflection.... The consensus today is
that there is no single form of Christianity, or of the Christian faith, standing outside the world’s
cultural diversity”.
283 Moltmann 2012:162
50
Mission as Ecumenical
Moltmann moves on the presupposition of “Christian theology as a unity” that goes

beyond traditional boundaries, where “traditional” refers to denominational entities.
For example, he acknowledges his background as of the Reformed tradition, but
then explains that it does not however limit his theological thinking284. This kind of
thinking might be termed “theological ecumenicity”. This theological ecumenicity
does not limit diversity but encourages it285. Moltmann says: “Everyone who has
contributed something to the knowledge of God must be listened to and taken
seriously”286. Referring to those who study his work, Moltmann hopes “that
through their study of [it] the authors have arrived at their own theological ways
forward”287. For Moltmann, the critical element of any Christian theology is the
“confession of Christ and belief in the resurrection”288. Therefore, other doctrines are
secondary to that of Christ and the resurrection.
Moving beyond this theological ecumenicity within Christianity, Moltmann

recognises a need even of interfaith dialogue between the varieties of existing
religions, without equating all the religions. The context of this necessity is stated to
be that of the condition of a world threatened by violence, and that of the search for
truth. Interfaith dialogue is not just to be entered into casually, but with honesty and
seriousness. The only self-imposed limitation Moltmann has in interfaith dialogue is
with what he calls Satanism, referring to the belief that other religions are of the
devil289. Beyond interfaith dialogue, however, Moltmann puts greater stress on a
common struggle for life, politically and socially290. The Christian contribution to
284 Moltmann 2010:2; cf. 1999:205

285 Moltmann speaks of the “three paradigms of the church” (referring to Roman Catholicism
as the “hierarchal paradigm”, Protestantism as the “Christocentric paradigm” and Pentecostalism as
the “charismatic paradigm”) that are ways of fulfilling the mandate of the church in modern society
(Moltmann 2010:20). These three correspond to the trinity – the Father (the hierarchal church), the
Son (the brotherly or Christocentric church) and the Spirit (the charismatic church). This is a
“trinitarian unity” or “trinitarian link”, meaning that the church in its three paradigms is one
(Moltmann 2010:17-27). Moltmann (2010:26) says: “Like the Christian faith itself, the community of
the church is a trinitarian experience of God. The reciprocal interpenetration of the ways of activity
and the living spaces of the three divine persons constitute the church’s unity in its fullness”.
286 Moltmann 2010:2
287 Moltmann 2010:5
288 Moltmann 2010:3; cf. 2010:38. Bosch sees other faiths as “living” and not “dead” in that
they can enter into dialogue with Christianity. This dialogue is not merely needed by other faiths but
by Christianity as well (Bosch 1991:483). Jan Van Lin (1995:193) seems to be concurring with Bosch
when he describes the theology of religions as essentially contextual theology: “[Those who have
articulated the theology of religions] have become thoroughly aware that assessment of the ‘truth-
content’ of Christian religious and theological ideas that happen to be vogue will have to take account
of repeated concrete encounters with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and people with other, less
widespread, faiths”. For this dialogue to be true and meaningful, all sides need commitment to their
ideologies (Bosch 1991:484). Dialogue is only possible if each side approaches the other with
reverence and the acknowledgement that there is something valuable possessed by the other. This
reverence is accompanied by an attitude of humility (Bosch 1991:484; cf. Lin 1995:184). Dialogue and
mission should recognize the diversities of religions in their relation to each other. Bosch (1991:485)
articulates: “the Christ gospel relates differently to Islam than it does to Hinduism, Buddhism, etc”.
289 Moltmann 2010:3; cf. 1999:227-228
290 Moltmann 2010:77; cf. 2012:xii, 64
51
interfaith dialogue lies in the “righteousness which raises up the unimportant, and
brings justice to the poor, and liberates the wretched”291.
Not just interfaith unity is required, but unity between all peoples of the earth.
Moltmann articulates this “life-saving unification” thus: “Only the unity of humanity
will guarantee survival, and the premise for the survival of every individual in the
unity of humanity…. When people join forces for the purpose of mutual help, the
richness of life emerges…. The stress on individualization rather than community makes
people in modern societies powerless and open to manipulation”292. An example of how
richness may result from mutual help is that of how through police state force may
create “external frameworks” for peace, but not be able to change human hearts
towards internal peace. Internal peace is a condition which Christians and
interreligious groups try to create resulting in external peace293. Unity among
nations, to Moltmann, will mean that nations ‘give up’ their sovereignties to a
limited extent. Global challenges need to be met with global strategies as nations
individually cannot resolve challenges of this level294.
The Relationship between Eschatological Hope and Christian Mission
This section analyses the views of Jurgen Moltmann on the question of the
relationship of eschatological hope with Christian mission.
Moltmann strongly describes the relationship between hope and action as one where
the action is definitely and largely moulded by the hope. He makes this connection
when he says: “We become active in so far as we hope…. Lethargy is the real enemy
of every hope”295. If that is the case, it would be expected then that in the
relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission, the former shapes
and determines the latter. “[Christians] will work to see the emergence in society
and politics, in economic life and culture, of correspondences and anticipations of
the kingdom of God and his righteousness which they expect in the world; and they
will try to get rid of the contradictions and hindrances”296.
291 Moltmann 2010:126

292 Moltmann 2012:64, 66, emphasis mine; cf. 1974:318. Regarding the survival of the human
species, Moltmann has no certainty, since there are both possibilities. Writing about overpopulation
as a result of no birth control, he (2012:50-51) says: “No animal species destroys its habitat through
overpopulation; it is only the human being who possesses no ecological wisdom…. We don’t know
whether humanity will survive its self-made fate and whether it can free itself from this suicide
trap…. It is only when the future is open for both possibilities that we are compelled to do what is
necessary, here and now, to avert the crash. Because we cannot know if humanity will survive, we
have to act now as if its future depended on us today…. In view of what human beings are doing
today to the earth they live in, it is hard to give self-evident reasons for their survival”.
293 Moltmann 2012:200
294 Moltmann 2012:199
295 Moltmann 2012:3; cf. Bosch 1980:237
296 Moltmann 2010:29; cf. Moltmann (2012:xii-xiii, 5-7): “…on what has to be done today and
tomorrow with the courage of [transforming] hope…. The hope for God’s eschatological
transformation of the world leads to a transformative ethics which tries to accord with this future in
the inadequate material and with the feeble powers of the present and thus anticipates it…. I gave
always started from theology in order to conceive and put forward an ethics of hope…[but it’s] not a
52
The three areas of emphasis by Moltmann (love for life, social justice and
righteousness and earth ethics) each show a relationship between hope and action.
Concerning love for life it is evident that the way one understands it in the future is
brought into the present: “The resurrection hope gives us courage for a life in
unreserved love here, and this love reflects the hope for the future of eternal life
there…. It gives the prospect of victory in the daily struggles of life against death”297.
The hope for future justice also transforms present injustice: “People who expect God’s
justice and righteousness no longer accept the so-called normative force of what is
fact, because they know that a better world is possible and that changes in the
present are necessary”298. Regarding the hope that the earth one day will become the
temple of God’s indwelling, the Christian is moved to act accordingly with the earth
today:
By virtue of this expectation [that the earth is to become God’s temple],

we human beings will already keep the organism of the earth and the
earthly community of the living here and now, and will encounter
them with reverence before God…. God does not save his creation for
one-way affair…. Christian ethics anticipates the universal coming of God in the potentialities of
history…. Christian action, inspired by hope, becomes the anticipation of the coming kingdom…. The
awakening of hope carries the promised future of righteousness into one’s own life. God’s coming
unfolds a transforming power in the present”. Moltmann (1967:225) argues that eschatological
promise affects mission: “The promissio of the universal future leads of necessity to the universal
missio of the Church to all nations”. There is a “correlation of promissio and missio” (Moltmann
1967:225). It is thus that Moltmann speaks of “eschatological mission” (Moltmann 1967:302).
Moltmann (1977:190; cf. 1967:165-166, 195-197) says eschatological hope empowers for mission in the
present: “The doxological anticipation of the beauty of the kingdom and active resistance to godless
and inhuman relationships in history are related to one another and reinforce one another mutually”.
There is a living out in the present what is anticipated in the future (Moltmann 1996:230-231, 234).
In the Christian religion in particular, Bosch (1991:499) sees eschatological hope as very
connected to mission: “the recovery of the eschatological dimension is manifested particularly clearly
in missionary circles”. Speaking of the four schools (The dialectical eschatology of Karl Bath, the
existential eschatology of Rudolf Bultmann, the actualized eschatology of Paul Althaus, and the
salvation-historical eschatology of Oscar Cullmann) of eschatological thought, Bosch again asserts
that one’s eschatology influences one’s concept of mission (Bosch 1980:22-27; 1980:234-238; 1991:502,
506, 508).
Ladd (1974:327-328, 339; cf. Barth 1962:902-942 [vol. 4, part 3, second half]; cf. Warren
1951:113) also makes such a connection between eschatological hope and Christian mission: “Jesus’
eschatological teaching, like the prophets’, is fundamentally ethical in its character and purpose. He
is never interested in the future for its own sake, but speaks of the future because of its impact upon
the present”; “As long as the church lives with a vital sense of an eschatological character and destiny,
it will continue to be the church and not a part of the world”. Hodge (1960:548 [vol. 1]) affirms: “The
stronger the hope of success, the greater the motive to exertion.... On the other hand, the less hope, the
less disposition there is to exert ourselves; and where there is no hope, there will be no exertion”.
Camps, Hoedemaker, Spindler and Verstraelen (1995:469) see eschatology as the foundation of
missiology and “the branch on which it is sitting”: “It is expectation of God’s kingdom that has
marked the mission movement throughout its history, and in its best moments a spirituality of
expectation has overshadowed and stamped out any other interests that were present within it. From
the beginning of the mission movement the expectation of God’s kingdom has carried the church
through time and from place to place”.
298 Moltmann 2012:7
53
heaven…. That puts all those who hope for a resurrection under an
obligation to remain true to the earth, to respect it, and love it as they
love themselves299.
This relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission shows the
importance of getting one’s eschatology right, or else, Christian mission may be
misinformed and irrelevant to creation’s concerns.
Conclusion
The objective of this chapter has been the analysis of how eschatological hope and
Christian mission are connected in the theology of Jürgen Moltmann.
Moltmann’s theology can be characterized by the following: (1) He puts the kingdom
of God at the center of eschatological hope with this subject as the perspective and
key for all Christian theology. (2) He argues that eschatology historically begins with
Christ’s death and resurrection and is the presence of the future, a presence which
makes itself felt through the Spirit and the word of promise. (3) He argues for the
notion that the presence of the future is in conflict with the present evil conditions on
earth. (4) He argues for a soul that is inseparable from the body, and goes further to
propose that humankind has never had immortality but mere potentiality. (5) He
proposes that history has the kingdom of God as its goal. He also opposes Biblical
historicism and interprets, for example the 1,000 years metaphorically. (6) He speaks
of creation as eschatological, to the extent that the Sabbath was a mere reference of
promise to an eschatological future. He suggests that the world will not be
annihilated but transformed, being better than the first creation, and that humanity
and nature share an inseparable bond such that just as both are corruptible, both will
also be transformed.
This chapter has also analysed the aspect of Christian mission in the theology of
Moltmann. For Moltmann, Christian mission has the following characteristics: (1) it
is universal, (2) it originates in God, (3) it is a quest for justice, (4) it is ecological, (5)
it promotes love for life, (6) it is proclamation, (7) it requires inculturation and (8) it
demands ecumenical unity (intra-Christian, interreligious and universal).
With all this as the background, a description of the connection between

eschatological hope and Christian mission in the theology of Moltmann was made.
Moltmann clearly makes a connection between eschatological hope and Christian
mission such that the latter is shaped by the former. It was also pointed out that the
relationship between eschatology and Christian mission is emphasized by a number
of other theologians and missiologists, most notably Bosch, Ladd, and Hodge.
Now that the views of Moltmann have been analysed, the next chapter goes into the
analysis of the relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in
Seventh-day Adventist theology.
299 Moltmann 2010:34, 72
54
Chapter 4

MISSION IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY
Introduction
The primary objective of this chapter300 is to analyse the relationship between

eschatological hope and Christian mission in Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology.
In doing so, the structure of the chapter will be very much similar to the preceding
one. There will be an analysis of eschatological hope and then of Christian mission
leading to the analysis of the relationship between the two concepts.
Eschatological Hope
This section analyses the SDA understanding of eschatological hope. As in the

preceding chapter, I will structure the research according to definition, ambivalence
and then the components of eschatological hope.
No single official definition exists in SDA writings of eschatological hope. However,

its basics can be inductively formulated. Discourse around “hope” in SDA thinking
is more often connected to the Second Coming of Christ than to his salvific work of
the cross and resurrection. This may be demonstrated by the official statement of
fundamental beliefs where the word is used under The Second Coming of Christ 301 but
not used under The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ302. This however does not
mean SDA theology does not see hope through the Easter event, but may simply be
a result of its traditional background that places great emphasis on the Second
Coming of Christ.
SDA theology locates the kingdom of God at the centre of eschatological hope and
thought. The Second Coming, as noted above, is a cardinal point of eschatological
hope, and yet it is understood as just a phase of the kingdom of God303, meaning that
the kingdom of God is more than just about the Second Coming – the “kingdom of
God” is the meta theme that encompasses the Second Coming. Dederen writes:
“God’s kingdom, which will come in glory at the end of the age...has come into
history in the person and mission of Christ”304. This kingdom is primarily
interpreted to mean the “rule of God” and secondarily “the realm” of God305.
300The scholars referred to in this chapter’s will be of the SDA tradition that are considered
mainstream. Non-SDA scholarship will be brought into the conversation between Moltmann and
SDA scholars in the next chapter which by design will be comparative and critical.
301 See Appendix I, fundamental belief number 25.
303 There is a kingdom of grace (first Advent) and a kingdom of glory (second Advent)
304 Dederen 2000:543
305 Dederen 2000:543; Gulley 1998:83, 249, 447-448
55
SDA theology makes the war between Christ and Satan, called “the great
controversy”, “the cosmic conflict” or “the cosmic controversy” 306, as the context,
worldview and metanarrative through which salvation and events on earth should
be interpreted. The understanding is that there is an intimate link between this
“moral controversy” and the plan of salvation, the central issue in the cosmic battle
being the justice of God as challenged by the devil and fundamentally vindicated by
the cross of Christ. Logically, therefore, eschatological hope is interpreted in SDA
theology in the context of this cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan307.
SDA theology makes the reign of Christ, or eschatological hope, begin through his
death and resurrection, in as much as a full manifestation of this reign is still in the
future. This two-phase reign of Christ is the hope of the Christian. Brunt makes this
point: “Christ’s resurrection is the ‘first fruits’...that not only precedes the
resurrection of the believer but assures it and provides the foundation for it. In this
sense, Christ’s resurrection is already the beginning of the final resurrection. It is an
eschatological event – already the beginning of the end. All Christian hope is founded
on Christ’s resurrection”308. Christ’s resurrection is not just the basis but also the
beginning of eschatological hope.
That which makes Christ’s resurrection the beginning of eschatological hope is the
fact that he has already entered the next life, into which humanity is also destined, in
Christ. Jesus woke up from dead with a glorified physical body309. In this way,
306 This cosmic conflict metanarrative particularly gives relevance to the SDA theology of the
Investigative Judgment. The key notion of this phase of judgment is that Christ reviews (not for his
benefit) the cases of all those who claim salvation and reveals to heavenly beings evidence in favour
of his already-made decisions to save the individual true saints and condemn those who are faithless.
The wider objective of this process is the vindication of God’s justice in saving some and condemning
others. This judgment process is understood as being part of Christ’s work as High Priest in heaven,
claiming the benefits of his sacrifice for his own (Gulley 1998:410-423; 2003:447-452; 2012; Hasel
2000:815-855; Rodriguez 2000:375-417). See Appendix I, belief number 24
307 Gulley 1998:40; 2003:430-453; Holbrook 2000:969. Gulley (2012:592) argues this point: “It is
clear that Satan and his rebellion against God and His law is the context in which to think through all
that is involved in salvation – and to see that is more than redemption of humans, for it extends
beyond our planet to the universe restoring the entire cosmos to pre-Fall status. Considering that an
on-looking universe is involved and a resolution of the cosmic controversy is required, it is evident
that we need a more expansive worldview than is usually understood with respect to salvation”.
308 Brunt 2000:348, emphasis mine; cf. Blazen 2000:271-312; Cairus 2000:218; Dederen
2000:160-203; Lehmann 2000:893-924; Nam 2000:947-968

309 Brunt 2000:347. The humanity of Christ was unique to both Adam (pre-fall) and ours
today; Jesus was fully human, with physical weaknesses but without inherent tendencies to sin. His
birth and death were both mysteries. SDA theology tends to describe Christ’s resurrection body as
“glorified” rather than “immortalized”, since he was both God (immortal) and man (mortal). Our
natures will be made “incorruptible” (removal of the sin element) and “immortal” at the resurrection
of the Parousia, and glorified. But Christ was merely glorified. This is how Gulley (2012:435, 467,
471, emphasis mine; cf. Dederen 2000:164-165, 184-185; cf. Brunt 2000:360-362) puts it: “Jesus alone did
not need the new birth – which says that something about His birth puts Him in a class by Himself.
Just as all other humans need the new birth, so the saved will have their corruptible natures changed to
incorruptible natures in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15). Yet no biblical verse speaks of Christ’s need for either the
new birth or a change of nature at His resurrection…. There’s no meaning to Christ’s resurrection if Christ
56
Christ’s experience made him the “first fruits” and the “first born”. Brunt explains
that Jesus, just like the believer at his or her resurrection, had post-resurrection
continuity and discontinuity:
After the resurrection Jesus did not simply return to live with the
disciples in continuous fellowship as He had before….For the believer
too there is both continuity and discontinuity between the earthly
body and the glorified, resurrection body. According to Paul, the
discontinuity can be summed up in one basic fact…It is mortal….Only
Christ has power over death, and the resurrection body is a body that
participates in Christ’s victory and has received immortality310.
However, the glorified body remains identifiable and “recognizable to other saints
who have known the individual in this life”311.
However, the resurrection would not have occurred if Christ did not live a sinless
life and die a vicarious and victorious death. It is not just the resurrection that is
significant; his life and death are significant. It is when he died victoriously that
hope (objectively) was in a sense born, for such a death guaranteed resurrection.
Holbrook elucidates: “The Scriptures treat the first advent of Christ and related
events as the climax of the great controversy. Satan is defeated and judged at the
cross, the plan of salvation for sinful humanity is confirmed, atonement for sin
made, and the moral law and character of God upheld. God is victorious”312. It is
noteworthy that Holbrook uses the word “confirmed” with regard to the plan of
salvation on the cross; SDA theology says that all Old Testament saints had the same
hope of salvation through Christ who was to come into the world. Salvific hope, or
the promise of salvation, was first introduced to humanity after the fall of Adam and
Eve, and confirmed through the cross-resurrection of Christ313. Consequently,
salvation through faith in Christ is transgenerational, transcultural and
transreligious (even the Jews need to be Christian to be saved).
SDA theology views eschatological hope as ambivalent in that the kingdom of Christ
is currently operational but under resistance by evil forces, as it moves toward its
full manifestation. Gulley explains: “As a visible realm the kingdom is yet future....
In the meantime the kingdom is invisible, as the reign or rule of God in human
didn’t die. Having said this we need to carefully think through what death means to an eternal God
compared to what death means to a created being, for Jesus Christ was born, united in the unique
God-Man forever. This means He was a union of an immortal divine nature and a mortal human nature;
for God alone is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16)…. Christ rose bodily from the dead…. There is a bodily
continuity between the Jesus of Calvary and the Jesus of resurrection. Christ didn’t need to be changed
from corruptibility to incorruptibility, or from mortality to immortality, for He was sinless and divine (1 Tim.
1:17; 6:16) throughout His life on earth, and thus different from all His followers who will be raised at His
second advent (1 Cor. 15:50-57; 1 Thess. 4:16-18)”.
310 Brunt 2000:361; cf. Andreasen 2000:332-333; Cairus 2000:218, 220-222
311 Brunt 2000:362
312 Holbrook 2000:985; cf. 2000:986-987; cf. Gulley 2012:477
313 Dederen 2000; Holbrook 2000:980-981
57
hearts, a kingdom of grace that moves toward a future day when the kingdom of
grace will become the kingdom of glory”314. The experiential ambivalence has
existed as long as the fall of humanity. The Holy Spirit is the one that empowers the
Christian to resist evil in his or her own evil propensities within, and that evil
encountered from without. This Holy Spirit’s influence gives a foretaste of the
future experience in the kingdom of glory315. Objectively, the kingdom of grace
began at the cross and resurrection, but subjectively, it began as soon as sin entered
human experience.
SDA theology views the resurrection into immortality 316 as generally a community
experience. Saints do not resurrect individually at their moments of death,
physically or spiritually. The word “generally” is used here for the simple reason
that SDA theology recognizes some exceptions in Scripture, of people whose
resurrections into immortality were individual: (1) Enoch and Elijah were physically
translated and entered immortality and heaven without seeing death; (2) Moses died
on Mount Pisgah but was resurrected into immortality as implied by Jude 9 and
Matthew 17; (3) the saints who woke up with Christ on Sunday morning also
resurrected into immortality according to the SDA traditional interpretation of
Matthew 27 verses 51-53 with Ephesians 4 verses 8-9317. Some would even see the 24
elders of the book of Revelation as representative of this resurrected group318.
In SDA eschatology, death is not a moment of separation between the material and
some self-conscious immaterial part of the human being. Cairus elaborates:
The components of a human being function as a unit. There is no separable

soul or spirit capable of conscious existence apart from the body….In no
single instance do we read of an immortal entity within man, a soul or
human spirit that is able to function independently from the material
314 Gulley 1998:250, emphasis mine

315 Holbrook (2000:980-981) writes: “In His oral judgment on Satan (serpent), however, the
Creator added a new dimension to the controversy by providing the means by which the fallen race
could break from their sinful bond with Satan, if it chose to do so. God said to Satan, ‘I will put
enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed’ (Gen. 3:15). The Hebrew
word for ‘enmity’ (‘êbāh) carries the meaning of personal hostility or hatred between persons. Satan,
in his war against the Creator, has developed an intense hostility toward his Maker and every aspect
of His rule. On the other hand, the sinful human entertained no natural hatred toward Satan. In His
decree (cited above) the Creator informed Satan that He would now place such an attitude within
fallen humanity. The Scriptures indicate that this new element is divine grace, that is, the operation
of the Holy Spirit on the human heart. His presence and function would enable sinners to hate sin
and to turn away from Satan’s control”.
316 SDA theology teaches that Adam and Eve were conditionally immortal at creation until
the fall which removed it from them, but they were promised by God for it to be restored to them
through Christ. In SDA theology, mortality only arrived through sin and not by divine design
(Blazen 2000:271-313; Cairus 2000:205-232; Fowler 2000:233:269; Shea 2000:418-455).
317 Andreasen 2000:314-345; Brunt 2000:347-373; Gulley 2012:127-128; Holbrook 2000:977;
Lehmann 2000:893-924
318 Gulley 2012:128; Nichol 1980:767 [vol. 7]
58
body….Man is a soul rather than having one….No personal or conscious
entity survives the reversal process of death319.
Therefore, when a person dies, nothing of them is conscious, or has any capability of
experiencing time, God or salvation, until the general resurrection of the dead when
Christ comes the second time.
SDA eschatology understands the kingdom of God as the goal of history; history
moves towards this goal or “divine purpose”. Johnsson elaborates:
Biblical apocalyptic represents a path between the past and the

eschaton, along which the devout travel to the kingdom.... In spite of
all appearances, the pilgrims are left neither to the whims of their
fellows nor to the accidental forces of chance. Hope alternates with
despair and oppression, and the divine purpose of peace and joy
triumphs in the end320.
SDA theology teaches that God acts within human history and time. It makes use of
phrases such as “sequential development”, “prophetic time periods”, “prophetic
forecasts”, “outlines of history”, “parallels [with] history”, “horizontal continuity”
and “historical continuum” in describing God’s salvation plan in apocalyptic321.
This planned-acting of God in history shows his sovereignty. It shows “divine
superintendence” and “control” which “overrules” all for a sovereign God 322. SDA
theology would argue that Scripture is a book of both promises and providence323. It
makes use of texts like Daniel, chapters 2 and 7, as evidences of this understanding
of history and God’s activity. It argues that the dating of the book is during the
Babylonian captivity and that the book gives evidence in support of Biblical
historicism324. The sequential interpretation of some biblical prophecies does not
necessitate a straight-line view of time. Time is defined, in SDA thought, by events
in it, and is not a constant stream but rhythmic because of God’s rhythmic activity or
different modes of presence in it. There is a kind of rhythm through the weekly
Sabbath. Strand highlights the weekly (and thus rhythmical) Sabbath day as
significant for Christian experience: “The growing Christian finds that the Sabbath
provides closer fellowship with Christ – along with spiritual rest, joy, and assurance
that it gives”325.
SDA theology is exclusive in that only those who have faith in Jesus Christ shall
receive eternal life; there is no eternal life outside of Christendom, and therefore all
319 Cairus 2000:212, emphasis mine; cf. Andreasen 2000:322-325; Gulley 2012:109-126
320 2000:800; cf. Strand 1992:4-5, 12-13
321 Johnsson 2000:795-797; Stefanovic 2002:10-12; Strand 1992:4-5, 16-19
322 Bennett 1986:345-347; Johnsson 2000:795, 799-800
323Canale 2000:118-120; Johnsson 2000:784-813
324 Hasel 1986:84-164; Johnsson 200:795-801
325 2000:513; cf. Tonstad 2009:119-123. See Appendix I, fundamental belief number 20. It can
also be defined as “linear” in the sense of it being goal-directed by divine working (Holbrook
2000:995).
59
shall need to have a personal relationship with Christ to be part of God’s kingdom.
The only exceptions are those whom God sees as not having received sufficient
opportunity of the knowledge of Christ. This exclusive salvation is understood to
exist during both Testament times of Scripture326.
SDA theology teaches of a reign of the righteous while they are in heaven, who will
return after the period of a thousand years. Webster clarifies:
As described in Revelation 20:1-14, the millennium is a period of 1,000

years bounded by two resurrections.... All the righteous [at Christ’s
advent], living and resurrected, are given immortality and taken to
heaven to live and reign with Christ for the duration of the
millennium. The wicked are destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s
coming, leading to the depopulation of the earth. In this condition the
earth becomes a ‘bottomless pit,’ to which Satan and his angels are
confined for the 1,000 years327.
SDA thought generally regards the 1,000 year-period as literal, although this point
seems secondary in significance. What is certain, is that there is a specific amount of
time spent in heaven, whether the 1,000 is literal or not.
SDA theology describes the overall progression in the world in what could be best
phrased “getting worse and worse”. There are three general ways in which the
world gets worse. These three ways constitute the “signs of the times” and in that
way function as signals of Christ’s interventional imminence: (1) the natural world,
(2) the moral world, and (3) the religious world. It is noteworthy however that the
issue is not that of the existence of natural calamities, immorality or religious
deception, but the issue is that of scale, intensity and frequency. In the natural world
famines occur in larger scales, and there is a growing frequency of disasters caused
by ecological imbalances of human greed and carelessness. The sequence and
timing328 of some natural incidents is also significant. The signs in the moral world
are of the increasing abundance of crime and immorality. The signs in the religious
world show intensifying and growing deception as with the rise of false prophets,
326 Blazen 2000:271-313; Dederen 2000:160-203; Gulley 2012:569, 655-658; LaRondelle 2000:857-
891; Veloso 2000:457-491
327 2000:927; cf. Badina 1992:225-242; cf. Gulley 1998:438-455. The first resurrection is of the
righteous who are resurrected into immortality at the beginning of the thousand years that are spent
by them in heaven, and the second resurrection is of the unrighteous who are not resurrected with
immortality at the end of the thousand years at which time the righteous descend with Christ and the
city, and God destroys all of them after his name is vindicated in judgment. All those who are wicked
are condemned and annihilated (Brunt 2000:347-373; Holbrook 990-995; Lehmann 2000:893-924;
Webster 2000:927-946).
328 SDA theology traditionally identifies, as significant, phenomena like the Lisbon
earthquake which occurred in November 1, 1755; the sudden darkening of the sun in thick darkness
and the moon appearing red as blood the next day in North America in May 19, 1780; the
phenomenal falling of the stars in November 13, 1833. The timing of these phenomena and their
sequence is understood as fulfilling prophecy from verses like Revelation 6:12-13 as understood in the
context of Revelation 12 (Lehmann 2000:905-906).
60
false christs and false miracles329. In as much as SDA theology carries no optimism
of having a disaster-free natural world, or achieving a Christian-moral world, or a
deception-free religious world, before the coming of Christ, it does not promote
resignation. The focus is on the alleviation of the growing extent of these life-hostile
conditions as far as humanly possible, while waiting for Christ to arrive in judgment
and life as the permanent solution.
SDA theology sees a qualitative difference between the original creation and the new
creation330, the notion being that the new creation is superior to the original, while
both are “open systems” in the sense of having built-in capability for growth and
development of life-forms, and the growth-development of human spirituality.
Badenas states: “nowhere is it said that the new world corresponds to the world of
the primeval creation. At the end of the long parenthesis of human history God re-
creates the heavens and the earth...to an even better situation (if at all possible) than
the first”331. It becomes more definite in identifying at least three things that
distinguish the first and second creations. Badenas identifies the first one as the city:
“The most striking difference between the new creation and the old is the existence
of a city as its central feature”332. The second is identifiable as the immediate
presence of God with whom “communication is open” 333. Thirdly, there is no more
need for the sun as the new city is the light334. Otherwise, SDA theology speaks of
restoration. Nam writes: “the course of the history of redemption is the story of the
restoration of His creation from its present mortal state to God’s originally intended
state”335. SDA theology teaches of a recreation that is not creatio ex nihilo but one that
is creatio ex vetere336. This recreation is not limited to human beings, but intimately
related to the rest of nature, as mankind is part of nature – human recreation is
related to nature’s recreation.
Another matter of concern in SDA theology regarding cosmic creation and

recreation is that of the Saturday-Sabbath. The Sabbath of Genesis chapter 2 is
interpreted literally – the last 24 hour day of the first week. SDA theology sees the
creation Sabbath as intended for physical rest and spiritual nurture in being a
memorial of God’s creatorship. The eschatological aspect/significance to the
Sabbath is believed to have been added after the fall of mankind into sin, when
mankind was in need of reminders of hope for redemption through the Messiah.
The eschatological aspect/significance of the creation Sabbath is not just an added
appendix but an extension of the relationship Christ has with humanity – first as
creator and eventually as saviour. Therefore, fundamentally (amongst others), SDA
329 Lehmann 2000:905-908; cf. Gulley 1998:127-233

331 Badenas 1992:250; cf. Nam 2000:947
332 Badenas 1992:250; cf. Nam 2000:950
333 Badenas 1992:250; Nam 2000:956
334 Badenas 1992:250, 260-261; Nam 2000:956
335 Nam 2000:957; cf. Cairus 2000:220; Gulley 2012:7; Lehmann 2000:909; Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual 2010:157

336 Nam 2000:957
61
theology sees two prominent significances of the Sabbath: (1) a memorial of
creation337, and (2) a symbol of eschatological salvation through Christ338.
As regards the sequence of events in cosmic recreation, SDA theology considers it as

follows: (1) the righteous are recreated into immortality at the Second Coming of
Christ either through resurrection for the dead or through translation for the living;
the living wicked are destroyed by His glorious return; (2) the righteous spend a
millennium in heaven with Christ; the wicked remain dead whereas only the devil
and his angels roam the desolate earth, and thus a figurative prison on earth; (3) the
righteous return with Christ from heaven to earth and enter the heavenly City
Jerusalem after it has landed on earth; (4) the wicked are resurrected with mortal
bodies; (5) God vindicates Himself for the last time in a kind of judgment review,
leading to the momentary admiration and confession of every tongue and the
bowing of every knee that Christ is Lord; (6) the devil then deceives the wicked
multitudes for the last time as he leads them to attack the heavenly city, but God
intervenes with the fires of hell that burns and destroys the devil, his angels, and all
the wicked (the fire is not without end); (7) God then recreates the earth and
removes all the stains of sin and death upon nature, and the righteous are enabled to
go in and out of the city and enjoy the direct presence of God in it and his perfected
nature outside of it339.
Christian Mission
This section analyses the views of Seventh-day Adventist theology on the question
of Christian mission. In anticipation for the next comparative chapter of this
research, the researcher has herein formulated subheadings quite similar to the
previous chapter, but neither in an identical nor limiting way.
The role of divinity in the SDA view of mission is greatly underscored as that of
source or sender. Dederen puts it this way: “Throughout the Bible God is a God of
sending, of mission…. The members of the church have been called out of the world to be
sent back into the world with a mission and a message. The call to evangelism springs
from an unequivocal command of the Lord of the church”340. The church in that way is
337 This significance is a key in the SDA theological interpretation of the continuing need for
the weekly Saturday Sabbath. The idea being that the significance of this day was not just a salvation-
symbolic one that can be done away with when the Messiah dies and resurrects from the grave, but
one that is beyond salvation-symbolism, unlike the annual Sabbaths of the ceremonial Old Testament
system (cf. Tonstad 2009).
338 Gulley 1998:351-357; Shea 2000:418-455; Strand 2000:493-537; Veloso 2000:457-491; cf.
Tonstad 2009
339 Badenas 1992:243-271; Gulley 1998:455; Nam 2000:947-968; Webster 2000:932-934. Nam
(2000:956) states: “John saw ‘no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the
Lamb’ (Rev. 21:22). This is in contrast with Revelation 15:5, where a temple is clearly in view. With
the sin problem solved, there is no longer any need for ceremonies to bring humanity and Deity into
agreement. The need for a temple is past; the throne of God and the Lamb is open to all (Rev. 22:3)”.
340 Dederen 2000:549, emphasis mine; cf. Bradford 2000:670; cf. Rice 2000:614; cf. Rodrigues
2009:19
62
in existence for the mission, and not the mission because of the church. Dederen
again explains: “[The church] has not been called to exist as an end in itself, but to fulfil
God’s purpose…. This explains why, from that perspective, the church does not merely
have a mission, the church is mission”341. Church minus mission equals no church.
As will be better elaborated on later in this research, the SDA movement has a self-
understanding of being especially called by God and entrusted with a specific
mission in an age of doctrinal and lifestyle apostasy. Therefore, the SDA movement
according to this understanding exists for this mission of which God is the source
and sender342. It is also He who empowers the church for Christian mission343.
Mission as Classifiable
Mission is a broad term that is understood to include various unequal elements of

Christian duty, according to SDA thinking. These components may be the spiritual
or evangelistic work, after which one may speak of temporal or socio-physical
components. The priority of the spiritual over the physical is clear, as Dederen puts
it: “[The] primary task…of the church…has always been the sharing of the gospel of
Jesus Christ to the ends of the world…. The primary mission of the church is
unquestionably related to evangelism and the implementation of God’s plan of
salvation”344. Rodriguez seems to concur with Dederen as he warns against the act
of making the SDA church nothing more than a socio-political movement:
[The SDA movement] needs to remain relevant in the culture in which

it exists, but in doing this the church should not abandon or modify its
identity, message, or mission. Otherwise, it would be transformed into
little more than a social movement procuring the betterment of human
society and the individual, hardly interested in their redemption from
the enslavement or sin and guilt through Christ or in their
commitment to Him as Lord in the cosmic conflict345.
This statement makes the SDA movement without sufficient value if it becomes a
mere socio-political force without a transcendental message, and yet that message is
said to need its relevance to society made clear. In narrative terms the story of
humankind can only make sense in the context of the metanarrative of God’s plan
for humankind.
The secondary components include every other type of human need, besides the
directly spiritual. Being secondary however does not mean non-essentiality but
means lower priority in comparison to the spiritual. Dederen elaborates: “By their
influence and testimony [Christians] are called to support those causes that promote
the social, economic, and educational welfare of the human family…. Members are
invited to learn from the Lord, who though He subordinated physical and other material
341 Dederen 2000:549, emphasis mine

342 See Appendix I, under fundamental beliefs 12 and 13
343 See Appendix I, under fundamental belief 17
344 Dederen 2000:549-550
345 Rodriguez 2009:22
63
help to spiritual needs, showed concern and took action on behalf of the needy and
suffering”346. The non-spiritual needs were Christ’s “concern” and object of action
although they were “subordinated” to the spiritual; they are not done as a mere
optional task or favour, but are legitimate concerns by themselves.
Even though missionary ministries may be distinguishable from each other, they are
as inseparable as human spirituality is from intellectual, social and physical life.
This is particularly so in SDA theology where no distinction is made between the
body and an “immortal entity” that escapes the body at death347. The state of any of
the faculties of a person affects all the other faculties directly or indirectly. Reid
makes this point:
A person consists of elements that include but reach beyond the physical body.
Both the emotional and spiritual elements interact with the physical to
produce the whole. Seeing the person in this broad sense not only is in
harmony with the biblical understanding but establishes a unique
Christian approach to healing, distinguished from the kind of health
care limited to the physical body. Throughout the Scriptures a person is
dealt with in terms of unity, free from the body versus soul duality348.
Missionary work is classifiable but inseparable.
In conclusion, Christian mission is here seen as classifiable in that it has different

distinguishable facets – spiritual, intellectual, physical, social – that while they are
inseparable, therefore not dualistic in the full sense of the term between the spiritual
and material, they differ in priority. The spiritual takes precedence over the other
facets; the spiritual needs of a person are considered most important, although they
may not be separated from the other faculties of need.
The SDA movement, while affirming its self-understanding as the people blessed
above others349 in terms of beings recipients of Scriptural truth, does not consider
346 Dederen 2000:550, emphasis mine

347 Cairus 2000:212-213
348 2000:757, emphasis mine; cf. 2000:777-778
349 This “remnant” self-understanding of the SDA movement will be analysed in much better
precision in a later chapter of this research. But it should be noted here that it does give a very strong
appearance of arrogance on the part of the SDA church to have this self-understanding of doctrinal
superiority. This perception has been noted. Rodriguez (2009:216) considers this perception: “The
Adventist concept of the remnant has been considered by some to be offensive, exclusivist, and
triumphalist…. In response these charges, we can say that….the application of the concept of the
remnant to a specific group of individuals through whom God was fulfilling in a particular way His
design for humanity is found throughout the Scriptures. On that basis the prophets and those who
joined them in the preservation and practice of God’s truth would have been considered offensive,
exclusivist, and triumphalist. Of course, the same would have applied to Jesus and to the Christian
community. But the biblical evidence suggests that the biblical remnant was not exclusivist”. SDA
thinking sees no essential arrogance of its self-understanding as a remnant. Space limitations forbid
an extended discussion of this issue here, but as already mentioned the theology of the Eschatological
Remnant will be almost exclusively analysed in a later chapter of this research.
64
itself as the only possible place for the genuinely saved. The SDA Church Manual
indicates this in its thirteenth fundamental belief: “The universal church is composed
of all who truly believe in Christ, 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”350. It continues in the same paragraph to list a number of things that
constitute its message to the world:
This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims

salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent.
This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it
coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of
repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a
personal part in this worldwide witness351.
Through such words as “announces”, “proclaims”, and “heralds”, it becomes clear

that proclamation is central to its mission, as no mention is made of any other form
of mission. It however does not necessarily mean that that is all the SDA movement
stands for. The references to “the arrival of the judgment hour” and “the work of
judgment in heaven” speak of the SDA teaching of the Investigative Judgment352
which will later receive its almost exclusive attention in this research, and so will the
SDA teaching of The Remnant and Its Mission. The proclamation of the gospel, as
understood in SDA theology, may also be viewed as part of “mission as
stewardship” (see subsection below). Bradford makes use of this categorization as
he deals with stewardship and refers to the proclamation of the gospel under the
subtitle “God’s Grace”: “Revelation 14:6-12 contains good news, ‘an eternal gospel’
(verse 6) to proclaim to all the world…. Because of this aspect of stewardship,
Adventists are dedicated to the ministry of bringing the gospel to everyone”353. It however
deserves singularity here in this research because of its central role in SDA mission.
Mission as Conversation
There is an identified need for the SDA movement to interact with other Christian
denominations and non-Christian faiths. Rodriguez argues this as editor of a book
on SDA ecclesiology: “A clearly enunciated Adventist ecclesiology will be helpful in
properly interacting with other Christian communities and with non-Christian
religions…. [There will be a] need to engage in conversations with other Christian
communities and with religious leaders from other world religions” 354. The reason
for such conversation is recognized as the mutual elimination of prejudices and
stereotypes355. These conversations do not seem to have in mind the purpose of
350 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:160; cf. Dederen 2000:575; LaRondelle 2000;
cf. 2000:888, “Such an identification with the remnant church of prophecy…offers no ground for a
spirit of exclusivism or triumphalism”.
351 Ibid., emphasis mine; cf. LaRondelle 2000; cf. Rodriguez 2009:21
352 The concept of the “Investigative Judgment” will be elaborated upon later in this research,
in its own chapter. See Appendix I, fundamental belief number 24.

353 Bradford 2000:668, emphasis mine; cf. Nam 2000:958
65
theological and missiological transformation and development from the other
partner’s insights and experiences. Such conversations reportedly do occur, between
SDA leaders and leaders of other religious groups356. This researcher is of the
opinion that the results are however vaguely identifiable to the majority of SDA
members, except as members personally have interactions with people outside of the
SDA community.
Regarding religious ecumenical movements, the SDA church does not have any
official stance of a relationship357. The SDA church would applaud358, for example,
the World Council of Churches, and at the same time condemn some things about it.
The official359 SDA church website has this to say:
Generally, it can be said that while the Seventh-day Adventist Church

does not completely condemn the ecumenical movement and its main
organizational manifestation, the World Council of Churches, she has
been critical of various aspects and activities. Few would wish to deny that
ecumenism has had laudable aims and some positive influences. Its
great goal is visible Christian unity. No Adventist can be opposed to
the unity Christ Himself prayed for. The ecumenical movement has
promoted kinder interchurch relations with more dialogue and less
diatribe and helped remove unfounded prejudices360.
Again, this statement shows more SDA interest in dialogue rather than in
partnership with mutual gain. Currently, observer status is advised for all levels of
the SDA administrative structure: “Experience has taught that the best relationship
to the various councils of churches (national, regional, world) is that of observer-
consultant status. This helps the church to keep informed and to understand trends
and developments. It helps to know Christian thinkers and leaders. Adventists are
provided the opportunity to exert a presence and make the church's viewpoint
known. Membership is not advisable”. It appears that the SDA church, in its
mission, finds itself not fully compatible361 with the objectives and methods of the
ecumenical movements, and therefore wishes to make its presence felt without
making entangling commitments.
356http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Interfaith_Relations# Interfaith
_dialogue , accessed on the 27th of December 2012
357 http://adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/other-doc3.html, accessed on the 27th of
December 2012, see Appendix II

358 The SDA church would applaud the World Council of Churches in the following activities:
(1) providing accurate and updated information on churches, (2) speaking for religious liberty and
human rights, fighting against racism, and (3) highlighting socioeconomic implications of the gospel.
See Appendix II
359 The site is official, but the statement is not considered official as it has never been voted by
the executive council or the worldwide constituency, see Appendix II

360 http://adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/other-doc3.html, accessed on the 27th of
December 2012, emphasis mine, see Appendix II

361 cf. Gulley 2012:774; cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_ Interfaith_
Relations#Interfaith_dialogue, accessed on the 27th of December 2012
66
The missiological incompatibility between the SDA church and the World Council of
Churches is elaborated on in Appendix II of this research. But in brief these are the
challenges typical of most SDA adherents: (1) The WCC gives too little emphasis on
personal piety and spiritual revival. (2) The WCC encourages fluidity of doctrinal
views as a virtue such that being assertive of one’s beliefs is often regarded as
narrow-mindedness. Humility and respect are always good but those are not
identical to unassertiveness. Adventists feel that such doctrinal irresolutions must be
vigorously resisted. (3) The Adventist understanding of mission highlights
evangelism, that is, the verbal proclamation of the gospel. The ecumenical approach
sees mission as “primarily saving society from oppressive regimes, from the ravages
of hunger, from the curse of racism, and from the exploitation of injustice”.
Priorities do not match. (4) The SDA church has the conviction of a need to
distinguish “between sociopolitical activity of individual Christians as citizens and
involvement on the corporate church level”. The church's task is to deal with moral
principles, not to advocate political directives. The SDA wishes to effect political
change indirectly through proclamation and not be involved in political
controversies. (5) The ecumenical movement sees religious liberty as just one of the
human rights whereas Adventism sees religious liberty as the fundamental right that
“undergirds all other human rights”. “There is here the danger that religious liberty
will lose its unique character that makes it the guardian of all true freedoms”.
The researcher finds numbers 4 and 5 above as inconsistent with the SDA church’s
own theological presuppositions. The researcher’s views will be explained later on
in this research particularly when analysing and making a proposal of development
on the theology of the Eschatological Remnant. But briefly, the question on number
4 would be, what does the church preach if it cannot make clear socio-political
implications of its message, and make relevant engagements with society? It may
not become involved to the extent of aligning itself to political parties but it cannot
keep silent on social justice matters. On number 5 the researcher finds inconsistency
in that all human rights, including religious ones, are based on God’s creation of the
human in His image according to SDA thinking. So how can it be that all forms of
human rights depend on religious liberty?
The scope of mission is the whole world, regardless of nationality, language, gender,
generation or religious affiliation. As a consequence of this view of mission as
universal, amongst other factors, the SDA church utilizes transnational
administrative structures that are tightly bound theologically and administratively.
The SDA church has a few levels of organization: (1) there is the local church or
congregation; (2) a number of congregations combine to form a Local Conference; (3)
a number of local conferences combine to form a Union Conference; (4) a number of
unions conferences combine to form a Division Conference which is generally
regarded as a regional office of the worldwide General Conference. This structure is
considered by this denomination as best to facilitate the SDA contribution in
Christian mission362. The universality of the mission is not however meant to be
362 Dederen 2000:553-554; LaRondelle 2000:872-874; Vyhmeister 2000:18-20
67
fulfilled only when the whole world accepts the gospel, although it might be
possible to reach all humanity with the opportunity to accept this message. It is
universal in intent, and not in positive faith-response; all are considered capable of
receiving salvation through Christ, and yet not all will be willing to do so of their
own free choice363.
Mission is also universal in that all Christians may contribute in it regardless of

status or talent. Actually, every Christian is endowed by God to make some
contribution in the wide spectrum of missionary work, in diverse ways. Rice says:
“Paul is unequivocal that spiritual gifts originate with [God] and are apportioned to
each individual as the Holy Spirit chooses…. Although the gifts listed in 1 Corinthians
12:8-10 and Romans 12:6-8 are operative within the spiritual ministries, they are not
limited to these ministries, for spiritual gifts are given to all who accept Christ by the
Spirit according to His will”364. Bradford goes as far as to say that the church is a
“community of gifted people” or “charismatics”, in the service of the world 365.
Mission as Urgent
The theology of the SDA movement has a cardinal interest in the Second Coming of
Christ; it is “the blessed hope” of its members. This coming of Christ is usually
described as occurring “soon”, as one may pick that up from fundamental belief
number twenty-five366. While SDA theology does not teach time-setting367 for the
coming of Christ, there is however a conviction that Christians, of the SDA
movement in particular, have an urgent message to proclaim to every living
intelligible person368. His return is made certain by his vicarious and victorious death and
resurrection369.
SDA theology also assumes another motivation for this urgency other than a sense of
responsibility. This is the motivation of love for those considered in grave danger of
theological deception. As a movement highly influenced by biblical apocalyptic or
prophecy370, it recognizes current and imminent life-threatening dangers of
theological deception that are both temporal and eternal in consequence 371. These
363 Blazen 2000; Gulley 2003; 2012; Hasel 2000; LaRondelle 2000; Lehmann 2000
364 Rice 2000:614-615, emphasis mine; cf. Kis 2000:707. See Appendix I, fundamental belief
number 17.
365 Bradford 2000:670
366 See Appendix I; cf. Lehmann 2000
367 The Seventh-day Adventist movement does not teach time-setting, but its parent, the
Millerite or Advent Movement, eventually did set dates for the coming of Christ, the most prominent
being October 22, 1844. The Seventh-day Adventist movement began after the great disappointment
of 1844, from the minority who restudied their prophetic interpretations from within the fragmented
Millerite Movement (LaRondelle 2000:857, 882-884; Lehmann 2000:913; Vyhmeister 2000).
368 Dederen 2000:575; LaRondelle 2000:887-888; Lehmann 2000:912; Rodriguez 2000:399
369 Blazen 2000; Lehmann 2000:913
370 LaRondelle 2000:887
371 SDA theology traditionally interprets Revelation 13 as prophecies of the “time of the end”,
part of which, as of 2012, is still future but prior to Christ’s return. There is an expectation of
worldwide persecution of ten commandment keepers, including the Saturday-Sabbath. This may
deceptively occur as a global desperate measure to restore peace and the quenching (appeasing God
for his displeasure on the Sabbath keepers who resist ecumenical unity) of intensifying financial and
68
may not be called elements of eschatological hope (where hope is an expected desire)
but elements of an eschatological expectation (not desirable expectation). Either way,
they are part of the SDA eschatological system. The proclamation of the gospel, in
the context of the 3 angels of Revelation 14, becomes a solution to the deception that
is found even in other Christian movements372.
The fight for social justice is one that finds resonance in SDA thought. Kis argues:
“The principle of social justice demands that human rights be respected and that
Christians lead society in that direction…. Beginning within the church and
expanding to relations in the civic domain, discrimination on the basis of race,
gender, or status must never occur without Christian opposition” 373. Furthermore,
referring to Christian relationships in the workplace Kis writes: “A Chistian
administrator is a brother or a sister to the employee; neither will seek special
privileges because of this relation. Additionally, a Christian employer or
administrator may not treat employees differently on the basis of race, gender,
nationality, social status, or religion”374. One presumes that the same is expected of a
non-Christian employer, but just that this author was contextually concerned about
professing Christians. Discrimination is noted as an unwelcome possibility in both
society and within the church. It is noteworthy that Kis sees the church’s
responsibility to remove or oppose injustice as “beginning within the church”. It
would appear that a church which cannot fight injustice within itself is unprepared
to do so outside of it. The church ought to “lead” society towards social justice by
natural disasters. The real issues will however be the historically closing and climaxing struggle
(outcome already decided by the cross and resurrection) between Christ and Satan with the earth as
the platform. Holbrook (2000:990-993) describes it in this way: “Near the [close of probation] Satan
launches his final attack against God’s people…. How this last conflict will occur is sketched in
Revelation 13 and 14…. The apocalyptic prophecy describes two earthly powers [symbolized by the
beasts] in particular that participate on Satan’s side in the final struggle…. God’s followers, who
choose to be loyal to Him during Satan’s final clash, are symbolized in Revelation by the 144, 000….
Actually, they are an innumerable population from all nations of earth…. These end-time believers
are God’s spiritual Israel…upon whom He will place His seal of ultimate approval and protection….
They successfully resist Satan’s attempts to turn them from their obedience to God’s commandments
and from their wholehearted worship of the Creator…. The believers facing Satan’s onslaught are
characterized as observers of the Ten Commandments…. As at its beginning, so in the last conflict,
the war between God and Satan is a religious war. Now the second beast commands earth’s
inhabitants to ‘worship the first beast’…; and ‘the image of the beast’ causes mankind to ‘worship’
itself under penalties of boycott and death, enforcing the first beast’s mark and its name – its
characteristics…. The final crisis erupts when Satan (working through the two beast powers)
demands worship and allegiance due only the Creator. God anticipates the crisis. Through the first
and third angels’ messages He announces both an invitation and a severe warning to the inhabitants
of earth…. Revelation depicts the return of Christ under two different symbols: (1) as a heavenly
farmer who comes to reap the harvest of His redeemed people, alluding also to the reaping and
destruction of the impenitent…; and (2) as a heavenly warrior advancing with His forces to conquer
His enemies. The latter figuratively portrays God’s ultimate victory over Satan in the moral
controversy”.
372 LaRondelle 2000:885
373 Kis 2000:701
374 Kis 2000:700
69
making initiatives rather than by just supporting the social causes initiated by others.
These initiatives may be programmes designed to empower communities
economically, educationally and otherwise. Another way of leading is by example,
meaning that what the church wants to see in society should be discernible within
itself.
On the basis of the foregoing literary arguments by SDA scholarship, one may
conclude that the SDA missionary involvement is very much awake to social issues
of justice. However, counter-arguments may also be made on a practical basis and
level: (1) the SDA church in the United States of America and in South Africa is still
in some areas structurally race-discriminatory375; church history shows a more
lamentable view of the existence of racism within the church and also its passivism
in response to the broader spectrum of discrimination in its society. (2) The existing
administrative department of the church – Public Affairs and Religious Liberty
(PARL) – is more concerned with promoting religious liberty than the other aspects
of human rights and forms of discrimination. The department’s website reads:
The PARL department focuses primarily on ensuring the God-given

human right of religious freedom becomes a universal reality. It also
works in cooperation with other church departments to advocate
public policy positions on issues in areas as diverse as health,
education, peace issues, environmental protection, women’s issues,
children’s issues, the rights of prisoners, and aid and development376.
However, an argument may be made that the other aspects of human rights are
more relevant in most countries than religious liberty, if the current situation is
375 This seems very hypocritical in view of fundamental statement on Unity in the Body of
Christ. See Appendix I, fundamental belief number 14. An example in South Africa is the still
internally resisted merger of two “giant” conferences – Trans-Orange Conference (traditionally black
churches) and Transvaal Conference (traditionally White, Coloured and Indian churches), although
they cover the same territory to a large extent. The former Cape Conference (traditionally white) was
merged forcefully by the higher organization with the former Southern Hope Conference (traditionally
black and coloured, itself merged in 1997 from Southern Conference – black – and Good Hope Conference
- coloured), assuming the name Cape Conference in 2005. The former Natal Field (traditionally Black)
merged willingly with the former Oranje-Natal Conference (traditionally White, Coloured and Indian)
in 1994, becoming the now KwaZulu-Natal Free-State Conference and the first merged Conference in
South Africa within the SDA church. The researcher is employed by this Conference (Nzimande
2012:49-68; cf. Nhlapho 2012). Pastor AN Nzimande (2012:50, 63, 70, emphasis mine), a retired and
former president of KwaZulu-Natal Free-State Conference, in his historical book observes the racial
resistance of some in the unmerged conferences, and feels that the social climate is more than ripe for
merger: “There is a feeling in certain quarters that the President [General Conference – Dr Ted Wilson] is
pushing the unity agenda too strongly for their comfort…. There is no doubt that the President and his
counterparts in the Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division and the Southern Africa Union saw the
glaring enormity [by the relative absence of white members when Dr Wilson visited South Africa in May 2012
at the Johannesburg Stadium] of a racial division within the church in South Africa. The question of race is
consuming far more than its fair share of financial and human resources as well as time…. Inter-group
relations within South African society have always been a thorny issue, and the church as a
microcosm of broader society has not gone unaffected…. I believe the moment was right in this country
for meaningful fellowship between believers of different races when social change took place”.
376 http://www.adventistliberty.org/index.php?id=21, accessed on the 19 th of December
2012, emphasis mine
70
considered. On the same note, it might be fair to consider that this PARL
department is not the only one that may have a contribution. If SDA mission should
show more consistency, the other departments should find, ways of engaging society
towards transformation away from the various forms of social injustice. These ways
should be more than mere internal promotion in churches but actual interaction with
political and governmental structures in the various parts of the world 377. Perhaps
the drive to promote, and engage with structures, on religious liberty more than the
other aspects of human rights is largely influenced by the SDA eschatological
expectation of legalized worldwide religious intolerance, just prior to Christ’s
Parousia378. This belief is not one of the Fundamental Beliefs but is a generally
accepted view of Revelation 13 in SDA thought.
Besides the matter of struggles for social justice, the SDA movement promotes
respect for civil authority, and a civil sense of responsibility, as far as biblical
principle allows379.
Mission as Stewardship
Stewardship380 is a major subject in SDA thought regarding Christian duty and

mission. Bradford argues this notion:
The biblical concept of stewardship transcends and informs the whole of

Christian teaching and doctrine. It embraces and connects many of the
great doctrines of the church and becomes an organizing principle for
understanding Scripture. The doctrine of Creation; the doctrine of
humanity, redemption, and restoration; the doctrine of the Sabbath;
and the doctrines of the church are inextricably bound up with the idea of
stewardship. Stewardship also becomes the root of mission, the basis of
sharing the gospel with the world381.
It follows therefore that Christian mission will be strongly shaped by the theology of
stewardship. In fact, from the words used by Bradford – “root of mission” and “the
basis” – the relationship between stewardship and Christian mission is not a casual
one, but a kind of cause-and-effect relationship. The key assumption of stewardship
is the origin and purpose of humanity and the earth in God, and the inseparable link
between creation and salvation382. Speaking on the basis of stewardship, Bradford
writes: “The doctrine of stewardship has its origin in Creation. Any attempt to fully
grasp the essence of stewardship must begin here. Indeed, one’s understanding of the
first three chapters of Genesis determines one’s concept of God – the kind of person
377 cf. Kis 2000:701

378 See footnote above, under “Mission as Urgent”
379 Bradford 2000:670-71; Kis 2000:700-702
381 Bradford 2000:651, emphasis mine; cf. 2000:660-661
382 Bradford (2000:653-654) says: “There is a bond between Creation and salvation throughout
scripture. The living God is both Creator and Redeemer…. Thus, in the person of Jesus, Creation,
redemption, and grace were to come together. With man’s fall, the truth about Creation linked with
divine grace, which provides for a full recreation of penitent sinners and the earth from the effects of
human transgression…. The deputy status of Adam and Eve continues even after the Fall”.
71
He is – His nature and character” 383. God created humanity with the purpose that
they should be His “representatives to care for the earth”. This is part of the image
of God. Bradford argues: “God created the human pair in His image that they might
fulfil His commission to have dominion. God created Adam and Eve with a specific task –
to be stewards over creation…. Man’s stewardship responsibility is a part of the image
of God”384. It is not within the scope of this section to delve into the details of the
“image of God”, but suffice it to note that stewardship is merely “a [primary] part of
the image”, and not the whole.
Life, as a God-given gift to humanity, implies Christian responsibility to participate

in it through procreation, family planning, its preservation and through holding it
sacred. It does not mean that married couples always have to procreate but it does
mean that doing so means the accepting of a responsibility to develop and educate
the resulting children. Planning is important as human birth is a serious matter.
Life must be preserved and nothing that endangers it or degrades its quality should
be permitted. Also, life’s sacredness means that abortions should not be lightly
considered and executed. Bradford elaborates: “Abortion must not be considered as
a method of family planning. Only on extreme situations might this procedure be
justifiable. Such cases might be a child pregnancy, pregnancies under criminal
circumstances, or abortion to save the mother’s life”385. It does appear that abortion
is not absolutely prohibited in SDA theology, but relatively by being subject to the
situations described above.
Health386 is another important aspect of Christian mission in light of stewardship.

Kis explains: “God, the Creator and Saviour of the whole human being, calls everyone
to seek the highest standards of health…. Health is a gift and a blessing that we must
manage as stewards. We protect our health and, when it is compromised, work toward
its restoration”387. From the this quotation one may draw at least four important
points: (1) salvation is not merely spiritual and must involve the whole human
condition – including the physical; (2) God expects nothing below our individual
best in terms of health; (3) individual health-management is not an optional task but
an obligatory one; (4) we manage it through preservation and restoration388.
383 Bradford 2000:653, emphasis mine

384 Bradford 2000:654, emphasis mine; cf. Cairus 2000:208; Shea 2000:423-424; Reid 2000:752-
753
385 Bradford 2000:703; cf. 2000:669
386 Reid (2000:755, 757; cf. Shea 2000:424) states: “The Bible understands health as full
integration. From its point of view health reaches beyond the physical into every aspect of life, being
the harmonious function of the person – bodily, emotionally, spiritually, and socially…. A person
consists of elements that include but reach beyond the physical to produce the whole. Seeing each
person in this broad sense not only is in harmony with the biblical understanding but establishes a
unique Christian approach to healing, distinguished from the kind of health care limited to the
physical body”.
387 Kis 2000:688, emphasis mine; cf. Bradford 2000:668-669
388 Reid (2000:762-763) makes the point that nature also has its own healing capabilities that
are God-planted: “The healing capacity in nature is clearly evident. It is an intrinsic function
implanted by the Creator, a king of ‘wisdom’ in nature through which He brings repair and relief to a
sin-damaged creation…. The inward capacity to regenerate and to resist invasive organisms becomes
a part of His plan for healing and restoration”.
72
Missiologically speaking, health preservation-restoration is directly and indirectly
important. It is directly important in the church’s work of the alleviation of suffering
and improving happiness in the world389. It is indirectly important in that the
suffering or damage on one aspect of the human nature negatively affects other
aspects as well. Bradford argues: “The body is of major importance…. In order to
keep the mind and spirit in optimal condition, a person must care for the body”390.
There is an apparent sympathetic relationship between all aspects of human nature,
such that if one does not take care of their physical well-being, their missionary work
for God becomes negatively affected in terms of quality and length of life-service391.
The earth’s well-being is part of Christian mission according to SDA thinking.

Bradford makes the statement: “The stewardship of the earth, which God entrusted
to Adam and Eve, still belongs to their descendants. We who inhabit the planet are
responsible for its care. In the final judgment, the ‘destroyers of the earth’ are
destroyed (Rev. 11:18)”392. The stewardship of the earth as entrusted to humanity is
not the necessary cause of man’s abuse of nature. Cairus says: “Far from leading to
the abuse of nature, as sometimes charged by humanistic ecologists, dominion over
nature makes human beings accountable before God for their actions in the natural
world”393. Gulley echoes Cairus:
Although some scholars blame Christianity for ecological problems

because of the belief in human dominion over nature…, the Genesis
text does not command humans to destroy or abuse the planet. Created in
the image of God, humankind was meant to exert a dominion over creation
389 Bradford (2000:669) notes: “Around the globe [the Seventh-day Adventist church operates]
a well-developed system of medical institutions [that] seeks to alleviate suffering and promote
wellness”.
390 2000:668
391 cf. Bradford 2000:667; Shea 2000:424-425
392 2000:662, emphasis mine; cf. 2000:667-668; Gulley 2012:97-108; Kis 2000:704; Shea 2000:441.
Bradford (2000:667-668, emphasis mine) makes these statements, speaking of Seventh-day Adventists
in particular: “By greed and wastefulness, often under the guise of advancing technology, humans
have wounded Planet Earth unto death. The earth is filled with life-threatening toxic wastes. Natural
resources have been dangerously squandered. In some cases the land has been robbed by overuse of
its ability to produce. Even the seas have been plundered of their once-rich resources. In such a
world as this, Seventh-day Adventist Christians are called to live a simple life, without greed or waste.
Recognizing that the resources of the earth are finite, they are to protect and conserve the environment…. The
observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, in loving response to the commandment (Ex. 20:8-11),
provides an opportunity for Adventists to celebrate Creation along with the Creator. Individuals,
families, and church groups frequently spend Sabbath afternoons in nature activities. These promote
an understanding of the marvels of the natural world as well as the need for protecting God’s creation”. On the
same lines of thought, Kis (2000:704, emphasis mine) argues against the destruction of earth’s
resources and in favour of lifestyle simplicity and frugality: “The Christian will refrain from careless
destruction of the environment…. Today’s lifestyle is the main culprit for the sad state and bleak future of
this planet. The first step toward improvement lies in changing our wasteful way of life.… Simplicity in
eating, especially in the consumption of meat, would save an enormous amount of grain…. It would
also be possible to lower energy consumption by conscious conservation gas, electricity, and water”.
393 2000:208
73
that images God’s loving dominion over the cosmos…. Dominion does not
mean to destroy but to protect the world394.
Humanity should not treat nature as being outside of it, but as part of and
dependent on it395. This indicates that some SDA scholars may be experiencing
growing awareness of the impact of stewardship in nature preservation and nurture,
and in the intimate link between human beings and nature396.
Stewardship also encompasses the matter of human abilities and talents, as it

informs Christian mission. Bradford makes the case: “The Scriptures indicate that
God endows human beings with gifts and abilities…that he expects them to use in
service to others…. Stewardship, therefore, entails ministry, mission, reaching out to meet
human need in Christ’s name through the exercise of the gifts”397. Abilities may be
categorized as spiritual and natural, the natural being capable to be considered
spiritual when used for such purposes398. Rice speaks of spiritual gifts: “These
ministries are to work together to nurture and upbuild the flock, as well as to
proclaim the gospel to those outside the fold”. These abilities are to minister to both
the church and the world, by both clergy and laity. However, the prerequisite of
individual faith in God through Christ applies in relation to the specifically spiritual
gifts399.
Wealth is another gift that should be handled with the concept of stewardship
applied to it, and in this way informing Christian mission particularly for the poor.
Kis puts it this way: “The Bible maintains that God gives ability and opportunity to
acquire and accumulate wealth…. Christians know that gratitude to God helps prevent
condescending and arrogant attitudes toward the poor and brings humility and caring
response to the needs of others…. To a Christian the presence of the poor is not a
nuisance; it is an opportunity to express love”400. It is not only in direct means that the
needy are served by this gift of wealth, but also in indirect ways; the financially able
do not gain wealth at the expense of others, and in that way the powerful deal with
others with honesty. Pastors’ financial support also depends on Christians being
faithful in returning to God his tithe. In this way, Christian mission moves forward
as God uses human hearts and hands401.
394 Gulley 2012:98, 103 emphasis mine

395 Cairus 2000:207; Bradford 2000:667; Shea 2000
396 Bradford 2000:668; cf. Mngqibisa 2006; cf. Gulley 2012:104
397 2000:670, emphasis mine
398 Bradford 2000:670; cf. Rice 2000
399 Rice 2000:617-618
400 Kis 2000:704, emphasis mine
401 Kis 2000:704-705. Regarding tithe, Bradford (2000:656) adds: “The returning of the tithe
saves us from a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the material… [God] makes no radical
differentiation between the so-called spiritual and the so-called natural”. God extends his claim on
material things as well as on our heart. It is noteworthy that Bradford here makes no claim that there
can be no difference between the spiritual and material, but that there is no “radical” difference or
“false” dichotomy. The impression given is that there is a sense in which these two differ but that
they are inseparable.
74
Time is another gift from God to humanity that informs Christian mission. The way
one uses time affects others. Kis argues this notion from the angle of timeliness:
“Tardiness wastes the time of others involved in an activity. It may also signal an
unstable and undependable character”. Time is to be used not only for oneself but
also for the benefit of others402. Beyond matters of timeliness, other pillars of time-
stewardship are one’s sense of trust in God403, rest404 and diligence405.
“Influence” is a term that may be broadly used, but it is here used particularly in
reference to one’s influence through apparel. Kis speaks of the importance of
influence in this way: “Every action, word, and attitude exerts an impression or a mark; we
call this influence. The impact is felt first on the individual and second, on others as
well. The Bible urges responsibility in the use of this power, calling Christians to exercise
their influence”406. It is understood that while God loves beauty, and that Christians
should too, Christians should “seek to avoid enslavement to fashion and display”.
The controlling principles are identified as beauty, physical health, frugality,
modesty and the priority of inward beauty407. Based on those biblically referenced
principles and examples, SDA thought opposes the use of jewellery for mere
purposes of beautification408. Kis explains it this way: “We believe in the Creator-God,
402 Bradford 2000:669

403 Kis (2000:705-706) argues this: “Anxiety over the future and basic necessities can control
the use of time more than anything else…. Jesus was concerned that the struggles for survival and
comfort, and even competition with the neighbours, might overpower the greater need, the need for
time with God, with oneself, with family, and with others”.
404 Kis (2000:706) states the case: “God reserved the seventh day for Himself. From sunset
Friday to sunset Saturday humans are to stop pursuits and purposes, liberated from the tyranny of
earning or spending money, in order to spend time with God, with self, with family, with friends….
Rest is not passive as is laziness. It is an active mode of focusing on life itself, on its meaning, and on
its Creator”. Strand (2000:511) adds to Kis: “The Sabbath reminds us that God has bestowed on
human beings the need for fellowship and the capacity to love, care, and be compassionate. The
Sabbath was to be a day for holy convocation…. It was also a reminder to the ancient Israelites that
because God had been very kind in delivering them from Egyptian bondage they should act
compassionately, treating their fellow human beings with love and kindness”. Strand (2000:510) also
recognizes the Sabbath-time as a demonstration of God’s fairness: “It is a gift to mankind that is
equally applicable and accessible to everyone. It comes everywhere with the same regularity and in
the same amount. Furthermore, in connection with Sabbathkeeping among the ancient Israelites, God
specified that all – the servant and the alien as well as the landowner…should have this one day
every week free from their common labors, thus showing total impartiality”.
405 Kis (2000:706) explains: “The principle of diligence…insists on industry and honest work as
an integral part of the Christian stewardship of time. Laziness is incompatible with Christian
discipleship, for God has given six days for work”.
407 Kis 2000:707; Rodriguez 1999:105; Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:140-141
408 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:141; Rodriguez (1999:105, emphasis mine)
makes a distinction between uses of mere beautification (“ornamental jewellery”) and uses of virtue
(“functional jewellery”): “In teaching the biblical standard on jewellery we must make clear that
ornamental jewellery is rejected but functional jewellery is not. Making a distinction between these two
may prove at times to be somewhat difficult, but it not need to be that difficult…. This approach to
the question of jewellery is based on the fact that the Bible combines a specific standard on jewellery
(rejection of ornamental jewellery and restrictive use of functional jewellery) with a set of principles to be
used in the selection of functional jewellery”. Kis (2000:708, emphasis mine) explains the fact of the use of
adornments in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament: “In an effort to understand the use of
75
who cares for His creation and is worthy of our trust. We hold that our mission is to
demonstrate our total dependency on Him and that even a slight dependence on the
valued possessions of perishable ornaments would compromise our witness…. We
are happy to be like our Master in humility and simplicity”409. The current410 SDA
Church Manual, while stating that the issue of dress should not be an all-absorbing
subject411, clearly makes the statement that the use of jewellery for adornment is
generally against the will of God: “It is clearly taught in the Scriptures that the
wearing of jewellery is contrary to the will of God…. The wearing of ornaments of
jewellery is a bid for attention not in keeping with Christian self-forgetfulness”412. I
say “generally” because exceptional cases are those where in a country or culture the
wearing of wedding rings “in the minds of the people” has become “a criterion of
virtue” and therefore not regarded as an ornament – the use of the ring is not
condemned in such situations.
Children are considered a very important gift and calling from God. By this gift God
lays the responsibility of nurture on parents and society. Bradford states: “Raising
children for the Lord is the stewardship duty of parents and indeed of the entire
community of faith”. This is not just ordinary physical, social and intellectual
nurture but Christian education – spiritual nurture included. Bradford comments:
“Christian education – discipline and training – is of great importance. The
development of all the faculties is required”413. The SDA church, in pursuit of this
mission, owns and operates thousands of schools worldwide, from kindergarten
through university levels. Some of the students (most in some schools) are neither
members of the SDA church nor are they directly related to members of this
church414.
As stated above, the missionary scope of the SDA movement or church is worldwide
and transcultural. The church apparently has not developed much thought on the
issue of inculturation, possibly due to its emphasis on structural and doctrinal unity.
adornment in the Bible, we must keep in mind the various forms of adornment and the different
purposes and intentions that motivated its use. The beautiful vestments of the high priest were heavily
adorned and used gold and precious stones. Twelve jewels on his breastplate, for example,
symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel, and two stones on his shoulders communicated God’s
approval or disapproval. A careful study of his attire confirms that symbolic and liturgical purposes took
precedence over aesthetics…. Bridal adornment in the Bible includes jewels and precious metals. To be
beautiful for the groom was the all-consuming purpose of this ornamentation. It was not so much a
display of riches or a ploy to attract the attention of other men, but an attempt to be pleasing to the beloved.
Thus the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:2 is ‘adorned for her husband.’ This kind of embellishment is
different in spirit and intention from the modern adorning of gold and jewellery”.
409 2000:708
410 Church Manuals may be revised every 5 years, by the world church, the last revision being
in 2010 (Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:19-20).

411 cf. Rodriguez 1999:104
412 2010:141
414 Bradford 2000:670; Vyhmeister 2000:9-10, 16-17
76
Since this research is being done on African soil and by an African, examples of the
emerging discussion on inculturation will be drawn from here.
A good example of the emerging scholarly thought on inculturating SDA theology

and mission, is the currently paused platform of the Journal of Adventist Thought in
Africa (JATA)415, and the more recently launched The Journal of Southern African
Adventism (JOSA). JOSA’s website page describes the mission of the journal:
JOSA is a peer-reviewed publication for scholarly work on topics that

are relevant to Adventism in the Southern African context. The journal
provides a platform for publications on matters pertaining to the
understanding of God from an African (Cultural) perspective, the relevance
and application of Adventism in Africa, the history of Adventism in
Africa, the effect of western culture on African Adventism, race and tribal
relations within the church, music and worship, marriage and other
cultural practices, the role of women, the church and the state,
Adventism and African religions as well as other related issues416.
The stated objective qualifies as of inculturation since SDA theology is attempted

from an African context and that the African context is itself challenged by SDA
thought.
Examples of topics touched on in these journals indicate that SDA theology and
mission is bound to experience more and significant inculturation in Africa. One can
only hope that the developing theologies soon show corresponding fruits in practical
ways in the life of the SDA movement. Due to space limitations, only two articles
from the inaugural volume of JATA will be mentioned. Yorke, also first editor of the
journal, argues for an African contribution towards SDA theology, shaping it for
relevance in Africa:
With the centre of gravity shifting to Africa more and more,

numerically speaking, …perhaps the time has come for Afro-
Adventists in general and the African Church in particular to continue
to take some bold and visionary steps; to face the future with the
confidence and conviction that the time has finally come for African
leaders, be they scholars and/or administrators, to go beyond merely
requesting that a theology be created elsewhere for their faithful
consumption and to become an integral and substantial part of that
creation itself – and in doing so, to facilitate the adequate grounding of
the Adventist story in the African soul and soil…. No longer should
the African Church, theologically speaking, be content with being a
mere reflector of other people’s thoughts, as it were. Rather, she
415 This journal was launched in 1995 but has not published more than two times, and hasn’t
done so in years.
416 http://www.josa.co.za/index.php/josa, accessed on the 24 th of December 2012, emphasis
mine
77
should, more and more, endeavour to be both fellow-consumer and
fellow-producer of the church’s theology417.
There seems to be an inter-echo between Yorke and Van Wyk who appears to argue
for a deeper interaction between SDA theology and the African context: “The need to
contextualise Adventist theology is not primarily a matter of making it a
communicative tool to propagate the Adventist message. I do see it as an opportunity
to make our message more true to the gospel in Africa and to be enriched by the gospel in
Africa. This will give the gospel an inner authority to appeal to the people of
Africa”418. The interaction argued for here is not that of changing the presentational
form of SDA theology, but a substantial transformation of contextualisation.
From JOSA, the article written by Dr Crocombe, entitled The Spirit of War is the Spirit
of Satan – Conscientious Objection, the South African Seventh-day Adventist Experience,
2012. In that article he chronicles how the South African SDA church struggled to
respond effectively and decisively against the Apartheid government, but supported
it through silence and cooperation just because there was an allowance that SDA
personnel do not bear arms:
Most Seventh-day Adventists served in the SADF in a medical

capacity…. It seems that most Seventh-day Adventists who served in an
unarmed capacity as part of the SAMS did so without reflection as to the
contribution that such participation made to the supporting of the unjust and
immoral Apartheid government…. There is no evidence of a single instance of
a Seventh-day Adventist administrator or pastor questioning the idea of
compulsory military service in print – let alone condemning it….
This…means that South African Seventh-day Adventists were little
different from South African society overall, where only a small percentage
of conscripts refused to serve419.
This may be used as evidence of a lack of clear and direct theological and missionary
instruction on the part of the SDA church regarding social transformation against
Apartheid. Another article of interest is that of Dr Papu, entitled Relevancy of
Adventism in South Africa, 2012. In that article abstract he argues that the greatest
problem facing the church is not theological but practical: “The paper seeks to show
that the challenge facing the Adventist church is not so much in its doctrinal beliefs
but in its practice”420. After listing two types421 of churches, out of four, he describes
the third one as typical of the SDA movement:
417 Yorke 1995:17, 18

418 Van Wyk 1995:132, emphasis mine
419 Crocombe 2012:10, emphasis mine; cf. Nhlapho 2012:177-178. He continues (2012:11,
emphasis mine) to argue that the SDA church supported apartheid through silence: “It seems clear
then that during the Apartheid era in South Africa, that even those who – like Seventh-day
Adventists – took a stance of non-combatancy, aided and enabled the South African military to perpetuate the
Apartheid government”.
420 2012:1, www.josa.co.za, accessed on the 29 th of December 2012
421 Papu (2012:2, www.josa.co.za, accessed on the 29 th of December 2012) describes, making
reference to D Boshart’s article from the Journal of African Christian Leadership, entitled Revisioning
78
The third type is the one with low engagement but high distinction. This
he calls a ‘monastic movement’. This church has high Christian principles
and Bible teaching but remains walled off from its social context. It boasts of
having the truth but struggles to relate to its context. It calls on people to
follow Christ but is not willing to mingle, to minister to the needs of the
people and to win the confidence of those found in its context. The
author believes that the Adventist church in South Africa mirrors this type to
a great extent422.
He then argues that the SDA movement should be critically and contextually
involved in developing its communities423.
Another recent and significant contribution towards developing inculturation

between SDA theology and African cultures is the book The Church, Culture, and
Spirits: Adventism in Africa424 which was published in 2011, the contributors being
dominantly African Adventist scholars. The stated context of the book shows its
inculturated nature:
A volume like this is the result of many minds…. Informal

conversations among attendees [at the Faith and Science Conference of
2004 in Abidjan] led to the conclusion that one of the challenges the
church was confronting in Africa was the issue of spiritualistic
manifestations…. That discussion led to the idea of bringing together a
group of theologians and ministerial personnel to deal with the issue
of magic, witchcraft and spiritualism. It is in this context of such
spiritualistic manifestations and practices that the Adventist church is
flourishing in Africa, and it was considered important for the church to
address such culturally important phenomena425.
Ewoo, writing on Spiritualistic Manifestations Challenging the Seventh-day Adventist

Church in Africa, argues in this book that there are many forms426 of demonic activity
resulting from witchcraft, voodoo, magic, spells, and curses; there is temptation 427,
Mission in Post-Christendom: Story, Hospitality and New Humanity, 2010: “The first type represents a
church that is characterized by being ‘indistinct but highly engaged with the context’…. The second
type is called the ‘Coffee shop’. This type exhibits low engagement with the context and also is also
indistinct…. The last type [4th], which is to be the dream of any church, is the one that is high on
distinction and also high on engagement. This is the missional church”.
422 2012:2, emphasis mine, www.josa.co.za, accessed on the 29 th of December 2012
423 Papu 2012:2, www.josa.co.za, accessed on the 29 th of December 2012
424 The organization responsible for this publication is the Biblical Research Institute, owned
by the Seventh-day Adventist church.

425 Donkor 2011:ix, emphasis mine
426 Others may be “financial losses, barrenness, strange incurable ailment, and alcoholism”
(Ewoo 2011:19).
427 Ewoo (2011:15-16) argues that this one is not necessarily evidence of someone else’s foul
play: “We may define temptation as an act where one is induced, persuaded, enticed, or allured to do
something. It is Satan who usually brings about something to entice us to sin and to separate us from
God, thus causing our eventual destruction…. The presence of temptation is not necessarily an
indication of a spell, magic, or voodoo, though we can be tempted to resort to these under such
circumstances”.
79
harassment428 and possession429. The first two may be experienced by a genuine
Seventh-day Adventist who is walking with Christ, but possession is considered
impossible as a genuine Christian’s experience. Canaan, writing on The Role of the
Church Community in Coping with Spiritualistic Manifestations, argues that there are
specific things the African Church would need to do in order to deal with its
challenge of spiritualistic manifestations:
It is important for any local church to understand the reason for its
existence. In proclaiming the kingdom, Jesus taught, preached, and
performed miracles…. Before going out, the disciples were given
instructions to preach the coming of God’s kingdom, heal the sick, and
drive out evil spirits…. In many parts of Africa, the preaching of good
news about the kingdom brings the church in confrontation with
victims of demonic/spiritual powers. Effective ministry to victims of
spiritual powers, in the context of Africa, would seem to require the
church to: a. Acknowledge the real presence of spiritual powers. b.
Teach members the biblical view of spiritual powers. c. Adopt God’s
view towards victims of spiritual powers. d. Understand and develop
a Christian set of resources to deal with spiritual powers430.
Contextualisation is here in view.
428 Ewoo (2011:16) defines this as an attack open to all people but conquerable to the
Christian: “Like temptation, harassment, in some form, is experienced by every Christian. To harass
is to trouble by repeated attacks or incursions, as in war…. Professing Christians who are not
experiencing some form of harassment might well question their Christian walk…. As believers, we
can sometimes be harassed by evil spirits, but in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we will be
victorious”.
429 Ewoo (2011:17-18) defines this as demonic control and as an experience all true Christians
are protected from: “In demon possession, an evil spirit occupies and actually controls a person from
within, causing the possessed to act after the manner of such a spirit…. From our discussion so far,
we come to an important question: can a true Seventh-day Adventist Christian become possessed?
The answer is an emphatic ‘NO.’ However, if he or she is not daily walking with Jesus, the answer
could be ‘YES’…. It should be made abundantly clear that it is impossible for a true Seventh-day
Adventist, who abides in Christ and lives by the Word of God, to be possessed. He or she might be
harassed, but never possessed, by a foreign spirit”.
430 Canaan 2011:157-158; Canaan (2011:165-166, emphasis mine) further tries to show methods
of local church relevance in Africa: “The socio-cultural situation in many parts of Africa makes almost
every activity in a family or clan deeply religious…. The spiritual world is so real and near and the
whole life of an individual, from birth to death, is intimately interrelated with the spiritual world.
Birth rituals, puberty ceremonies, and death practices seek to inculcate into the minds of people the
nearness of spirits and the spiritual world. The availability, in certain places, of witch doctors acting
as spirit mediums, who can foretell the future, heal people, cast spells and/or immobilize them, give
life to these beliefs and practices. Among the Ndebeles, for example, where most of the people have
been dedicated to spirits, it is easy for them to become victims of spiritual powers. Among these people,
a relevant ministry would be for the local church to plan and conduct substitute Christian services that will
cater to each stage of life, from birth to death, so that people will find no stages in life which they do not feel
religiously consecrated to God. For instance, the local church should plan to be involved in services attached to
the birth of a child, entrance into different levels of schooling, marriage ceremonies, and even burial services in
case of death… Such demonstrations by local church leadership and members will help victims to
renounce fear and have faith in God”.
80
The Relationship between Eschatological Hope and Christian Mission
Perhaps the best way to analyse the relationship between eschatological hope and
Christian mission is to work in reverse order: examine the basis of each aspect of
Christian mission discussed above.
Missio Dei makes God the source and sender in Christian mission. Eschatological
hope has a role in this because if Jesus is not resurrected in victory over death and
sin there would be no Christian mission and no one with the authority to conceive it.
Mission without the crucified God is non-existent.
SDA eschatology lays heavy emphasis on the spiritual (faith-relationship to God)

aspect of salvation and categorizes the salvation of the physical and other faculties as
essential and inextricably linked, legitimate concerns by themselves, but as
otherwise consequential in that it is the spiritual (faith-relationship to God) aspect of
salvation that leads to the salvation of the holistic nature (the inheritance of
immortality) of a person at the Parousia. For that reason Christian mission focuses
more, but not exclusively, on the spiritual needs of humanity. There is no sharp
distinction between the spiritual and the natural.
It is both the theologies of creation (stewardship) and eschatological hope (three

angels’ messages of Revelation 14 in particular) that drive Christian mission as
proclamation. This is a very central element of SDA identity and mission. Without
this interpretation of eschatological hope, the SDA movement loses its uniqueness.
It is however worthy of mention that the SDA movement would still have
proclamation as part of its mission even if there was no apocalyptic interest; the
central message is salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and in Christ alone;
the apocalyptic book of Revelation 14 merely provides the context in which the SDA
movement proclaims this salvation.
The SDA movement would not make ecumenical commitments in its Christian
mission with other Christian movements mainly because of its eschatological self-
identity as the remnant movement. Other Christian movements are considered as
consisting of both true and false believers, just like the remnant movement itself, but
different in that other movements, as systems, are fallen into apostasy in their direct
disobedience to God’s ten commandments and in their acceptance of false teachings.
Christian mission is therefore clearly shaped by the SDA movement’s eschatological
self-understanding, hence one finds the SDA movement opting for conversation and
dialogue rather than binding corporate commitments.
Christian mission is universal in part due to the SDA movement’s eschatological

hope. One may argue “in part” due to the fact that SDA theology is of an Arminian
kind. Hence it only makes sense to an SDA Christian that every living being should
get the opportunity to hear the gospel in the context of the three angels’ messages
since that gospel is described by Revelation chapter 14 verse 6 as to “every nation,
language and people”. It is also the church’s pneumatology that informs the
universality of Christian mission in the sense that all believers take part in it through
their varied natural and spiritual gifts.
81
The urgency of Christian mission is primarily due to eschatological hope. The
Parousia is frequently described as “soon” to occur in fulfilment of Christ’s promise
in Scripture. This sense of urgency was inherited by the SDA movement from its
parent Advent or Millerite movement that wrongly expected the Parousia to occur
on the 22nd of October 1844 as a pre-revealed date. The SDA movement learnt from
the error of the parent movement not to set any dates as none are pre-revealed in
Scripture, but it accepted the continuity of Christian missionary urgency toward a
world in dire need of the gospel, and added certain warnings against both doctrinal
and lifestyle apostasy.
Christian mission involves a quest for justice based on creation – the image of God in
humanity431. However, the imbalance of this quest for social justice may be credited
to eschatological hope or expectation. SDA tradition places much emphasis on
religious liberty and freedom of worship due to its expectation of worldwide
legalized persecution on those who will continue to keep the Saturday-Sabbath
regardless of spiritual, social, legal and economic pressures of the future. If this
imbalance is true, an argument may be made that the human element of selfishness
in the church is at play in this regard. It may again be argued that the emphasis on
religious liberty in view of an expected religious intolerance is a means of preparing
people by making them aware of their God-given right lest they be deceived easily
into bowing down to the impending legal pressure.
SDA interest in life, wealth, health, influence, talents and abilities, time, children,
and nature, as Christian forms of mission is primarily and directly based on its
theology of creation and stewardship. Eschatological hope indirectly finds relevance
through the spiritual awakening of the individual towards faithfulness to God in
these concerns. In other words, an SDA Christian would serve God through his or
her wealth not because of what God has promised of the future but first and
foremost because of who God is (Creator and Sustainer) to him or her. The future
new creation is mainly a restoration of the original creation 432.
Except as to note that the gospel, in the context of the three angels’ messages, is
transcultural in “the time of the end” towards the Parousia, the researcher has been
unsuccessful in locating a specifically eschatological rationale for inculturation in
Christian mission.
Conclusion
The stated objective of this chapter was to analyse the relationship between
eschatological hope and Christian mission in Seventh-day Adventist theology. The
sub-objectives were to respectively analyse eschatological hope and Christian
mission after which connections between the two are noted.
431 An argument may possibly be made that the life of Christ, which is eschatological, provides a
pattern of social concern and thereby provides an eschatological drive for Christian missionary concern
of social justice – broader than religious rights. Even if that is the case, the researcher has not found
any rationale of this kind.
432 See above, under Cosmic Eschatology
82
Eschatological hope has God’s reign through Christ as its centre, and yet it is seen to
involve more than just the redemption of humanity from sin and death.
Eschatological hope includes the resolution of the sin problem in heaven, where it
started through Lucifer. The resolution is through the Investigative Judgment
process. Christ’s reign, which was objected to by Lucifer in heaven is in heaven
again vindicated as part of Christ’s priestly ministry, based on the victory at the cross
and resurrection. Christ’s reign is based on the cross/resurrection and starts therein
as well. It is eschatological and also serves as a basis of eschatological hope for every
Christian in the future resurrection of those who die in Christ, and the recreation of
all creation.
Christian mission is in SDA thought (1) Missio Dei, (2) proclamation, (3) universal,
(4) a quest for justice, (5) urgent, (6) conversation, (7) classifiable, (8) stewardship
and is emerging also as (9) inculturation.
The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission is clearly

observable in SDA eschatology and Christian mission. Christian mission is shaped
by eschatological hope, and Christian mission causes reflection in turn affecting SDA
theology. Except for Mission as Inculturation and Stewardship, and some aspects of
social justice, the other angles of mission are directly influenced by eschatological
hope. All else is impacted indirectly, through spiritual consciousness of
responsibility, aroused by eschatological hope.
Now that the relationship of eschatological hope and Christian mission have been
analysed in both the theologies of Jurgen Moltmann and Seventh-day Adventism,
the way has been opened for the comparative and critical work of observing the
implications for Seventh-day Adventist theology. This is the task of the next
chapter.
83
Chapter 5
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL

HOPE AND CHRISTIAN MISSION IN JURGEN MOLTMANN FOR SEVENTH-
DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY
Introduction
The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission has been
investigated, in preceding chapters of this research, in both Jürgen Moltmann and in
Seventh-day Adventist theological thoughts. However, this research is not merely
concerned with the analysis of this relationship but also with the drawing of its
(Moltmann’s) implications for Seventh-day Adventist theology.
This chapter is dedicated to the critical drawing of implications for Seventh-day

Adventist theology regarding the relationship between eschatological hope and
Christian mission in Jurgen Moltmann. The implications will first be drawn about
eschatological hope and then of Christian mission, opening the way for the
implications of the relationship between both.
Eschatological Hope
This section critically draws implications for SDA eschatological theology. This
section is structured according to the definition, basis, ambivalence and the
components of eschatological hope.
In as much as Moltmann’s and SDA’s definitions of eschatological hope share

common ground, there is significant contrast regarding what is considered a
metanarrative in Christian thought. Moltmann’s essential meaning of eschatological
hope finds common ground with SDA thought as Christ’s reign gets centrality 433.
Christ’s reign is recognised as fulfilled in phases, the first being at Christ’s
eschatological life, death and resurrection, and the second at the Parousia.
Moltmann however makes eschatology his metanarrative that becomes the
worldview through which all434 of Christian theology is considered, whereas SDA
theology considers the cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan the metanarrative.
Moltmann’s making of eschatology as the metanarrative and outlook of all theology

implies that SDA thinking should reject its protological interpretation 435 of the
original creation as one of moral sinlessness or innocence for Adam and Eve, and a
433 Cf. Inbody 2005:304

434 Bradley C Hanson (1997:334) in his book “Introduction to Christian Theology” appears to
come close to accepting Moltmann’s argument of making eschatology an outlook into all theology:
“Since the heart of eschatology is concern about the ultimate future for human beings and the
universe, eschatology enters into many areas of Christian teaching….The pervasive influence of
eschatology in the Christian outlook has not always been recognized”. He may not share all that
Moltmann says, as seen by the word “many” in reference to teachings. He does however agree at
least to the critical role of eschatology in Christian theology.
435 Not only protology would be affected, but many other doctrines also as will be seen later.
84
perfect creation436. As noted in chapter 2 of this research, Moltmann’s
presupposition in making eschatology the metanarrative is that eschatological hope
is not a restoration of a previous state of creation, but a fulfilment of God’s original
purpose that has never been fulfilled before - it is the de novum (first-time) goal of
creation. This rejection of a cosmic conflict as metanarrative also devalues the SDA
teaching of the Investigative Judgment which will receive special analytical attention
in the next chapter of this research.
For both Moltmann’s and SDA theology, eschatological hope has the cross and
resurrection of Christ as foundation; believers may hope for their future resurrection
because of Christ’s victory over sin and death. Christ’s resurrection was his entrance
into the next life437, as believers also will enter at their resurrection.
Whereas both Moltmann’s and SDA eschatologies may stretch back, in promise, to
the beginning of earthly time, there is a sense in which there is no agreement.
Moltmann credits this promissory eschatology to the Sabbath of creation, whereas
SDA eschatology credits its beginning and announcement to God’s words 438 to the
serpent or Satan immediately after the Fall439. Furthermore, SDA eschatology says
that Old Testament saints living during promissory hope had to believe in the self-
sacrificial Messiah to come in order to receive salvation, just as New Testament saints
living during confirmed hope have to believe in the self-sacrificial Messiah who has
come440. Moltmann considers the death and resurrection of Christ as salvific to Old
Testament saints without them having had to believe in the self-sacrificial Messiah.
Moltmann’s eschatology implies that SDA eschatology should again revise its
436 This view of an innocent original creation is supported by scholars like Wayne Grudem,
Norman Geisler and Millard Erickson (Erickson 1998:452; Geisler 2004[vol.3):17-18; Grudem 1994:444-
445). It has already been noted in chapter 2 of this research that scholars like Paul Tillich and
Wolfhart Pannenberg see mythology in the creation narrative.
437 Cf. Grudem 1994:608-621. Erickson (1998:1205; cf. 1998:1239) suggests, contrary to SDA
Christology/eschatology, that Christ’s resurrection, while it was a transition into “the next life”
through supernatural transformation, occurred in two stages, one at his resurrection and the second
at his ascension: “It is sometimes assumed that our new bodies will be just like that of Jesus in the
period immediately following his resurrection…. It should be borne in mind that Jesus’ exaltation was
not yet complete. The ascension, involving a transition from this space-time universe to the spiritual
realm of heaven, may well have produced yet another transformation. The change that will occur in
our bodies at the resurrection (or, in the case of those still alive, at the second coming) occurred in two
stages in his case. Our resurrection body will be like Jesus’ present body, not like that body he had
between his resurrection and ascension”. Maybe due to his SDA bias, the researcher does not find
Erickson’s point being strongly made for the double transitional transformation of Christ’s body.
Particularly since Erickson seems to be conjecturing, as shown by the words “may well have
produced” in the above quote.
438 “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and
hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15, New International Version).
439 Cf. Geisler 2004[vol.3]:83
440 Gulley 2012:494, 495, 597; Rodriguez 2000:376
85
protological understanding and throw away its theology of a Cosmic Controversy
and the Investigative Judgment441.
By “ambivalence” here it is not meant “uncertainty” but the “coexistence of

opposing”442 things. In this context the things referred to are the transformational
Spirit and word of hope, and the opposing current condition of the world. The
future life is made present through the Spirit and word, making the present state of
creation unbearable. This view of a paradox of realities is common ground between
Moltmann and SDA theology.
Both Moltmann and SDA eschatologies consider the resurrection as a community

experience. At the point of individual death, there is nothing of the individual that
travels to experience the next life, without the material body, before the Parousia;
there is no separable soul from the body443. Moltmann however tends to border on
441 Gulley (2012:491, emphasis mine), an SDA scholar, notes the dependence of the
Investigative Judgment theology on the Cosmic Conflict metanarrative: “Only Seventh-day
Adventists accept a pre-advent judgment as a part of the gospel, because it allows the universe to see
why some will go to heaven at the Second Advent, and why others will not. An omniscient God does not need
the judgment process, but it is necessary for God to reveal His justice to answer the cosmic controversy
charges against Him”. The notion that the final judgment demonstrates the justice of God is also
supported by Grudem in as much as he would never support the way SDA eschatology describes the
judgment. Grudem (1994:1146-1147) says: “Scripture clearly affirms that God will be entirely just in
his judgment and no one will be able to complain against him on that day…. In fact, one of the great
blessings of the final judgment will be that saints and angels will see demonstrated in millions of lives
the absolutely pure justice of God, and this will be a source of praise to him for all eternity”.
442 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambivalence, accessed on the 14 th of January 2013
443 This view of a no separation between the soul and the body is opposed by Norman Geisler
(2003 [vol.2]:453; cf. 2004[vol.3]:58-68) who states: “The separation of soul and body is only
temporary: They await their reunion at the resurrection, when they will be brought back together
permanently”.
Millard Erickson (1998:554, 555; cf. 1998:1189) tries to find middle ground between the view
that says the disembodied soul is independent and complete, and the view that there is no separable
soul from the body – he calls his model of human nature “conditional unity”: “We should note here
that there have been efforts to find an intermediate point between dualism and absolute
(materialistic) monism…. The full range of the biblical data can best be accommodated by the view
that we will term ‘conditional unity’. According to this view, the normal state of a human is as a
materialized unitary being…. This monistic condition can, however, be broken down, and at death it
is, so that the immaterial aspect of the human lives on even as the material decomposes. At the
resurrection, however, there will be a return to a material or bodily condition. The person will
assume a body that has some points of continuity with the old body, but is also a new or reconstituted
or spiritual body”. Erickson tries to distance himself from the dualism he analyses and evaluates in
his book, and yet continues with its notion of a living disembodied soul. The key difference between
his view and the dualism he rejects is that in his view the disembodied soul is incomplete and
abnormal whereas the dualism he rejects proposes that the disembodied soul is complete and normal
in itself and is in no need for a resurrection. The view of which Erickson is a proponent appears
harmonious to that of Geisler as it views the disembodied soul as incomplete and yet being a
conscious entity.
Tyron Inbody in his book “The Faith of the Christian Church: An Introduction to Theology”
prefers hope in the physical resurrection of the body rather than in a disembodied soul, and yet he
86
the theology of an immediate life after death when he speaks of the possibility for
dead people to turn towards God. Moltmann’s apparent uncertainty or his belief of
potential conversion after death as an implication for SDA eschatology would
devalue the theology of the Investigative Judgment, besides the obvious alterations
in anthropology and soteriology. The affirmed verdicts of the Investigative
Judgment lose credibility if final verdicts are made on dead people who might still
repent of sins.
Moltmann equates the book of life to God’s memory of how He has experienced our
lives. In that way one who dies still lives on – immortality - in God. SDA literature
seems never to use the terminology of “immortality” in this manner, but the concept
seems partially familiar to it. In SDA thought the book of life (names of the
righteous) and the book(s) of deeds (lives of all who have ever lived on earth) are not
actual books but are metaphors of heavenly and objective (‘outside’ of God)
recorded realities. In this manner one who has passed on to the grave still has
memories of them kept for judgment purposes. Moltmann’s apparent view of the
book of life and its relational immortality finds resonance in SDA thought only in the
sense that each life is not forgotten, but it challenges the idea of an objective
recording system outside of God as implied by SDA interpretation. Moltmann’s
interpretation most directly rejects the theology of judgment, particularly an
investigative judgment, in which is used an objective recording system outside of
God. Furthermore, Moltmann’s universalistic eschatology confirms the rejection of
the SDA concept of judgment the outcome of which some are accepted into eternal
life and some into eternal death.
Moltmann’s eschatology informs his creation theology in that he views the new
creation and immortality as the original goal that was never in the past experienced
by humanity – Adam and Eve did not have immortality, but only “possible
immortality”. In contrast, SDA eschatology is not the metanarrative of creation
considers the issue solved by a “speculative hypothesis that the soul as well as the body establishes
continuity as well as discontinuity between our present self and our resurrected self” by the
disembodied soul bridging the identity gap (Inbody 2005:313-318).
In his book “The Last things: A New Approach”, Anthony C Thiselton (2012:68-70), contrasts
the tradition of an immediate presence in heaven with Christ, with the tradition of an intermediate
state till the Parousia, and argues for an alternative that he considers close to that of Moltmann but
seemingly more developed: “We shall argue [for] an approach which not only allows, but
necessitates, a positive answer to both alternatives without contradiction…. One way of reconciling ‘the
immediate departure’ approach and ‘the intermediate state’ approach might be to say that a state of
waiting is still ‘in Christ’…. This almost solves the problem of how the Christian dead can be
immediately ‘with Christ’ and yet also enter an intermediate state until the future Coming of Christ
and the general resurrection…. Is this, however, the very best and most meaningful explanation? It
goes much of the way toward explaining the tension, but not quite the whole way”. He suggests that
these two traditions seem contradictory because they are both separately incomplete (Thiselton
2012:72). He explains the analogy of “sleep” from two perspectives: (1) participants and (2) observers.
The participants of sleep are not aware of the lapsing period as are the observers, between the
beginning and the ending of sleep. Thiselton (2012:75) makes his proposal: “Quite simply we propose
that (1) ‘to depart and to be with Christ,’ i.e., immediately, is a participant or existential perspective; (2) ‘to
wait until the Coming of Christ’ and the general resurrection constitutes a spectator or ontological
perspective. Both are valid and true within the context that gives them meaning and currency”. This
explanation seems to perfectly fit the SDA notion of “personal eschatology”.
87
theology; eschatology is about the restoration of that life444 which once was prior to
the Fall – Adam and Eve had “conditional immortality”; there is a sense in which the
new creation supersedes the original one, but restoration is essentially understood.
Therefore, Moltmann, who considers the future immortality of humanity as a new
experience, challenges the SDA thinker, who views immortality as a previously
conditional reality - not new. Moltmann’s perspective on immortality by implication
alters especially the SDA theologies of creation, the nature of humankind, and
soteriology/eschatology which is currently seen primarily as restoration.
Historical eschatology concerns itself with the historical effects of Christ’s

kingdom445. History should be interpreted through the eyes of eschatology, giving it
direction, purpose and meaning446. Both Moltmann’s and SDA’s eschatologies are of
this view. However, Moltmann tends to speak more of “goal” in contrast to SDA
eschatology that relatively speaks more of “end”. Moltmann has more concern
about the new creation, whereas SDA eschatology, which also concerns itself with
new creation, comparatively speaks more of the end of this world through the
Parousia, and its destruction by fire a thousand years later. The probable reason is
the SDA interpretation of biblical apocalyptic447 that highlights the increasing and
intensifying of theological and spiritual corruption of the world just before the
Parousia. Moltmann describes the changing world as increasing in danger but SDA
eschatology describes it as spiritually, religiously and naturally becoming worse in
time. It appears that it would take the SDA adherent to change his or her view of
biblical apocalyptic in order for the emphasis448 to be more on the new creation and
not on the end of this world.
444 Millard Erickson’s (1998:1176-177) anthropology is not identical with that of the SDA, but
he seems to agree with SDA thinking on the existence and conditionality of immortality at creation:
“They were not inherently immortal; that is, they would not by virtue of their nature have lived on
forever. Rather, if they had not sinned, they could have partaken of the tree of life and thus have
received everlasting life. They were mortal in the sense of being able to die; and when they sinned,
that potential or possibility became a reality. We might say that they were created with contingent
immortality”. The primary area of disagreement is on Erickson’s dualistic anthropology whereas
SDA anthropology is monistic.
445 Tyron Inbody (2005:312-313) makes a relevant statement in that “historical” eschatology is
not independent but part of the whole: “Eschatological hope for history does not exhaust the
Christian hope, and, indeed, it cannot stand alone apart from the personal and cosmic hope….Hope
for history cannot be separated from personal and cosmic fulfilment”.
446 Cf. Inbody 2005:309-313
447 Bradley C Hanson, writing about “apocalyptic eschatology”, describes “the major form of
apocalyptic eschatology” in 4 points that appear to be consistent with SDA eschatological thought.
He says of apocalyptic writers: they (1) were “pessimistic about history”, (2) saw reality in a sharply
dualistic manner of conflict between good and evil or Christ and Satan, (3) set out historical stages of
a divine predetermined plan, and (4) had the strong conviction of a very imminent and cataclysmic
end of this age (1997:335-336). The first of these fits well with an expectation of decreasing morality in
the world in general.
448 Inbody (2005:303) implies that biblical apocalyptic has more of negative tones and should
not be considered exclusively when interpreting eschatology: “It is important…to recognize that
‘there is in the Bible no time called “the end of the world.” The Bible offers a much richer vision of
88
Moltmann himself describes his view of time as harmonious with SDA thinking
through the weekly Sabbath. The researcher has not found any piece of literature
that describes time with the same terminology that Moltmann does – “rhythmical”.
On the contrary, SDA theologians seem to describe time in what they call “linear”449.
The researcher suggests that both Moltmann and SDA theologians describe time in
very similar ways except the apparent clash in terminology: Moltmann calls it
“rhythmical” because of his emphasis on defining time by eschatological events in it,
whereas SDA theologians would name it “linear” due to the emphasis being on its
goal which is the kingdom of God.
Moltmann and SDA eschatology part ways when it comes to interpreting biblical
apocalyptic. Moltmann does not see the apocalyptic sections of Scripture as
revelations of future historical events, particularly in a sequential way, but such
sections are merely concerned with strengthening contemporary saints with hope
and resilience against evil society. SDA eschatology utilizes biblical historicism450
and in that way sees biblical apocalyptic as foretold history, stretching from the time
of the author to the Parousia. This is more and above the contemporary spiritual
relevance of apocalyptic. SDA’s use of Moltmann’s methodology or approach to
biblical apocalyptic here would revamp its eschatological system: (1) the kingdom
sequences of Daniel chapters 2, 7 and 8 that lead to the use of Daniel chapter 8 verse
14 as pointing to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary – what SDA scholars call
the Investigative Judgment – would be rejected; (2) the theology of the eschatological
remnant would also be rejected since it is the historicist interpretation of Revelation
chapter 12 that sees a remnant towards the end of time; (3) the identification of the
United States of America as represented by the “land” beast of Revelation chapter 13
after the “sea” beast would also be ousted. These are just a few examples of the
changes in interpretation of especially the books of Daniel and Revelation in
Scripture.
In as much as both Moltmann’s and SDA eschatology may be described as

millenarian, their interpretations of biblical apocalyptic differ from each other.
Moltmann sees the millennial language of the book of Revelation as merely symbolic
of Christian and Jewish hope of justification or vindication by God in his kingdom.
The language served as encouragement for the contemporary martyrs 451. SDA
hope than an apocalyptic end. Its language of hope consists of a family of symbols, including the
kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, parousia, final judgment, new creation, new heaven and earth,
new Jerusalem, resurrection of the dead, resurrection of the body, and eternal life”. This view that
eschatology should not be exclusively described in apocalyptic tones appears to be shared by SDA
interpretation, hence the existence of SDA theologies of the new earth etc.
449 Holbrook (2000:995, emphasis mine) may represent SDA theologians in describing time as
“linear”: “Unlike the ancient concept of time as circular and repetitious, the scriptural worldview of time
is linear. The divine hand, although countered by satanic activity, nevertheless is deliberately moving
human history to its consummation: the second coming of Christ, the eradication of Satan and all the
forces of evil, and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom”.
450 See discussion in chapter 2 of this research
451 Richard A Horsley (2010:1), speaking of Jewish apocalyptic, actually suggests that
apocalyptic is not concerned about the end of the world as it seems but the end of empires, giving
hope to the oppressed: “As exemplified in the vision and interpretation of Daniel 7, ‘apocalyptic’ texts
are not about the end of the world but the end of empires.…The texts speak of God’s restoration of
89
eschatology on the other side has a specific period of a thousand years452 to be spent
by the righteous in heaven, reigning with Christ. This hope is also in SDA
eschatology applicable to contemporary saints and martyrs as encouragement.
There are three points of interpretational difference between Moltmann and SDA
thought regarding the millennium: (1) one says the 1,000 years is a specific period of
time and the other says it is simply metaphorical; (2) one says the saints experience
the period in heaven and the other says the millenarian hope is earthly; (3) one says
this hope is only for Christians453 and the other says it is for Christians and Jews454.
The acceptance of Moltmann’s eschatology in this matter would lead to serious
revisions in SDA soteriology455 (the exclusivity of salvation in particular) and
eschatology (the last or final judgment in particular).
the people and vindication of those martyred in their steadfast resistance to imperial domination….
The Second Temple Judean texts that have been classified as apocalyptic are the expressions of their
struggles to affirm that God was still in control of history and to resist Hellenistic or Roman rule that
had become overly oppressive”. Moltmann applies this perspective to the book of Revelation.
Apparently in a slight contrast, Walter Schmithals (1975:214-215, emphasis mine) does not
exclude the end of the “world” as a focus for the sake of the imperial present – he gives both the
entire world and the imperial present attention, in as much as it is the imperial present that takes
precedence: “Christian apocalypses…owe their emergence, as a rule, to particular historical
situations. Particularly in times of persecution there arose a strong yearning for an early end to this
world. Then, as was already the case in the Apocalypse of John, the hope of redemption from this eon was
combined particularly with the prediction of judgment upon Rome…. In Christian apocalypses from such
difficult times the end-events and the new eon itself are of less interest than the promising portents of the
end which are presently discernible, and an explicitly apocalyptic understanding of existence can hardly
be detected, even though there certainly is a hope of a great change to be wrought by God”.
452 For a discussion of millennialism see chapter 2 of this research
453 Exceptions are of people in circumstantial ignorance about Christ
454 Millard Erickson (1998:1053) holds to the view somewhat at the middle between that of
Moltmann and the one held in SDA eschatology: “The church is the new Israel. It occupies the place
in the new covenant that Israel occupied in the old. Whereas in the Old Testament the kingdom of
God was peopled by national Israel, in the New Testament it is peopled by the church. There is a
special future coming for national Israel, however, through large-scale conversion to Christ and entry
into the church”. SDA eschatology has no national hope for Israel, except an individual one, whereas
Moltmann considers the Christian hope as synonymous to the Israelite hope, and without need for a
Jew/Israelite to convert into Christianity. Erickson foresees national hope for Israel that will however
require the Jews to convert into Christianity, in masses.
455 Millard Erickson highlights five broad views of salvation: (1) Liberation theology – has its
focus on social and economic order; (2) Existential theology – focuses on the change of the
individual’s outlook on life; (3) Secular theology – views salvation as the experience of one’s
separation from religion to resolve one’s problems; (4) Contemporary Roman Catholicism – “has
developed a much broader view of salvation over the traditional view”; (5) Evangelical theology –
salvation is a complete transformation in an individual’s life, progressing through sanctification and
leading to glorification (Erickson 1998:901). SDA soteriology belongs to the Evangelical tradition,
whereas Moltmann’s soteriology appears to be a blend of the Liberation and Evangelical traditions,
with possibly a small touch of Existential and Contemporary Roman Catholicism.
On the question of the extent of salvation, SDA soteriology is particularistic and Moltmann
soteriology is universalistic. Erickson (1998:905) describes the difference between these two in this
way: “The particularist position sees salvation as based on individual responses to the grace of God.
It maintains that not all will respond affirmatively to God; consequently, some will be lost and some
saved. The universalist position, on the other hand, holds that God will restore all humans to the
relationship with him for which they were originally intended. No one will be lost”.
90
Moltmann neither believes that the world is naturally getting better nor that the
world is getting worse with time. He prefers to say it is getting more critical. Within
SDA theology is the argument that the world is getting more critical and worse in
spiritual, religious and natural perspectives. This apparent tendency for Moltmann
to evade negativity is also seen in his discussion of the “signs of the times”: he
prefers a focus on “signs and wonders” as positive announcers of the end rather
than in “signs of the end” as negative announcers of the end. SDA eschatology on
the other hand comparatively dwells more on what Moltmann would call negative
signs of the end456. What Moltmann calls positive signs and wonders find
recognition in SDA eschatology, specifically in reference to the spread of the gospel
in the power of the Latter Rain457. The comparative emphasis on the negative signs
There may be some like Robert W Jenson in his “Systematic Theology: Volume 2, The Works
of God”, who offer an undecided proposition of whether all will be saved or not. Jenson first
considers the particularistic proposition and recognizes “overwhelming biblical opinion” on its side,
and then he considers the universalistic stance and says that it also “can appeal to the New
Testament” (Jenson 1999:360). Jenson (1999:364-365, emphasis mine) eventually comes to the
undecided (neither particularistic nor universalistic) resolution: “We can therefore say no
more...without violence to the plot of his saving history, God can bring all to the Kingdom, but he may
not. ‘All or some heathen may be excluded’ must be accepted as a true proposition….The church must
think that damnation is possible but is not to make it an article of faith, proclaim it, or threaten it
except in such fashion as to obviate the threat. What sort of truth does ‘Damnation is possible’ then
have? Perhaps God does not wish us to know”.
456 In as much as SDA eschatology is not identical with that of Grudem, he also does seem to
dwell more on what Moltmann would term “signs of the end”. One of the key contrasts however
between SDA eschatology and Grudem eschatology on this matter would be Grudem’s deliberate
uncertainty as to the fulfilment of these signs. He (1994:1104-1105) says words like “it is unlikely but
possible that these signs have already been fulfilled”, and “It is spiritually unhealthy for us to say that
we know that these signs have not occurred, and it seems to stretch the bounds of credible
interpretation to say that we know that these signs have occurred. But it seems to fit exactly in the
middle of the New Testament approach toward Christ’s return to say that we do not know with
certainty if these events have occurred”. In contrast, SDA eschatology is very much definitive and
specific more often than not, without however predicting any date of the Parousia.
Walter Schmithals (1975:155-156) describes Jesus interest in the announcement of the end in a
way that the researcher here would describe the SDA interest in the end of the world: “It seems as
though Jesus…was interested in the announcement of the end, not for the sake of the end itself and its
consequences, but because of the chance that was opened up in this last hour for the poor and sinners
to participate in the coming salvation. Characteristic of him, therefore, was the invitation into the
kingdom, the call to repentance as the way open to all into the kingdom of God, and the offer of the
dawning salvation for the whole world”. The researcher is of the opinion that SDA eschatology
includes discussion about the end of the world and more – the life and joy resulting beyond the end
into the beginning.
457 SDA eschatology has hope for an outpouring of the Spirit’s power very similar to its
manifestation at Pentecost in the books of Acts. This outpouring is seen to boost the spread of the
gospel so that the every corner of the earth hears the gospel in the context of the 3 angels’ messages of
Revelation 14. Miracles (and other gifts) that meet human needs accompany this proclamation which
very quickly reaches every living being (LaRondelle 2000:879-880). Grudem would argue that it is not
every human being implied by Scripture that is to hear the gospel. In fact, he (1994:1101) sees the
prediction of Scripture of the gospel (not the SDA version of it) reaching all nations as already
fulfilled many times before in history: “Has the gospel been preached to all nations? Probably not,
since there are many language groups and tribes that have still never heard the gospel. It is unlikely,
therefore, that this sign has been fulfilled…. [From Colossians 1 we know that] the proclamation has
gone forth to the whole world and that, in a representative sense at least, the gospel has been
91
of the end in SDA eschatology is as a result of its interpretation of biblical
apocalyptic – seen as also revealing major historical events, movements and
tendencies on earth in outline form, leading to the end of the world458. Moltmann
seems to imply that those who have greater emphasis than he does on the “signs of
the end” do not have a Christological outlook. To this allegation SDA eschatology
would argue that these signs are actually reminders of human need for Christ’s
intervention through the Parousia, and an affirmation of the reliability of His word
as prophecies are fulfilled. The only way that SDA eschatology can fit Moltmann’s
interpretation is that it stops its use of biblical historicism as an approach to biblical
apocalyptic interpretation.
Moltmann’s universalistic approach to salvation apparently forces him to reject the

two resurrections of Revelation chapter 20 as separating the righteous from the
wicked. To Moltmann the first resurrection is spiritual (experienced now through
the Spirit) and the second is physical for all humanity. This view is in sharp contrast
to that of SDA eschatology, which is informed by its particularist soteriology,
recognizing both resurrections as physical and separating the saved from the lost.
Moltmann argues that a separation of the saved from the lost would logically result
in a view of a triple-phased judgment process459, the last two of which seem very
similar, if not identical, with the SDA view of the Last Judgment. For him the Last
Judgment is not a judicial process but a recreation of the world – a making right of
the wrong in creation, and even the salvation of the impersonal Devil460. This goes
preached to the whole world or to all nations. Therefore, though, it is unlikely but possible that this
sign was initially fulfilled in the first century and has been fulfilled in a greater sense many times
since then”.
458 Richard A Horsley (2010:1) observes that apocalyptic writings have this negative
perspective on the world: “Expectation of ‘the end’ supposedly pervaded Jewish society at the [New
Testament] time. While interpreters have developed a more complicated and critical view in the past
generation, even specialists still find ‘the end of the world’ in a ‘cosmic dissolution’ to be central to
the message of ‘apocalyptic’ texts”. It makes some sense therefore as to why SDA eschatology tends
to have negativity about the current world condition, since it gives such great significance and use of
biblical apocalyptic.
459 Another possibility of Moltmann’s analysis that there would be a triple-phased judgment
is in what Grudem describes, considering it as inaccurate to Scripture, as the judgment from a

dispensational viewpoint. Grudem breaks it down to a three-phased judgment of (1) a judgment of
the nations, (2) a judgment of believers’ works, and (3) a “great white throne judgment” at the end of
the millennium for the purpose of declaring the eternal punishment of the wicked (Grudem
1994:1141-1142).
Interestingly, although Thiselton’s (2012:166-167) eschatology of the final judgment is not
identical to that of the SDA believer, the notions of “vindication” and “revelation” of God and the
saints are predominant: “Three reasons for joy in the face of judgment can be detected. First, the
disclosure of God’s righteousness and truth puts an end to all deception, seduction, and illusion. We
shall come to see whether self-proclaimed achievers and so-called celebrities are what they claim to
be, and just what ‘worldly success’ really amounts to. Second, God will publicly and definitely
vindicate the oppressed…. Thirdly, God publicly reveals himself as universal King of all creation, one
of whose roles is to defend the wronged, and to put things right. The Church could believe only in
faith…. Now hidden faith is vindicated in plain sight. Moreover, the theme of ‘putting things right’
constitutes the key connecting thread between justification by grace and the Last Judgment”. The
SDA view, particularly the Investigative Judgment, is developed in the next chapter of this research.
460 Millard Erickson (1998:457) argues in favour of the existence of personal good and evil
superhuman but non-divine beings: “There are superhuman, but not divine beings who work within
92
directly against the SDA theology of a Cosmic Conflict between Christ and the Devil
in which the Devil is finally annihilated461 because of Christ’s victory at his death
and resurrection. For SDA eschatology to adopt Moltmann’s view, at least four
theological convictions would need to be sacrificed: (1) Arminian theology, (2) its
view of Scripture as analogous or not self-contradictory462, (3) the Cosmic Conflict
theology of justice as requiring the annihilation of the Devil at the end of time, and
(4) the overall view of the Last Judgment as leading to a double-outcome.
The term “cosmic” is used mostly in reference to the Cosmic Conflict as far as SDA
theology and eschatology is concerned. Hence the researcher has not been able to
locate any phrase such as “cosmic eschatology” in SDA scholarly works. But
Moltmann’s usage of this term “cosmic” in reference to “all [created] things” appears
to be conceptually included in SDA eschatology that has a broader463 notion. For the
purposes of this section on “Cosmic Eschatology”, “cosmic” will be understood as
referring to “all earthly creation”464.
Cosmic eschatology in both Moltmann and SDA eschatologies is about the

transitional healing and saving of all creation in creatio ex vetere465. The point at
which these two differ is in the relation that the original creation has with the new
one. Moltmann argues that the original creation was never a closed system but one
human history. Some of these, who remained faithful to God, carry out his work. Others, who fell
from their created state of holiness, live to oppose God and his children. God’s care and concern for
his creation is evident in the ministrations of good angels. By contrast, Satan and his minions seek to
thwart the purposes of God. But God has limited their powers”. This is in direct contrast to
Moltmann’s view of an impersonal Devil.
461 Geisler (2005[vol.4]:390, 407) explains Annihilationism and then opposes it:
“Annihilationism holds that unbelievers, who will not have received God’s gift of salvation, will be
snuffed out of existence after the final judgment; accordingly, they will experience no eternal
conscious torment forever…. In addition to the lack of any good arguments in favour of
annihilationism, there are numerous arguments that support the doctrine of eternal conscious
punishment”. Geisler it clearly against the SDA position on this matter.
462 It has been observed that Moltmann sees Scripture as sometimes irreconcilably self-
contradictory as in the matter of the two traditions of a double-outcome judgment typical of

apocalyptic and the other tradition of what he calls a “theocentric universalism” with a single-
outcome of life for all humanity regardless of personal faith.
Universalism, defined as “the belief that eventually everyone will be saved”, is opposed by
Geisler (Geisler 2004[vol.3]:389-390).
Millard Erickson opposes the notion that Scripture is self-contradictory (Erickson 1998:73).
463 It is not just earthly creation considered but heavenly creation of angels and even other
intelligent beings on other unknown planets.

464 Moltmann appears not to believe in a personal devil and personal evil angels [and
presumably does not believe in good personal angels as well]. At best, he is not clear on this matter.
His “cosmic” notion is apparently merely about the visible earthly creation. There are a number of
scholars that come out clearly in expressing their belief in God as creator of both the visible and the
invisible beings, the invisible beings including personal angels and even referring to other beings
either than angels. Wayne Grudem (1994:264, emphasis mine; cf. 1994:397-434) is such an example:
“This creation of the entire universe includes the creation of an unseen, spiritual realm of existence:
God created the angels and other kinds of heavenly beings as well as animals and man”.
465 Grudem concurs (Grudem 1994:1160-1161).
93
that was geared towards eschatological fulfilment; the new creation is not a
restoration of the original. SDA eschatology would contrarily argue that the new
creation is a restoration to the original in as much as there is a new element in it –
this earth becomes God’s new headquarters of the universe; the original creation was
never intended to be a mere transitional phase to the new creation 466.
Moltmann’s eschatology of creation allows him to interpret the Sabbath of creation

in a different way to that of SDA thinking. To Moltmann the Sabbath was a promise
of future creation whereas for SDA thought the Sabbath was a memorial of God’s
creation, with the eschatological significance only being attached to it after the Fall of
humanity. Both Moltmann and SDA eschatology do not consider Sunday
observance as a replacement of the Saturday Sabbath467. SDA eschatology however
attaches no observational significance to Sunday whereas Moltmann encourages
observational significance of both Saturday and Sunday (from Saturday midday to
Sunday midday). According to SDA theology, the acceptance of the creation
Sabbath as a mere eschatological institution would lead to the rejection of the
theology of an absolute Saturday-Sabbath commandment; the death of Christ would
do away with the Saturday Sabbath as verily as the other ceremonial laws468.
466 Canale 2000:116. Some scholars do agree with this notion of restoration (Grudem
1994:1191; Geisler 2004[vol.3]). On the note of this earth being the “headquarters of the universe”,
Grudem seems to be in agreement, at least in part. He (1994:1159-1160, 1163-1164) argues that heaven
is a real and physical place capable of accommodating our recreated physical bodies: “Jesus lives [in
heaven] in his physical resurrection body, waiting even now for the time when he will return to earth.
Moreover, the fact that we will have resurrection bodies like Christ’s resurrection body indicates that
heaven will be a place, for in such physical bodies…, we will inhabit a specific place at a specific time,
just as Jesus now does in his resurrection body”. He (1994:1160) continues to say that the recreation
of heaven and earth will have a joining relationship, and that the righteous will have unhindered
access to the throne of God: “It is this place [heaven] of God’s dwelling that will be somehow made
new at the time of the final judgment and will be joined to a renewed earth…. [The righteous] will be
in the presence of God and enjoying unhindered fellowship with him…. [Their] greatest joy will be in
seeing the Lord himself and in being with him forever”.
467 In what is probably a leading work on the Sabbath, contrary to the SDA version, edited by
Don A Carson, is the book “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological
Investigation”. This book was possibly written as a response to a PhD dissertation written by the late
SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, later captured in his book “From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical
Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity”. Bacchiocchi (1977:309) in his
book argues in favour of the SDA position on the Sabbath from a historical perspective: “Our study
has shown (we hope persuasively) that the adoption of Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath did
not occur in the primitive Church of Jerusalem by virtue of the authority of Christ or of the Apostles,
but rather took place several decades later, seemingly in the Church of Rome, solicited by external
circumstances”. However, in the book edited by Carson, the position argued for is contrary to that of
the SDA, and suggests that Sunday is not a replacement of Saturday as the Sabbath in the New
Testament Christian faith, and that the Saturday-Sabbath is no longer obligatory. There might be
others like Joseph A Pipa Jr in his 1996 book “The Lord’s Day” who argues that Sunday is a
replacement of Saturday.
468 This appears to be an example of the point Millard Erickson (1998:393) makes: “Our
understanding of the doctrine of creation is important because of its effects on our understanding of
other doctrines…. Alter the doctrine of creation at any point, and you have also altered these other
aspects of Christian doctrine”.
It appears that the contrast between Moltmann and SDA theology exists on the Sabbath
mainly because of the differences in the theology of creation.
94
Moltmann’s view of the cosmic eschatological bond between humanity and nature is
one of inseparability. SDA eschatology would nod in agreement and at the same
time signal disagreement with Moltmann. SDA eschatology agrees that nature itself
is redeemed together with humanity as all are part of God’s creation, however, it
would disagree to interpret the “inseparable” bond as meaning that humanity
cannot be residentially469 separable from the rest of creation. It would further
disagree with Moltmann’s possible interpretation of this bond as being a basis of the
idea that there will be no annihilation of human beings. Furthermore, in
Moltmann’s theology, the criterion for an entity to be in the image of God is that it
gives glory to God, and therefore even nature is made in the image of God. SDA
theology would agree in that nature does give glory to God 470 but then argue
contrarily in that human beings alone on earth have the image of God471. The
469 SDA eschatology involves a 1,000 year period of time in which saved humanity resides in
heaven, away from the earth creation. Also, it is significant to note that SDA recreation is in time first
for humanity at the Second Coming of Christ, and then for the rest of creation after the 1,000 years
when the saints return with Christ to the earth.
470 There are other scholars that recognize both humanity and nature as that which gives
glory to God, while affirming the uniqueness of humanity as especially in the image of God. Erickson
(1998:399) argues this point: “While God did not have to create, he did so for good and sufficient
reasons, and the creation fulfils that purpose. In particular, the creation glorifies God by carrying out
his will. Both the inanimate…and the animate creation glorifies him…. Only humans are capable of
obeying God consciously and willingly and thus glorifying God most fully”. Grudem (1994:271) says:
“It is clear that God created his people for his own glory…. But it is not only human beings that God
created for this purpose. The entire creation is intended to show God’s glory”. Geisler concurs with
the idea that humanity was made to glorify God first, but then adds that he was also made to enjoy
the rest of creation (Geisler 2003[vol.2]:456-458). He however seems to focus on humanity rather than
all creation as that which is made to glorify God. This of course does not prove that he excludes the
rest of creation as reflectors of God’s glory, but at least indicates a lack of equal focus on the rest of
creation in this respect.
471 The image of God is typically defined in SDA theology primarily as human functional
representation (apparently inseparably to “an ability to relate to God and His purposes”) of God over
the rest of earthly creation, and then by limited physical resemblance, including the intellectual, social
and spiritual endowments (Cairus 2000:208; Reid 2000:752).
Scholars like Wayne Grudem and Norman Geisler affirm the SDA position that only
humanity bears the image of God. Grudem (1994:442; cf. Geisler 2003[vol.2]:451) states: “Out of all
the creatures God made, only one creature, man, is said to be made ‘in the image of God’”. However,
Grudem also opposes the listing of specific ways in which humanity bears the image of God, arguing
that understanding this full image of God would first require a full understanding of God; he simply
states that the expression “image of God” “refers to every way in which man is like God”. He does
however list some of the ways that put humankind above other creatures – moral, spiritual, mental,
relational and physical aspects (Grudem 1994:443, 445-449; cf. Geisler 2003[vol.2]:451-452).
Perhaps close to Grudem’s opinion is that of Robert W Jenson in his “Systematic Theology:
Volume 2, The Works of God”. Jenson (1999:58-59, 74) argues against the description of the image in
terms of certain a “feature” and “qualities” possessed by humans, except as to see the image in our
calling by God to commune with him, both individually and collectively with others: “Our specificity
in comparison with the other animals is that we are the ones addressed by God’s moral word and so
enabled to respond – that we are called to pray. If we will, the odd creature of the sixth day can after
all be classified: we are the praying animals….Moreover and most important, on this conception the
image of God is not an individual possession….The word that creates us human itself establishes our
connectedness, and therefore we can respond only together; prayer is foundationally corporate….If I
depend upon the address of God, and am human in that I respond, just so I depend upon a
communal human address and am human in that I respond”.
95
acceptance of this interpretation, by SDA eschatological theology, of the residentially
inseparable relationship between the earth and humanity would necessitate the
rejection of the notion of righteous humanity’s temporary relocation into heaven for
a thousand years.
There is another conflict of interpretation on the literality or figurativeness of the

New Jerusalem472. Whereas Moltmann interprets it merely as a symbol of social and
spiritual significance, SDA eschatology gives it a literal meaning, without necessarily
rejecting the social and spiritual significance that Moltmann ascribes to it – that
becomes secondary. There is agreement however on the association of it with the
centrality of God’s reign and as a place of the dwelling presence of God. Limiting
the New Jerusalem depiction of Scripture to mere symbolic value as does Moltmann
certainly has revisionary implications for SDA eschatology. This implication is seen
at the presuppositional hermeneutic level. SDA eschatological interpretation utilizes
biblical historicism which assumes that biblical apocalyptic quite often sequentially
reveals historical events from the time of the writer to that of the end of time or
Parousia. It seems to be for that reason that the New Jerusalem is given a future
historical reality rather than just a symbolic value. SDA eschatological theology
would therefore need to reject its apocalyptic hermeneutic of biblical historicism.
Christian Mission
The views of both Moltmann and SDA theology on Christian mission have been
analysed in preceding chapters of this research. This section draws implication for
SDA theology of mission in light of Christian mission in Moltmann.
On the surface, Moltmann and SDA missions concur with each other in that the
Christian hope that is presented in mission is comprehensive for all humanity on
Millard Erickson (1998:512) is in agreement to the idea humanity shares much with the rest of
creation while holding a unique position of responsibility over it: “The human, however, has a unique
place in the creation. As we have noted, we are creatures and thus share much with the rest of the
creatures. But there is an element that makes us unique among the rest of the creatures…. Humans
are placed over the rest of the creation, to have dominion over it…. Our being is at a higher level,
which sets us apart from the rest of the creation”. Erickson however disagrees with SDA theology on
the description of the image. He argues that the image cannot be primarily described in terms of
function of dominion or representation. Rather, Erickson (1998:532) argues that the image is
primarily what humanity is: “The image should be thought of as primarily substantive and structural.
The image is something in the very nature of humans, in the way in which they were made. It refers
to something a human is rather than something a human has or does. By virtue of being human, one
is in the image of God; it is not dependent upon the presence of anything else”. Notice that the issues
of difference in these views are mainly of the primacy of the aspects rather than the aspects of the
image themselves.
472 Jenson (1999:352), after arguing for a material resurrection of the body, `appears to also
argue for a material New Jerusalem while recognizing the text describing it in Revelation as beyond
prose: “We are to take this information with the desperate seriousness that transcends the registering
of prose”. Grudem (1994:1163) seems to accept it as literal without however considering its
dimensions as necessarily literal: “It is a city of immense size, whether the measurements be
understood as literal or symbolic”.
96
earth. However, in light of Moltmann’s universalistic eschatology and soteriology,
what he expects from mission as universal is not identical with SDA expectation:
Moltmann does not associate mission with an expectation that all its recipients must
respond positively to its spiritual-faith aspect i.e. believe in Jesus as Lord and
Saviour; SDA mission is associated with the notion that all must receive Christ as
Lord to be saved in as much as not all will do so. In light of Moltmann’s view, the
transformation of SDA mission as universal would therefore merely detach the
mandatory spiritual aspect of personal faith in Jesus.
There seems to be unison between Moltmann and SDA missions on the view that
Christianity should not establish a theocracy on earth, and in that way convert the
whole of humanity into a church. Respect rather than coercion should characterize
Christianity’s universal missiological thrust. The church is merely instrumental in
the preparation of the world for the kingdom of God. And this preparation of the
world is not limited to a particular gender or to Christians of particular leadership
positions in the church; all Christians engage in this universal mission473.
There is agreement between Moltmann and SDA missiology in that Christian

mission originates and is maintained in God. The church is instrumental 474 in God’s
hand in the preparation of the world for the kingdom of God.
Mission as the quest for justice is much more emphasized and perhaps more
developed in the theology of Moltmann in contrast to that of the SDA. Actually, one
sees more consistency in Moltmann rather than in SDA missiological thought on the
matter of balance: SDA thought has prioritized, though not exclusively, emphasis on
religious rights or freedom of worship, and seemingly separate it from other forms
of human social rights; Moltmann on the other hand gives great emphasis on the
God who stands with the poor and victimized people of society in general 475 rather
473 This view is shared by Tyron Inbody (2005:266, emphasis mine): “Christian ministry is the
ministry of Christ. It is given by God to all those who are reconciled in Christ….This ministry is given to
the whole church, the laos, the people of God. All Christians are ministers to each other and to the
world. This is the meaning of the Reformation idea of the priesthood of all believers (not that we
have our own private access to God apart from each other)”.
474 This is echoed by Tyron Inbody (2005:263-264): “The church exists as God’s instrument of
reconciliation. It does not exist as an end in itself. The church does not have a mission, it is
mission….The purpose of the church is to be God’s instrument to fulfil God’s covenant with the
whole creation…The church is placed in the world by God to be an instrument of reconciliation”.
God is the creator and direction-giver of the church.
475 Millard Erickson (1998:558, 575, emphasis mine) speaks of “The Universality of Humanity”
and notes specific kinds of people historically most vulnerable to discrimination, suggesting that it is
un-Christlike to discriminate based on “incidental” variations - race, gender, economic status, age,
being unborn and marital status - of humanity: “God has regard for all persons. Since God takes that
view, it is incumbent upon the believer to adopt a similar view and to practice a godly reverence for
all humanity. This is especially true for those who may be subject to discrimination…. We have noted
that the distinguishing mark of humanity, which is designated by the expression ‘image of God,’ is
far-reaching, extending to all humans. In the sight of God, all humans are equal. The distinctions of race,
97
than focusing on specifically religious human rights. The implications of
Moltmann’s better balanced approach for SDA mission are that SDA mission should
much more actively pursue and promote the fight against other forms of injustice
such as racial and gender discrimination among many more.
Moltmann’s assertion that Christians should seek out, in contrast to waiting for the
victims of social injustice to approach them, is partially existent in SDA missiological
thought. By “partial” is meant that SDA missiological engagement is not balanced
as underscored above, and that in the opinion of the researcher, the SDA church,
particularly at ground level, is more passive (waiting for circumstances to come to it)
than pro-active even in the matter of religious freedom; those challenged by injustice
of this nature (tertiary students regarding examinations and employees regarding
working on Saturdays) usually have to approach the church for assistance because
the church’s position is relatively unknown to many organizations. Also, the
researcher’s experiential assessment is that the SDA church is relatively more
concerned about its members’ freedom of worship than that of other religions.
Moltmann’s assertion that Christians should seek out victims implies that SDA
mission should be broad minded in terms of meeting the needs of all victims of
religious injustice, doing so proactively. This may be done through dialogue with
other religious organizations of the same purpose, and through proactive promotion
‘road-shows’ and invitations for victims to speak out and express their needs.
A sharp contrast between Moltmann and SDA thought on mission is seen regarding
the matter of political influence by Christians. Moltmann speaks much on the need
for direct Christian influence on the political structures of society whereas SDA
thought tends to speak of an indirect and spiritual influence through
social status, and sex are of no significance to him…. And because this is the case, Christians should show
the same impartial interest in and concern for all humans, regardless of the incidentals of their lives”.
Erickson’s “impartial” approach to humanity seems to have a disagreement with Moltmann’s
“preferential option” for the poor approach. Erickson does refer to God’s “special” and “particular”
care for the poor but that falls short of the notion of “bias” Moltmann advocates, especially since
Erickson lays significance to personal faith or righteousness as well (Erickson 1998:566-567). He
(1998:568) says, after writing about God’s special care for the poor: “Many other parts of the Bible
emphasize that the poor and the rich are equal before God and that the righteous poor are superior to
the ungodly rich”. By the word “superior” is signified that one’s spiritual status is more important
than one’s socio-economic status, a notion foreign to Moltmann.
Liberation theologians, in support of Moltmann, would argue together with Gustavo
Gutierrez (1993:22, emphasis mine) in his article, translated from Spanish into English by Robert R
Barr, entitled “Option for the Poor”, in the book “Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation
Theology” edited by Jon Sobrino and Ignacio Ellacuria, that God’s preference for the poor is primarily
socially defined rather than faith-defined: “The poor occupy a central position in the reflection that we
call the theology of liberation....A preferential commitment to the poor is at the very heart of Jesus’
preaching of the Reign of God”.
The researcher finds it interesting that Erickson does not mention religious discrimination.
This of course does not prove that Erickson favours religious discrimination, but this seems to
indicate a contrast between his theology and SDA theology. The researcher suspects that if Erickson’s
work, in the above citations, was being written by a typical or mainstream theologian, “religious”
discrimination or intolerance would have featured as one of the listed kinds of discrimination, if not
the primary one, to be combated.
98
proclamation476. The implication for SDA mission is that it should directly and
deliberately express its positions and recommendations on political matters without
necessarily getting into entangling agreements with political parties. This would not
necessitate any cessation of the exercise of the gospel proclamation.
Moltmann’s “preferential option” for the poor and the victimized makes these kinds
of people of primary importance to God, and the perpetrators, who are saved
through the victims, are given secondary status in the divine agenda. This view is
not compatible with the SDA understanding of God being biased in favour of those
who have the merit of His righteousness rather than those who are in particular
physical or social situations. Moltmann makes God’s bias situation-dependent (eg.
poverty, financial debt, HIV etc.) whereas SDA mission makes God’s bias faith-
dependent (those who believe in Jesus Christ, regardless of circumstances). This
may account for Moltmann’s comparatively greater emphasis on socio-political
liberation than on spiritual or faith-based liberation as found in SDA missiological
thought. If SDA mission is to take the mould of Moltmann’s view of mission, it
would have to remove its emphasis on proclamation and humanity’s spiritual needs.
While noting the contrast between Moltmann and SDA thought on social justice, it
needs to be also emphasized that Moltmann sees various dimensions of salvation
that however have no fixed interrelationship of priority, whereas SDA missiology
clearly prioritizes the spiritual-proclamation over the social and the physical
concerns without however separating them as independent of each other.
476 Millard Erickson (1998:657) speaks of individual and social sins, makes a difference
between them, identifies potential culprits, and suggests socio-activism in contrast to socio-passivism:
“Social sin is prevalent in our society and exists alongside individual sin. Persons who oppose sin on
a personal level may be drawn into the corporate nature of sin through the evil acts of government,
economic structures, or other forms of group identification…. Our hope lies in Christ, who has
overcome the world. But we also need to be proactive in opposing social sin by finding strategies that
will respond to social sin”. The “strategies” referred to here are not ways of proclamation alone, but
involve practical steps.
Erickson evaluates three strategic methods of combating corporate or social sin: (1)
Regeneration – emphasizing the individuals’ transformation with the conviction and the hope that
society would automatically be transformed thereby; the use of proclamation as strategy is
predominant; he suggests that groups of this approach may tend to advocate involvement in society
in the form of social welfare – “alleviating the conditions resulting from faulty social structures” -
rather than the form of social action – “altering the structures causing the problems”; the researcher
here would describe these groups as non-transformative which may be a step further than healing
social ills. (2) Reform – groups of this strategy attempt to alter the social culprit social structures
directly, mostly through political change, and less commonly through nonviolent resistance such as
advocated by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King; no definite expectation is held that the
individuals of society would be changed, but priority is given to the change of conditions or
circumstances as a whole. (3) Revolution – this is a radical, forceful and destructive approach of
changing social structures perceived as evil; this is not redemptive but destructive change. Erickson
suggests that it is not only one approach that is essential in attacking social sin, but a combination of
Regeneration and Reform (particularly in the form of nonviolent resistance), the third one of
Revolution being too violent and un-Christlike (Erickson 1998:671-674).
SDA mission is very much in line with the first approach of Regeneration. Not that the SDA
approach is completely passive, it is strong in areas of health and education, but the challenge is, in
the opinion of the researcher, inconsistency and a lack of balance in areas of human rights and
political engagement.
99
Whereas Moltmann presents his three by three steps477 of bringing about a united
community of former victims and former perpetrators, SDA missiology seems silent
on practical steps of effecting such a situation, except as to emphasize conversion
through the reception of the proclaimed Word of God. Perhaps this is so because of
its expectation of God as the intervener into increasingly corrupt human history by
the Parousia, and the secondary importance social justice is given in SDA mission.
The primary missiological importance is given to proclamation. Moltmann’s
practical steps imply that SDA mission should be more deliberate and show more
concern for practical ways of transforming the present social condition of the world.
Moltmann’s emphasis on socio-political concerns is perhaps an indictment on SDA
eschatology in its tendency to produce a narrow view of Christian mission.
Mission as Ecological
While SDA mission would not consider the rights of nature as of the same rank as
those belonging to human beings, as does Moltmann, there appears to be general
agreement in the concern for the whole of creation478. Nature cannot be rightly
477 See chapter 3 of this research

478 Prof J Du Preez in his book “Eschatology and Ecology: Perspectives from the book of
Revelation” observes an interesting relationship between biblical apocalyptic, Revelation in
particular, and ecology. Speaking about the first way that Revelation speaks to ecology, he (1992:1)
says: “If ecology can be described as the study of life-forms in their mutual relationships and in
relation to the non-living (or abiotic) aspects of their environment…, then the first thing that strikes
one, on reading through the Apocalypse, is the emphasis on God as the sole Creator, Sustainer and
Renewer of the entire universe”. This observation by Du Preez, who is a non-SDA, is significant
when one considers that SDA mission is largely influenced or shaped by apocalyptic understanding,
particularly from Revelation 14:6-12, and that, as Celia Deane-Drummond in her book “A Handbook
of Theology and Ecology” recognizes, a “characteristic of apocalyptic literature is that it presents the
earthly creation as that which will ultimately be destroyed” in “a catastrophic and sudden” way
(Deane-Drummond 1996:34).
While biblical apocalyptic may be thought of as affirmative to nature as Du Preez points out,
it is not all ecologists that may be happy with the biblical depiction. Anne Primavesi (1991:72) in her
book “From Apocalypse to Genesis: Ecology, Feminism and Christianity” makes the following
observations: “The pattern of ecological apocalyptic discourse fits that of the biblical apocalypse in
many respects, but there are five notable mismatches, one of form and four of content”. She then
identifies these as contrastive characteristics of “green apocalypticists” to biblical apocalyptists: (1) are
direct and do not use coded words; (2) there is an inseparable bond of unity between nature and
humanity such that either both are destroyed or both are saved; (3) they do not have an expectation of
a directly divine intervention on human problems; (4) since the villain is not a supernatural force but
humanity, it is an “unprecedented act of international human will” that is hoped to change things
around; (5) humanity’s perceived dominance over the rest of nature is the primary problem
(Primavesi 1991:72-74).
It seems that this domination of human beings over nature, valid or invalid, has been a key
problem even from an evolutionary perspective. James B Martin-Schramm and Robert L Stivers in
their book “Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case Method Approach” seem to use this evolutionary
approach where they write: “In a short period of time the human species has emerged as the
dominant species in almost all ecosystems. This domination has led to the degradation of the natural
environment and now threatens to return affairs to their original setting. In the original setting
humans and their evolutionary ancestors fit into ecosystems. They subsisted as hunters and gatherers
at the top of food chains….In time humans took to agriculture and developed new knowledge and
more powerful tools. Population increased and new forms of social organization, usually more
hierarchical and unequal, emerged. New ideas about the uniqueness of humans and their special
100
abused by humanity. The basis of human respect and cultivation of nature is God’s
creatorship of it. The fact of our dependence on the earth is another reason for
humanity’s need to take care of it. Moltmann’s implications for SDA thought and
mission are revisionary of its theology of creation and the image of God in
humanity. Moltmann’s proposal that the rights of nature are of the same rank as
those of humanity is based on his premise that both humanity and nature share the
image of God, whereas SDA mission has the premise that the image of God is
unique to humanity. Some scholars regard the traditional Christian notion that the
image of God as being unique to humanity, and that humanity has dominion over
nature, as to blame for the abuse of nature and the environment by human beings.
In response to such accusations SDA theologians would argue that dominion
actually means loving protection rather than destruction479.
There is further disagreement when Moltmann considers human beings as

dependent on the earth without the earth being dependent on humanity. SDA
mission is associated with the notion that it is a God-given responsibility for human
beings to dominate the earth in the sense of being especially mandated to take care
of it - it needs such an arrangement – humans depend on the earth for life but the
earth also has a functional dependence on human beings.
Mission as Love for Life
The emphasis on bodily life is characteristic of both Moltmann and SDA missionary
thought presumably due to the inseparability of the soul from the body. Physical
life should not just be experienced but cherished and loved in light of the
resurrection of Christ. This gives the capability to happiness. There seems to be
concurrence here between Moltmann and SDA mission in as much as SDA mission
would go further and emphasize what it considers a Christian duty for one to take
care of one’s physical health. This conviction may be seen in its running of
thousands480 of medical institutions around the world and its promotion of such
health programmes as NEWSTART481. It does seem that the similarities between the
SDA and Moltmann’s theology lead to this notable similarity of the high value of
physical life and health; both SDA and Moltmann’s personal eschatology regards the
soul as inseparable from the body at death, and thus there is no hope of a life outside
of the physical body – the living body is the only one associated with conscious
existence. Eschatology herein shapes Christian mission.
Moltmann however goes further to define life not in mere biological terms but also
in social and even political ones. This is where the SDA view of mission falls short,
particularly in looking at life politically.
status replaced old ideas that had connected humans to nature and encouraged respect….Now this
success is a problem”. The perception of humanity as superior tends to lead to the abuse of the rest of
nature.
479 Cairus 2000:208; Gulley 2012:98, 103
480 The SDA church as of the year 2011 had a network of 172 hospitals and sanitariums
(http://www.adventiststatistics.org, Statistics, accessed on the 10th of January 2014)

481 “N” for Nutrition, “E” for Exercise, “W” for Water, “S” for Sunlight, “T” for Temperance,
“A” for Air (fresh), “R” for Rest and “T” for Trust in God.
101
For Moltmann proclamation, supported by a consistent lifestyle, is about

announcing the gospel of Christ that brings liberation to the hearers and in that way
also brings the future kingdom into the present. SDA mission of proclamation 482 on
the other hand would agree to that view and further identify teachings that it
considers especially significant for the present time of the end, calling them “present
truth”483. These proclaimed truths are said to provide the special situational-
backdrop of the gospel of Christ; they are especially significant in this last-phase of
salvation history. Moltmann in contrast interprets the gospel as more concerned
about people’s practical problems rather than with doctrine 484. The implication for
SDA proclamation is a de-emphasis on doctrine and an approach that allows the
situation to in a way dictate the content of proclamation.
Proclamation in SDA mission is associated also with the teaching of the

Eschatological Remnant or the Remnant Movement. This teaching and the mission
482 Grudem (and so does Geisler 2005[vol.4]:213) makes the proclamation of the gospel the
“primary” task of the church concerning its responsibility towards the world, seconded by what he
calls the “ministry of mercy” that includes the “caring for the poor and the needy”. Evangelism and
mercy are parts of the “Ministry to the World”. This ministry of mercy is not optional but obligatory,
although secondary. This hierarchy of priorities is found only concerning Christian mission to the
world. The other “purposes” of the church that he identifies as (2) “Ministry to God: Worship” and
(3) “Ministry to Believers: Nurture” are equally important together with the above (1) “Ministry to the
World: Evangelism and Mercy” (Grudem 1994:868-869).
Millard Erickson identifies 4 functions of the church: (1) evangelism, (2) edification, (3)
worship, and (4) social concern (1998:1061-1069). For Erickson (1998:1063, emphasis mine) there is a
hierarchy of functions: “The second major function of the church is the edification of believers.
Although Jesus laid greater emphasis on evangelism, the edification of believers is logically prior”.
Evangelism is primary. He (1998:1066) also has a logical sequence in practice: “It is important at this
point to note the locus of the various functions of the church. In biblical times the church gathered for
worship and instruction. Then it went out to evangelize. In worship, the members of the church
focus on God; in instruction and fellowship, they focus on themselves and fellow Christians; in
evangelism, they turn their attention to non-Christians. It is well for the church to keep some
separation among these several activities. It this is not done, one or more may be crowded out [and
the church will suffer]”. Erickson continues to argue in favour of “social concern” as a function of the
church. The church must condemn unrighteousness, show concern and take action where it detects
need, hurt, or wrong (Erickson 1998:1067-1068).
483 Revelation 14:6-12 is interpreted to outline these ‘truths’. They are the already-begun
Judgment (Investigative) as part of the ‘truth’ of the heavenly sanctuary, the fallen state of many
religious systems, the impending danger of global religious intolerance with special reference to the
Sabbath as understood in SDA theology.
Millard Erickson (1998:1075) does not share the SDA interpretation of Revelation 14 verses 6
through 12 but he does note the change in society that calls for the unique contribution of the gospel:
“The church has good news to offer to the world, news which…brings hope. For in our world today
there is little hope. Of course, to varying degrees there has always been a lack of hope…. In the
twentieth century, however, hopelessness has reached new proportions…. This generation thinks –
and this is its thought of thoughts – that nothing faithful, vulnerable, fragile can be durable or have
any true power”.
484 Erickson (1998:1073) would partially agree with Moltmann here as he highlights the
practical aspect of the gospel, without however necessarily making practical problems the controlling
factor: “We must not think of the gospel as merely a recital of theological truths and historical events.
Rather, it relates these truths and events to the situation of every individual believer”.
102
associated with it will be better analysed later in this research, but it is worth noting
at this point that Moltmann rejects this kind of theology and denomination-based
Christian mission all together.
Moltmann is way ahead of SDA mission when it comes to inculturation485. He even

applies the principle beyond religious teachings into daily social experience. SDA
missionary thought is still in its infant stages when compared to Moltmann.
However it may be mentioned at this point that in as much as SDA mission is far
behind in both discussion and implementation regarding inculturation, it would
never go to the extents to which Moltmann does. Moltmann’s cardinal teaching in
brief is that of Jesus’ kingdom through his death and resurrection, the presence of
the future through the Spirit and the Word, and through socio-political
485 “Inculturation” is defined by Wikipedia (accessed on the 9 th of June 2013) as constructively
transformative to theology: “Inculturation is a term used in Christianity, especially in the Roman

Catholic Church, referring to the adaptation of the way Church teachings are presented to non-
Christian cultures, and to the influence of those cultures on the evolution of these teachings”. By
“non-Christian cultures” the researcher understands cultures that are not transformed by Christianity
through inculturation. This would require not just a transformation of Christianity or its theology but
also the transformation of cultures as well, such that they may also eventually be labelled as Christian
cultures. Joseph Osei-Bonsu (2005:preface) in his book “The Inculturation of Christianity in Africa”
notes: “It has become clear to me of late that the New Testament and the early church have something
to offer to the church of today when it comes to inculturation. This is because as the early church
moved from its Palestinian matrix into the Graeco-Roman world, it had to express the Christian
message in Graeceo-Roman categories of thought”. Osei-Bonsu’s words about expressing “the
Christian message in” new “categories of thought” correspond with the Wikipedia description of
inculturation as also having to do with the “adaptation of the way Church teachings are presented”.
It seems that this is the burden on James Henry Owino Kombo in his book “The Doctrine of God in
African Christian Thought: The Holy Trinity, Theological Hermeneutics and the African Intellectual
Culture”. Kombo (2007:7, 17) assesses the current African Christianity situation and defines the
problem addressed by his book: “The problem of this book is how to deliver the doctrine of the
Trinity to the roots of the African cultural milieu and utilize the African intellectual tools or symbols
to express the same….How do we translate this truth into the African thought forms….The African
church is an offshoot of Western Christianity. This, and the historical connection between the West
and Africa, has meant that the way that the Western church interprets the Christian story continues to
heavily influence developments within the African church up to this day. African theologians seem
to agree that the theology that we presently experience in Africa is, to say the least, of Western origin.
We are not blaming the Western church for having done her theology. We are saying that the African
church has not done her theology”. Inculturation is a contextual-transformative exercise and
experience. Laurenti Magesa (2004:2) in his book “Anatomy of Inculturation: Transforming the
Church in Africa” however recognizes that inculturation is not always done deliberately but is a
natural process frequently experienced subconsciously: “Christianity, an aggressively proselytizing
movement, demands an immediate change in both perception and action as people are ‘converted,’ as
they receive the ‘gospel’ preached in their world. However, this change occurs in its own way and at
its own pace, not necessarily in the way or at the pace desired by the evangelizers….Reception cannot
occur except according to the perception of the receiver. It happened in this way at the beginning of
Christianity; it happened in this way with each of us; it continues to happen in the same way in the
African churches. It is part of God’s creative plan, then as now. The vast majority of African
Christians today…simply live this process. They do not reflect upon it or articulate it in any logical
manner”. Connecting Magesa and Kombo means that inculturation is a living process and experience
in African Christianity, but it should also become a better deliberate and reflected upon reality as
well.
103
transformation, and also the recreation of the world such that no part of creation is
lost. SDA mission on the other hand is further concerned about other teachings as
fundamentals (see Appendix I on Fundamental Beliefs) characteristic of its emphasis
on doctrinal correctness in contrast to Moltmann whose emphasis is in the socio-
political value of doctrine (Christology in particular). SDA’s numerous fundamental
teachings, in as much as they are open to revision towards being better understood
and expressed, are non-negotiables. Inculturation would on these be limited to
being more of balancing the emphases, phrases and terminologies used. Such as
approach to inculturation appears very shallow in light of the fact that inculturation
goes beyond words; it also transforms theology, making it become more relevant to
the societal and cultural context. It may be so that there are some non-negotiables486
in Scripture, but that need not make any church’s theological statements
conceptually non-negotiable, since the reader’s understanding of Scripture is
influenced by one’s cultural and socio-political contexts. It is therefore the very
openness to theological revision (not just a change of words and terminologies) that
creates the opportunity for theological growth. This theological growth, through
contributions from the cultural or societal context, in turn empowers the espoused
teachings or theology with the ability of transformational relevance487.
Mission as Ecumenical
SDA mission does not consider ecumenical unity, particularly as represented by the
World Council of Churches, as essential in Christian mission 488. Cooperation and
interfaith/interdenominational dialogue is preferred to formal partnership489. This
presents a clear conflict with Moltmann who promotes ecumenical unity as a critical
strategy of effective Christian mission490. SDA mission tends to be characterized
486 The presumed objective of the theological non-negotiables is the preservation of doctrinal
unity within, and perhaps identity of, the SDA church. This does not seem unique to the SDA church
as the same may be found in many religious and church organizations (consider the role of the
constitution in any given country). The issue being raised here by the researcher is the openness to
essential change of such fundamentals or non-negotiables, and the openness to do so through the
constructive influence of all cultures that SDA theology may encounter.
487 See Moltmann on Inculturation in chapter 3 of this research
488 This may be due to SDA mission being more of the ‘evangelical’ tradition, as Erickson
(1998:1135) notes: “Evangelicals have raised a number of substantive issues that oppose ecumenism”.
489 This stance sounds similar to that of Grudem who seems to draw an “interfaith” line
against “cooperation” where “cooperation” means a sharing of control with that other non-Christian
group (Grudem 1994:882). On a wider context, this issue of power in partnerships appears to be a
real one. Jonathan S Barnes, in his PhD thesis at the University of KwaZulu-Natal entitled
“Partnership in Christian Mission: A History of the Protestant Missionary Movement”, identifies 4
general challenges to ecumenical partnerships: (1) the home base, (2) humanitarianism and
development, (3) authority, and (4) rhetoric and reality (Barnes 2010:385-393). Regarding “authority”
Barnes (2010:392) says: “Although today we rightfully celebrate living in a post-colonial age, unless
churches are willing to acknowledge that inherited issues of Global church power, paternalism, and
control are still lived out in our present ecumenical relationships, partnership will be impossible to
realize”.
490 Moltmann is perhaps supported by Millard Erickson (1998:1140) as far as the practical
angle to the issue of the need for unity is concerned: “The company of believers tends to grow when
their witness is united, whereas there may well be a negative or cancelling effect when they compete
with or even criticize one another…. Another practical consideration is the matter of efficiency.
104
with theological dogmatism since the SDA movement considers itself as a special,
but not exclusive, custodian of Biblical truth. There is a kind of theological
nervousness in fear of theological dilution should the church formally partner up
with other Christian faith communities.
Ecumenical unity for Moltmann is more than an experience of faith communities,

but should be an international one, with faith communities contributing with
internal frameworks of peace. Nations should give some of their sovereignty for the
sake of global efforts towards peace and resolutions to problems. Discussions on
such international or global unity have not been found in SDA missionary thought
by the researcher. The researcher actually suspects that the reason for such silence in
promotion for such unity is as a result of an SDA fear, which some might consider a
paranoia, that the promotion of such unity would facilitate a faster fulfilment of
undesirable prophecies of eventually global and religious intolerance, as predicted in
the book of Revelation according to SDA interpretation491. This is perhaps a classical
example of how eschatology influences Christian mission. If the suspicions of the
researcher are accurate, one would then logically conclude that the SDA church
would be much more open to ecumenical partnerships, if such eschatology was non-
existent, as there would be no expectation of such church-unity leading to global
Christian apostasy and crises of legalized persecution on those that remain
faithful492.
The Implications of the Relationship between Eschatological Hope and Christian

Mission
This section analyses the implications of the relationship between eschatological

hope and Christian mission for SDA theology in the light of Jürgen Moltmann’s
theology.
The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission is clearly

observed from both the theologies of Moltmann and SDA thought. The preceding
two chapters of this research clearly show this largely cause-and-effect relationship –
eschatological hope largely shaping Christian mission. It was earlier shown in
chapter 2 that there are at least three areas of emphasis by Moltmann (love for life,
social justice and righteousness and earth ethics) that show a relationship between
hope and action. An example in SDA theology may be found in the relationship
between the stewardship (the eschatological message of Revelation chapter 14 in
particular) and proclamation as part of Christian mission, and another example is
Where there is a lack of unity among Christians, there is duplication of efforts…. The result is a great
waste of resources of the kingdom of God”. It seems that Christian disunity is missionary suicide.
491 Nichol [vol. 7] 1980:827-832; See chapter 4 of this research
492 While the SDA traditional interpretation of Revelation chapter 13 as inclusive of a
prediction of future anti-Saturday Sabbath legislation and persecution may not have necessarily
developed due to specific persecution experiences in the 19th century, it may be that interest in this
theology was escalated due some experiences of persecution in the United States of America based on
“Blue Laws” that were enforcing Sunday as a holiday (www.wikipedia.org, “Blue Laws”, accessed on
the 29th of January 2014).
105
self-identity as a Christian remnant movement, and the effect that has on its refusal
to enter into binding partnerships with other denominations in an ecumenical way.
A study of Moltmann shows a particular pattern in this relationship between

eschatological hope and Christian mission. Moltmann is almost always concerned
about socio-political implications of his eschatology. This is perhaps the pattern that
SDA theology should pick up on and learn from. SDA theology may not adopt
Moltmann’s theological presuppositions that would drastically alter much of its
theology, but it can learn greater socio-political relevance. This possibility will be
further developed and demonstrated in later chapters of this research when the SDA
theologies of the Investigative Judgment and the Eschatological Remnant are
analysed, and critiqued.
Conclusion
This chapter’s objective has been the analysis of the implications of Moltmann’s
relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission for SDA theology.
This has been done in sections first focusing on eschatological hope, then on
Christian mission and lastly on the relationship between the both of these.
Moltmann’s theology appears to collide with SDA theology mostly on four subjects:
(1) creation, (2) soteriology, (3) the eschatological remnant, and (4) the last judgment.
The last two are heavily influenced by the chosen approach to biblical apocalyptic.
Since this research is narrowed down to eschatology within Christian theology, it is
only the last two that will get special attention, granted that theology is intricately
interwoven such that it would be impossible to go far with eschatology without
touching on other aspects of Christian theology. As a result of their respective
eschatological theologies, Moltmann and SDA views on Christian mission collide
mostly on (1) the universality of mission, (2) the balance on social justice issues, (3)
the content of proclamation and (4) the ethics and significance of ecumenical unity.
Now that the implications for SDA theology have been noted, the ground work has
been done for the special analysis and critical construction of two SDA
eschatological teachings identified above – Investigative Judgment and
Eschatological Remnant. The premise of identifying only eschatological teachings
rather than missiological ones has already been demonstrated above – Christian
mission is moulded by eschatological hope. In fact, the critique and construction to
be done on these will be geared towards drawing direct and better balanced
significance of these for Christian mission.
The next chapter will be an analysis of the Investigative Judgment, prior to the
following chapter that will constructively mould it in light of Moltmann’s
contribution to Christian mission, and in harmony with biblical-exegetical
information.
106
Chapter 6
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY OF THE

INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
Introduction
In keeping with the objective of drawing implications of the concerned theology of

Jurgen Moltmann for Seventh-day Adventist theology, this chapter is dedicated to
the analysis of the Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Investigative Judgment493.
Later in this research the implications of Moltmann’s theology are constructively
applied. This chapter will first look into the metanarrative of this judgment, and
then the outline of its theology, next the interpretation of key texts of this theology,
thereafter the historical theology of this judgment, and lastly the missiological
significance of the Investigative Judgment.
The metanarrative of the theology of the Investigative Judgment
It has already been noted earlier in this research that SDA theology makes the
Cosmic Conflict between Christ and Satan the metanarrative through which all
theologies are interpreted. This section of the research will analyse this
metanarrative through two subheadings: (1) the theology of the Cosmic Conflict and
(2) the historical theology of the Cosmic Conflict.
The theology of the Cosmic Conflict
Perhaps it is best to start with the official statement of the fundamental belief on the
Cosmic Conflict:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and

Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the
universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being,
endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s
adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the
spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This
human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity,
the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at
the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this
world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love
will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy,
493 Due to the fact that the scholarly debate and discussion on the Investigative Judgment
within SDA circles was largely in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this research will significantly draw from
research done in those years. Dr. Desmond Ford, a formerly prominent SDA scholar, dissented on
this subject and was released from denominational employment around 1980, and the church spent
much of the 1980’s and early 1990’s on research and publication on this subject of the sanctuary and
the Investigative Judgment with the intent to reexamine it and to also refute the claims of Dr. Ford.
The debate has not ended but has significantly subsided, hence the larger number of references to
publications of those two decades.
107
Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and
sustain them in the way of salvation494.
Without analysing the whole statement, the areas to be looked into here are those
particularly relevant to the theology of the Investigative Judgment. The points of
special note are that this cosmic conflict was started in heaven by Satan, and
continued here on earth through the Fall. Also, this world after the Fall becomes a
stage on which God vindicates His character before the unfallen heavenly beings
that witnessed the beginning of this conflict in heaven – sin and grace are both
wonders in the universe. God’s plan of the salvation of His creation through Christ’s
self-sacrifice is also a tool of resolving this universal problem.
In the words of Holbrook regarding the origin of sin through Lucifer or Satan, “the
challenge originated in the throne room, as it were, of God Himself”495. God is not
responsible for the origination of sin, in as much as He was fully pre-aware of it in
His omniscience and made a plan of redemption for mankind before their Fall496.
Satan, formerly known as Lucifer, was the highest ranking angel, whose gradual and
mysterious fall was through selfish and prideful rebellion against His Creator497. He
used deception and lies to persuade about a third of the angels onto his side498. He
and his angels were finally expelled from heaven and they chose earth as their
location in the attempt to establish their kingdom499.
494 See Appendix I, fundamental belief number 8, emphasis mine

495 Holbrook 2000:975; cf. Gulley 2012:136. Gulley (2012:492) echoes Holbrook and adds that
the throne room originating problem is solved there in the throne room, referring to the Investigative
Judgment: “As far as the cosmic controversy is concerned, both its inception and resolution take place
before the throne of God”.
496 Blazen 2000:275-276; Fowler 2000:240; Holbrook 2000:970-972, 995
497 Cairus 2000:214; Fowler 2000:249; Gulley 2012:136; Holbrook 2000:974-979. Holbrook
(2000:975-976, emphasis mine; cf. Fowler 2000:241; cf. Gulley 2003:439-440, 442) identifies 4 angles of
describing the issues involved in Satan’s rebellion: “[1. God’s Law] But sin is more serious than simple
lawlessness. The Scriptures equate the principles and precepts of the moral law (however adapted to the
intelligent orders of Creation) with the Creators personal will…. Sin is thus viewed as a deliberate
transgression or rebellion against the ‘will,’ or Person, of the Creator. When sinners knowingly
transgress the moral law, they flaunt and spurn the Creator Himself. [2. God’s character] Behind the
expressed will of the Lawgiver is His character. By calling God’s law into question, Lucifer called the
Creator’s character into question…. Only by subtle lying about the divine character and government could he
ever have succeeded in persuading a large portion of the angels to cast their lot with him. [3. Autonomy of the
creature] The desire and attempt to be independent of God is the primary sin of the creature and is at the heart
of the rebellion to challenge the divine government and to throw off the yoke of submission and obedience. [4.
Divine justice and mercy] Lucifer apparently thought he saw an internal conflict in the divine
character…. We may infer that Satan claims they [humans], like himself, are transgressors of God’s
law, and he denies heaven’s right to extend grace and forgiveness to them…. Justice and mercy are
mutually exclusive attitudes, Lucifer would assert”. He (2000:975) also notes the mysterious nature of
sin’s origin: “In a perfect universe, which lacked nothing, it remains a mystery how a created,
dependent being should aspire to the throne of the self-existent Creator – an impossibility in the very
nature of things”.
498 Holbrook 2000:975; Gulley 2003:447; 2012:136, 139-140
499 Holbrook 2000:977-979. The reason for God to allow the devil and his angels time, and not
destroy them immediately after His verdict and sentence on them, was the fact that the unfallen
angels needed time to see the development of Satan’s ways and thus allow God to safely destroy the
108
God made humanity with the ability to reject Him in the exercise of their freedom of
choice. Only then could there be a relationship of love between God and
humanity500. They were made perfect, in all faculties, and without the natural
propensity or tendency to sin 501. God had placed a tree in the Garden of Eden as a
test of their loyalty and love for Him, and as an opportunity for their characters to
grow502. They had been warned about the fall of Lucifer, as he had fallen before the
creation of humanity503. Notwithstanding their God-given preparation against the
enemy and God’s abundant provisions for their needs in the Garden of Eden, Adam
and Eve succumbed to the temptation of the Serpent and broke their love and trust
relationship with God, self-submitting to the authority of the Devil504. Their sinful
choice resulted in many changes in them and in their natural environment 505. God
then revealed to them His preconceived plan of salvation through Christ that
immediately went into force at that time506.
Jesus Christ, in his pre-incarnational form, decided as part of the Godhead that he
would die for the salvation of fallen humanity 507. His sacrificial death was not
however merely concerned about the salvation of mankind, but was also part of a
rebels and leave His character and kingdom beyond all question. Holbrook (2000:979) puts it this
way: “From the biblical data we may infer that the period of probation for the fallen angels manifests the
character of God. In order to be fair to the intelligent Creation the Creator must give time for the principles of
self-centeredness and transgression against His will to develop and mature so that all free moral beings may
take their decisions about whom they will serve, with full understanding of the issues. And so, as the apostle
Paul said of himself and his associates, ‘we have become a spectacle [Gr. theatron, ‘theater’] to the
world, to angels and to men’ (1 Cor. 4:9) – just so the principles of sin and of righteousness, with all their
enormous, overwhelming consequences, are being played out on the stage of this earth. The two principles are
locked in mortal combat”. The origin of sin and its nature was a wonder even to the angels because
God’s authority had never been questioned before, and the heavenly beings had no record to compare
God’s rulership with, hence God had to allow the devil space to prove his argument to his own
detriment (Fowler 2000:255; Holbrook 2000:976).
500 Cairus 2000:208-089; Dederen 2000:164-165; Fowler 2000:242-243; Gulley 2012:92, 135, 595;
Holbrook 2000:970, 973, 995

501 Cairus 2000:209; Fowler 2000:243; Gulley 2012:131-132,
502 Cairus 2000:209; Fowler 2000:241-243; Holbrook 2000:979
503 Fowler 2000:240, 243; Gulley 2012:136
504 Cairus 2000:214; Gulley 2012:131, 138-139, 144-145; Holbrook 2000:979; Shea 2000
505 Gulley 2012:142-143; Holbrook 2000:979-980. Holbrook (2000:979-980) puts it this way:
“Humankind’s fall affected the race in several ways. 1. Death became their lot…. 2. The rulership of
earth passed to Satan. For the time being god allows Satan to exercise limited control; he is described
as ‘the god of this world’ and its ‘ruler’…. 3. The Fall resulted in depraving human nature; every
aspect – intellect, emotions, will – was affected…. In sum, Adam’s rebellion estranged the race from
God…. The characteristic quality of the sinner is a mind-set opposed to the Creators’ law and
authority”. Even God suffers with humanity - in that sense sin has an effect on His as well (Holbrook
2000:995)
506 Blazen 2000:275-276; Gulley 2012:143, 152; Shea 2000:418; Rodriguez 2000:376-377.
Holbrook (2000:980) describes the objectives of the plan of salvation in the following 4 points: “1. To
clear (vindicate) the character, law, and government of God from all charges. 2. To secure and
reaffirm the loyalty of the unfallen intelligent creation. 3. To effect the salvation of all human sinners
who would respond to Heaven’s invitation to accept the Creator’s gracious lordship. 4. To destroy
Satan and his rebel angels and impenitent human sinners, and to erase the effects of sin by restoring
the earth to its pristine condition and the universe to its original harmony”.
507 Dederen 2000:161-169, 175; Gulley 2012:391, 393, 396
109
bigger picture in which God’s character was challenged by the Devil. Gulley
explains that the war in heaven is the backdrop of salvation:
The cosmic controversy is a background within which the plan for human
salvation plays out…. In Scripture we find more than God sending His Son
to live and die for humanity. Although that is central, Christ’s mission is
presented within the context of a battle that involves good and evil….
Scripture pulls back the curtain and shows that the sin problem on Earth is
part of a cosmic battle between Christ and Satan508.
The death and resurrection of Christ is the key solution above any other form of
vindication that God achieves before and after that event; it is the foundational
vindication. Gulley argues this:
In the trials and crucifixion of Jesus, the determinative climax of the cosmic
controversy between Christ and Satan appears. The destiny of the world
hung in the balance at the cross…. The ultimate revelation of God’s love
and justice was given through the death of Jesus. Throughout eternity it
will be seen that Calvary is the greatest revelation of God’s love and His
justice, and it is the standard by which all other love and justice are
measured509.
It is seen therefore that the death and resurrection of Christ is central and
foundational in Scripture and in the salvation of humanity, and yet also finds a
cosmic significance in its central role as the revealer and vindicator of God’s
character to heavenly beings.
The Last Judgment510 also has the Cosmic Conflict as its context 511. SDA eschatology
has three phases of the Last Judgment, all of which are interpreted within the
508 2003:433, 437, emphasis mine

509 Gulley 2003:438, 441, emphasis mine; cf. Holbrook 2000:996. Gulley (2003:442-443; cf.
2012:596) continues to argue his point: “Calvary is seen as Christ dying for human so they can go to
heaven. But it is more…. Calvary influenced the unfallen angels who remained in heaven and who
did not join in the rebellion. They saw a deeper revelation of God’s love on the cross as they saw Him
who knew no sin becoming sin for the human race…. Ephesians speaks of the impact of the church on
the vertical plane. The church became a witness to the universe of the kind of God it serves….
Calvary, and what it did to the church, became a lesson book that affects the universe. This makes
Calvary far more than the price for human salvation, and the church as the company of the saved.
Calvary and church have a far wider impact. The universe is affected by what takes place at the cross
and its transforming influence on the church”. Rodriguez (2000:375; cf. Blanco 2000:246; cf. Dederen
2000:174-179; cf. Moskala 2004:142, 143) argues: “Christ’s death and resurrection from the grave lie at
the very heart of the plan of salvation….. Nothing can be added to the cross in order to supplement its
atoning and expiatory power”.
510 Hasel (2000:832-833) argues that there is a future eschatological judgment, and that Christ’s
death was not the last judgment: “The universal last judgment did not take place when Christ died on
the cross. Jesus stressed that the judgment would take place ‘at the close of the age’”…. Paul clearly
holds to a future eschatological judgment, one that did not begin when sin entered into the world”.
This is however in recognition that Christ’s death on the cross was also the judgment. Gulley
(2012:502) says this: “At the cross Christ was judged in the place of humans, providing a
substitutionary atonement”.
110
Cosmic Conflict metanarrative: (1) the Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent
Judgment512, the (2) Millennial Judgment or Post-Advent Judgment513, and (3) the
Executive Judgment or Post-Millennial Judgment514. In as much as the death of
Christ is the foundational and sufficient vindicator of God’s character 515, God goes
beyond sufficiency into abundance, so to speak, in that He also intends to vindicate
His character through the Last Judgment516. It should be noted that God does not
just want to save humanity and the earth, but also to make sure that sin never raises
its ugly head again, throughout eternity. That is what necessitates the processes of
God’s vindication, not as one begging for approval, but as one desiring never to
have to destroy any creature again.
The historical theology of the Cosmic Conflict
SDA historical theology of the Cosmic Conflict argues that its view of a personal war
between God and Satan, in which Satan will finally be destroyed, was there in the
early church times, but that it gradually became a sacrificed victim on the theological
altars of universalism, predestination and liberalism. The logical conclusion is that
the SDA movement sees itself as rediscovering, rather than discovering, this
worldview or metanarrative of the Cosmic Conflict. This might explain the reason
why this theology is considered by Holbrook as “a hallmark of Adventist
thought”517.
511 Gulley (2003:441, emphasis mine; cf. 2012:592) makes the statement: “The cosmic
controversy is the biblical metanarrative within which human creation took place, the great stories of
the Old Testament took place, the life and death of Christ took place, the great stories of the New
Testament took place, the resurrected ministry of Christ and the work of the ‘Spirit of Christ’ take
place, and the return of Christ and the final white throne judgment will take place”.
512 This is the judgment being analysed in this chapter of this research
513 This phase of judgment occurs during the millennium, while the saints are in heaven and
the wicked are dead on earth and only the Devil and his angels wander in the uninhabited earth as a
figurative prison. The judges are Christ and the saints, judging unsaved human beings and fallen
angels. At this time “the saints will have an opportunity to look into the records of the lost…to see
why they could not inherit the kingdom of God”. This opportunity for the saints vindicates God to
them of His decision not to save those individuals (Hasel 2000:846-847).
514 After the millennium, the saints return with God and the holy city New Jerusalem which
then lands on earth and the saints enter it. The unrighteous are then resurrected, the second
resurrection, in their mortal natures and Christ after vindicating Himself to them with open books,
and they are momentarily awed by His righteousness, bowing and kneeling in confession of Him as
Lord, fire comes from God and devours them as they reawaken to their evil hearts in attempting to
attack the New Jerusalem. This execution of fire is the Executive Judgment. After some time the fire
finishes its work of destroying the wicked, the Devil and his angels, and God then recreates the earth
and heavens (Hasel 2000:847; Holbrook 2000:994-995; Nam 2000; see Appendix I, fundamental belief
number 28).
515 See footnote 16
516 Gulley 2012:392, 482-483; Hasel 2000:846-847; Holbrook 2000:995. Holbrook (2000:1003)
argues the need for further vindication, in as much as the cross supplies the foundation: “The far-
reaching consequences of the controversy require a final judgment that maintains the integrity of
creaturely choice and at the same time results in a united decision that rejects Satan’s assertions and
accusations in favour of God, the true moral governor of the universe”.
517 Holbrook 2000:999-1000.
111
Within SDA circles, the initial development of this Cosmic Conflict theology is
credited to Ellen G White’s writings, particularly “the well-known Conflict of the
Ages Series”, the last volume of which is entitled “The Great Controversy Between
Christ and Satan”518. In that book, for example, she says that Satan is the one most
punished in the fires of destruction just prior to earth’s recreation, and that his
destruction ceases his poisonous and troublesome work:
Some [of the wicked] are destroyed as in a moment, while others suffer
many days. All are punished ‘according to their deeds.’ The sins of the
righteous having been transferred to Satan, he is made to suffer not
only for his own rebellion, but for all the sins which he has caused
God’s people to commit. His punishment is to be far greater than that
of those whom he has deceived. After all have perished who fell by his
deceptions, he is still to live and suffer on. In the cleansing flames the
wicked are at last destroyed, root and branch—Satan the root, his
followers the branches. The full penalty of the law has been visited; the
demands of justice have been met; and heaven and earth, beholding,
declare the righteousness of Jehovah. Satan’s work of ruin is forever ended.
For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe and
causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned
and travailed together in pain. Now God’s creatures are forever
delivered from his presence and temptations519.
Note that the destruction of the Devil is not only affecting earth and its creatures
positively, but the whole “universe”, implying heavenly beings. Also, God is
vindicated in “heaven and earth” in his just act of destruction. Other Sabbatarian
Adventists520 credited with contribution towards this theology are Owen Crosier, JH
Waggoner and SN Haskel. These are only some of them521.
What these contributors have in common is an interest in the theology of the biblical
sanctuary522. This was in fact the all-absorbing subject in the preliminary523 stages of
the SDA movement. This sanctuary theology and its history is analysed below, but
for now it deserves to be mentioned that it is this sanctuary theology that gives birth
to the SDA view of the Investigative Judgment, the theological significance of which
makes sense only within the Cosmic Conflict metanarrative.
518 The Conflict of the Ages series consists of 5 volumes that span the entire period from the Fall
of Lucifer in heaven until the New Earth: (1) “Patriarchs and Prophets”, (2) “Prophets and Kings”, (3)
“The Desire of Ages”, (4) “The Acts of the Apostles”, and (5) “The Great Controversy Between Christ
and Satan”. These volumes utilize the Cosmic Conflict as a metanarrative for the story and theology
of salvation.
519 White [Ellen] 1911:673, emphasis mine
520 These were few Adventists within the Millerite or Advent movement, who had adopted
and started to observe the Saturday-Sabbath, in contrast to the majority within the movement who
saw no light in that. They were not SDA since the SDA movement encompassed much more than the
theologies of the Parousia and the Sabbath, and it started decades after, although some of the
Sabbatarian Adventists eventually became SDA.
521 Holbrook 2000:1000-1003
522 See pictorial representation in Appendix III
523 After 1844 but before 1860-1863
112
The missiological significance of the Cosmic Conflict theology
The Cosmic Conflict’s relevance to Christian mission is a spiritual one, and thereby
indirectly related to physical well-being and socio-political concerns524. Once again,
as seen in chapter 4 of this research, the spiritual life is given a central role and
concern in SDA thought. The next chapter of this research will be an attempt to
show a more directly socio-political relevance of the Cosmic Conflict metanarrative
through a new version of the Investigative Judgment.
An outline of the theology of the Investigative Judgment
For the purpose of outlining the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment, this
section will break-up the task into various headings. The typology of the sanctuary
will be first analysed, then there will be an analysis of the dualistic fulfilment of the
Day of Atonement, next will be the analysis of the cleansing of the sanctuary, and
after that the analysis of Azazel.
The vertical and horizontal typology of the sanctuary and its services
The subject of the sanctuary525 and its services is critical in the study of the work of
Christ on behalf of humanity. Rodriguez puts it eloquently: “The sanctuary services
were a lesson book in salvation. For this reason, the study of the sanctuary and its
services not only clarifies the meaning of the rituals followed, but it sheds light on the
heavenly ministry of Christ”526. Christ is therefore at the centre of the fulfilment of the
sacrificial system that actually originated just after the Fall of Adam and Eve 527. But
the elaborate system that one finds later on was developed by God at Sinai528.
In focusing more on the sanctuary itself, one finds a vertical529 and a horizontal
typological significance of it. By “vertical” is meant that the earthly Old Testament
524 Holbrook 2000:996

526 Rodriguez 2000:375, emphasis mine
527 Rodriguez (2000:376; cf. 2000:387) says: “God’s gracious act in providing Adam and Eve
with garments of skin was in fact a promise of redemption; when we place Genesis 3:21 in its
theological context, the implicit death of the animal becomes a sacrificial act”.
528 Rodriguez (2000:377) explains: “What is embryonic or hinted at in Genesis 3 becomes a
full-blown theological body of ideas in the Israelite sacrificial system. Adam and Eve were already
benefitting from Christ’s sacrifice”.
529 In the Ancient Near East, it was thought that temples were duplicates of heavenly realities
of the gods’ environments – heaven and earth would meet at the temple. This concept is refined and
taught in the Hebrew Scriptures. Richard M Davidson (1989:164-165, emphasis mine) records:
“[There was] the common ancient Near Eastern belief that an earthly temple is built as a copy of a
heavenly original. A few examples of this widespread notion may be noted. In the Babylonian
Enuma elish we find a heavenly court assembly (Ubshukkinna) corresponding to an earthly temple.
According to the Code of Hammurabi the Ebabbar temple in Sippar was ‘like the heavenly dwelling.’
The famous neo-Sumerian cylinder texts portraying the exploits of Gudea of Lagash provide the
oldest and clearest example. King gudea tells how he was guided in the building of temples, and
recounts on one occasion his vision of the goddess Nina, her brother Nigirsu, and her sister Nindub.
Nina orders him to build a temple, Ningirsu shows him the heavenly temple that he is to copy, and
Nindub gives him the ‘plan’ (gishar) of the temple by which he is to build. The Semitic parallels must
not be taken as a final determiner for the Israelite conception. Nevertheless, we may allow the parallel to have
113
sanctuary had a correspondent relationship with the heavenly one530. By
“horizontal” is meant that the earthly Old Testament sanctuary was predictive,
prefigurative and historical of the plan of salvation through Christ 531. These two
dimensions of the Old Testament sanctuary typology are inseparable and
interrelated532. While the heavenly sanctuary was in existence during the Old
Testament era, it was not operational until its inauguration by Christ at His
ascension from earth. Only then did it start to operate as Christ ministers as our
High Priest in it. The earthly sanctuary ceased its operational significance when
Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system by dying on the cross – it gave way to the
antitypical, better and real sanctuary which is in heaven533.
As already noted, there is a parallel between the earthly sanctuary type and the
heavenly sanctuary antitype. SDA theologians are not in unison regarding the
nature of parallelism or correspondence between these sanctuaries. However there
are three major angles of interpretation534: (1) metaphoric parallelism would argue
against any material or physically structured sanctuary in heaven; “concrete terms
are given spiritualized meanings”; (2) literalistic parallelism would argue that there is
precise correspondence or parallelism between the earthly and the heavenly; “the
heavenly reality is construed in all aspects to be exactly like the earthly structure”; in
this case there would be a physical sanctuary in heaven in all respects identical to the
one on earth in the Old Testament; (3) conceptual-structural parallelism suggests that
the parallel between the earthly and the heavenly must be viewed as of functional
and limited-structural correspondence. The third view is the one representing
mainstream SDA theology. By “conceptual-structural” or “limited-structural” is meant
that these two sanctuaries (heavenly and earthly) correspond to a limited extent, in
“architectural concept”, and in proportion, but not in size-dimensions and material.
In this view, there is definitely a physical structure in heaven, but unlike with the
“literalistic” view, there are some differences in size-dimensions and physical
material. The heavenly sanctuary is considered to be “infinitely superior” to the
earthly one as the heavenly one is “more glorious and majestic”535. One seems to be
cautioned here, by the scantiness of details, to not be speculative, and there seems to
be a concession to some mysteriousness of this sanctuary, as there is a balance
its full comparative weight and serve as one of several indicators that the people of Israel also knew of a
heavenly-earthly correspondence”. Rodriguez (2000:382) speaks of the relationship between the earthly
and the heavenly as almost inseparable: “These two sanctuaries, the heavenly and the earthly, were
closely related. The earthly provided a point of access to the heavenly (Isa. 6:1-7). The efficacy of the
Israelite sanctuary was determined by its relationship with God’s celestial temple. Solomon was fully
aware of the connection between the two. He prayed that whenever a person made an oath in the
Temple in Jerusalem, God would hear from heaven and act (1 Kings 8:31, 32)”.
530 Gulley 2012:491
531 Davidson 1984; 1989:121-186; Gane 2007:2, 3; Holbrook 1989:8, 9; Treiyer 1989:187-198
532 Davidson 1989:149
533 See below
534 There is no research that seems to outline a timeline showing the sequence of dominance of
these views in SDA history. They all seem to have coexisted since the theology of the sanctuary was
formulated in the mid-19th century.
535 Davidson 1989:121, 186; Johnsson 1989:35; Rodriguez 2000:382, 389; Salom 1989:206-208,
210; Treiyer 1989:190, 191, 196-197
114
attempted between the physicality of the sanctuary and the infinite gloriousness of
this building in heaven. This position seems to rule out a small box-like structure
that one might automatically imagine in light of the earthly sanctuary built by
Moses. This position suggests that in as much as the Old Testament sacrifices and
priestly ministries symbolically foreshadowed Christ and his ministry, the sanctuary
itself was both a symbol and a poor and limited imitation of a sanctuary in heaven
where Christ ministers on behalf of humanity.
The dualistic fulfilment of the Day of Atonement
The eschatological death of Christ on the cross is considered the fulfilment of all the
sacrificial offerings of the Old Testament ceremonial system. The Day of Atonement
in the Levitical calendar of festivals was one of the days in which sacrificial offering
were made. Consequently, SDA eschatology views these specific sacrifices of the
Day of Atonement in the Old Testament as also typical of Christ the antitypical
sacrifice. In that way, the day of Christ’s sacrificial death was the Day of
Atonement536.
However, SDA eschatology considers the antitypical Day of Atonement as more

than the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s work. On the typical Day of Atonement, not
only was there a sacrifice made, that would be typical of Christ’s death for
humanity, but there was also a high priestly ministry within the second apartment 537
of the sanctuary538. This sanctuary priestly ministry was dependent on the blood of
the sacrifice made on the courtyard539; the blood was applied for cleansing purposes
(see below). SDA thought therefore recognizes another phase of the Day of
Atonement that is fulfilled in heaven as Christ ministers there on behalf of believing
humanity as High Priest – the antitypical Day of Atonement.
This would therefore imply a dualistic fulfilment of the Day of Atonement – the first
fulfilment at Christ’s death and the second fulfilment during Christ’s priestly
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. A question may be naturally asked as to the
nature of the relationship between these two fulfilments of the Day of Atonement.
The explanation given of the relationship of these two fulfilments is that at Christ’s
536 Dederen 1989:199-227; Gane 2007:1; Hasel 1989:86; Heppenstall 1989:235-253; Johnsson
1989:115; Rodriguez 2000:379, 381, 385. This was the judgment of God (vindication) and Satan
(condemnation) at the cross. All other judgments in Scripture, pre-Cross and post-Cross, come from
and depend on this one; the eschatological judgments of God are a mere “outworking” and result of
this one; this is the central-cosmic judgment (Moskala 2004:146, 147; Webster 2000:931).
538 Gulley (2012:489, 492) shows concern for what he sees as a popular trend to not take
seriously the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven: “Little space is given in many theological systems
to Christ’s priestly ministry in heaven’s sanctuary, even though it spans two millennia, and the book
of Hebrews and Revelation documents it. The sanctuary has meaning that demands exploration….
Most Christians rejoice in the death and resurrection of Christ, but do not give much thought to what
the risen Christ is doing in heaven. It is natural to glory in the Cross, for it means our salvation. But
the Cross doesn’t only forgive sins; it also makes victory over sin possible because of what Christ is
doing for sinners in heaven’s sanctuary”.
539 Jesus is both King and Priest because of His vicarious and victorious death on the cross.
These are His post-resurrection ministries (Gulley 2012:482-488).
115
death atonement was supplied, but in the heavenly priestly ministry atonement is
applied. Gulley argues this:
His subsequent ministry is not incompatible with His death, but actually
ministers the benefits of His death. This is true in both the holy and most
holy places in heaven’s sanctuary…. Calvary unites Christ’s finished
work on earth…with His unfinished work in heaven…and so holds
together what Christ has done for humans with what He is doing for
humans…. Redemption took place on the Cross, while representation takes
place in heaven. Redemption-representation are the two sides of atonement
for humans…. But the ministry adds nothing to the Cross, nor does it imply
that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient or incomplete…. Rather, the ministry
brings the benefits of Calvary to humans…. Calvary is the fulcrum upon
which the priestly ministry turns540.
The atonement on the cross is not considered as incomplete or insufficient, on the

contrary it is considered as complete and sufficient. It is its application that is not
achieved at the cross, otherwise there would be no need for any priestly ministry of
Christ in which he would figuratively use or apply His supplied blood sacrifice as
the typical priests did in the Old Testament.
The Typical Cleansing of the Sanctuary
Before one analyses the “cleansing” of the sanctuary, an important detail of

understanding in SDA eschatology is that Christ’s priestly ministry in heaven is
divided into two phases, just as the earthly priests had two apartment ministries, the
holy and the most holy places, the high priest being the only one who could minister
in the second541. These two phases have in common the intercessory work of Christ
on behalf of believers, and the priestly ministry ends with the close of human
probation542. The first phase is only intercessory, and the second one adds the
element of “judgment”543. The Day of Atonement is therefore eschatologically
540 Gulley 2012:494-495, emphasis mine. Rodriguez (2000:375, emphasis mine; cf. Duffie
1989:346; cf. Gane 2007:2) proposes: “The NT’s emphasis on the finality of Christ’s atoning death has
led some to conclude that His work for our salvation came to an end at the cross…. [But], as our high
priest, Christ is ministering the benefits of His sacrifice to those who draw near to Him, a ministry as essential
to our salvation as His atoning death”. Gulley (2012:492, emphasis mine) argues the need for both the
sacrificial and the priestly aspects of Christ’s work: “It needs to be remembered that in the earthly
sanctuary the work at the altar was always followed by work in the two apartments. So an offering on the
altar of burnt offering in the outer court didn’t complete the ministration for sin. After the sacrifice on the
altar, the blood of the offering (or a portion eaten by the priest) was taken into the hold place and sprinkled on
the altar of incense before the veil in front of the most holy place. Once a year, no the Day of Atonement
(judgment), the blood was taken by the high priest into the most holy place. So the ministration for sin
was the sacrifice on the courtyard altar, but that sacrifice was the basis for ministry in both apartments of the
sanctuary. The sacrifice was finished at the altar, but the benefits of that finished sacrifice needed to be
ministered from the two apartments of the sanctuary”.
541 Gulley 2012:482
542 Gulley 2012:495
543 Veloso 1989:197. Gulley (2012:499, emphasis mine) recognizes this interpretation of
Christ’s 2-phased priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as evidence of the Spirit leading as
Christ promised in Scripture – it is a unique contribution of SDA theology: “The first function of
116
fulfilled at both the death of Christ and at the second phase of His priestly ministry, not
in the first priestly phase of ministry.
The Ark of the Covenant544 which is equivalent to the throne of God was located in
the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary. If Christ ascended onto God’s throne
when He left earth, one would automatically assume that He entered into the second
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. This challenges the SDA view that Christ
ministers in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until many years later,
1844 CE, when He starts the second phase of the second apartment. In as much as it
has been noted that the sanctuary vertical typology is limited structurally, there is
still a two-apartment sanctuary in heaven. To resolve this apparent inconsistency of
SDA eschatology with Scripture, Gulley explains that God’s throne is shown to be
movable in Scripture. The throne of God was in the first apartment until moved into
the second when the second phase of Christ’s priestly ministry began545.
Christ’s new ministry in heaven was to send the Holy Spirit to be His administrator on earth, and one
of the Spirit’s assignments is to guide Christians into all truth, to discover in Scripture meaning not seen
before. This second phase of Christ’s ministry is an example of this illumination”.
544 The chest of gold with the Ten Commandments in it, covered on top with what was called
the Mercy Seat and 2 angels with wings facing each other. See Appendix III, Picture B
545 Gulley (2012:492-493, emphasis mine; cf. Rodriguez 2000:389, 391, 394, 412-417) explains:
“In the…sanctuary layout, the journey from altar (Calvary) is completed at the throne. The throne
was housed in the most holy place, so did Christ have to wait until He began His work in the second
apartment before arriving at the throne? The biblical data examined…says He sat down at the throne
immediately upon His ascension. There is no wait…. Some translations tell us that ‘he entered the
Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption’ (Heb. 9:12). ‘Most
holy place’ is given in the New International Version and New King James Version translation of the
Hebrew [presumably “Greek” was intended] ta hagia, whereas the King James Version and New
American Standard translate it as the ‘holy place.’ The Hebrew [presumably “Greek” was intended]
noun ta hagia is the plural of holy, literally meaning ‘the holies’ or the whole Sanctuary, or ‘holy
places’ (ESV), not just one inner room. Which is it, the most holy place, the holy place, or the whole
sanctuary? Here we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Hebrew 10:19-20 says Jesus opened
up a new way for us to inaugurate (enkainizō) His ministry in heaven. In the Septuagint (LLX), the
Greek version of the Old Testament, enkainizō is a ‘technical term for the sanctuary (Num. 7:10, 11, 84,
88),’ and it ‘implies that Christ at His ascension entered the heavenly sanctuary to inaugurate its services, not
to commence His day of atonement ministry.’ Scripture portrays the inauguration in the holy place as the
throne was in front of the seven candlesticks (Rev. 4:5; 5:1-14). This means the throne is movable….
Daniel and Ezekiel were contemporaries. Compare Daniel’s description [Daniel 7:9-10] with Ezekiel’s
description of God’s moveable throne: both have wheels, moved, and looked like fire (Ez. 1:4-28). So we can
safely conclude that Christ is at the throne throughout both phases of His heavenly ministry, from inauguration
until completion, and so the movable throne takes Him from the first phase into the second phase”. As regards
the phrase “right hand of God”, early SDA leaders argued that this was a figurative depiction. In an
apologetic response, JN Andrews (1853:146, 147), in the Review and Herald, argued that the phrase,
“sitting down at the right hand of God”, does not signify a geographical or postural position: “So far
as the idea of sitting down is concerned, it would be equally proper to represent him as standing on
the Father’s right hand. Acts 7:56”. He continued: “If the Saviour is at ‘the right hand of the power of
God’ when descending from heaven, as He testifies respecting Himself [Matt.26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke
22:69], then he certainly can be at the Father’s right hand, in both the holy places”. Alwyn P Salom
explains the phrase “right hand of God” in the book of Hebrews, as representing the claim that Christ
has been ministering in the presence of God since the ascension (Salom 1989:210). Walter F Specht
(1989:156) concurs in that the exaltation of Christ to God’s “right hand” means that Christ was given a
position of power, honor, dignity and authority: “The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God
117
The notion of the “cleansing” of the sanctuary was of this second phase or apartment
priestly ministry; this was the Day of Atonement best described in the book of
Leviticus chapter 16. There were three purposes of the Day of Atonement in the Old
Testament: (1) the final cleansing or vindication of the people through the sanctuary,
(2) the judgment of Israel by God, and (3) the vindication of God and His sanctuary.
These find eschatological fulfillment in Christ’s priestly ministry.
Firstly, Leviticus 16 teaches that God cleansed546 or vindicated the sanctuary and
thereby indirectly cleansing or vindicating His people547. This final548 cleansing
however should not be understood as to mean that God had not fully forgiven those
who had confessed their sins through sacrifice. Focus should be on purgation rather
than on forgiveness on this Day of Atonement549. Rodriguez says: “It is the sanctuary
and the altars which are purified during the Day of Atonement and not the people
[but they were merely] benefited by the cleansing of God’s dwelling”550. It appears
that “cleansing” has the inseparable ideas of “forgiveness” and “purgation”.
Secondly, God required that on this day everyone humbles themselves, thus
showing “dependence on God and their desire to preserve the covenant relationship
with the Lord”551. God the Judge, “evaluated whether or not they had humbled
themselves…, depending on His cleansing power and forgiving grace (Lev. 23:29)”.
Whoever did not humble self, through pride and self-reliance, was found guilty and
was no longer recognized as one of God’s people. Such a person was considered to
have “rejected God’s atoning grace” and nullified the benefit of the daily services552.
It is in this way that the Day of Atonement is also understood as a day of judgment –
vindication for those who are righteous and condemnation for those who are
ungodly.
Thirdly, the storage of sin in the sanctuary was considered a temporary measure.
What makes it temporary is the fact that sin and the holiness of God’s presence have
no fellowship with each other. Rodriguez argues: “The Day of Atonement
proclaimed that holiness and sin, purity and impurity, had nothing in common….
indicates not only honor but also authority. It means that He shares the throne of the universe (Rev
3:21). His exaltation was enthronement as a partner in the government of the universe…. He was
enthroned with power and glory, not only as a Jewish Messiah but also as a cosmic ruler and judge”.
546 The “cleansing of the sanctuary” is understood to be possible and necessary because
“through the daily services the sin[s] and [impurities] of the Israelites were transferred to the
sanctuary” (Gane 1997:183; 2007:3; Hasel 1989:120, 121; Rodriguez 1986:169-197; 1989:130, 138;
2000:386; Shea 1986:151). Rodriguez (2000:385) suggests: “Sin was transferred to the sacrifice, to the
priest, and to the sanctuary; but they all remained holy”. It was on the Day of Atonement that their
(Israelites) cleansing was made final.
547 Hasel 1989:105, 107, 108; Rodriguez 1986:546, 547; 2000:386
548 The first being when an individual confessed his or her sins through sacrifice
549 Gulley 2012:498. Rodriguez (2000:387 [emphasis mine]; cf. cf. Gane 2007:9; Hasel 1989:120,
121; cf. Shea 1986:165, 166) argues: “In the daily services the sin/impurity of the penitent was
transferred, through a sacrificial substitute, to the sanctuary, and the person was left at peace with God….
[On the Day of Atonement] those who kept their daily faith relationship with the Lord were preserved”.
551 Rodriguez 1986:546-548; 2000:386
552 Gane 2007:4; Rodriguez 1986:546-548; 2000:387
118
Sin [was] permitted by God to remain temporarily in His presence in order to
preserve those whom He loved”553. The cleansing of the sanctuary becomes a
proclamation of God’s holiness and in that way a vindication on God for His
forgiveness of sinners554.
The Antitypical Cleansing of the Sanctuary
Analysis of the typical cleansing of the sanctuary is insufficient if its eschatological

fulfilment is not clearly elaborated on. It is this antitypical cleansing of the sanctuary
that is termed the Investigative Judgment. The key questions to be answered here
are: (1) Who is the judge? (2) Who is judged? (3) Where is this judgment? (4) What is
the purpose of this judgment? (5) When is this judgment?
On question one the answer is that both God the Father and God the Son are judges.
God the Father is the one who presides555 over the Investigative Judgment, but it is
God the Son who decides556 the fate of each individual. The Father gives the right to
judge to Christ. Gulley articulates:
The King-Priest is given authority over the judgment process (in heaven) and
authority to execute the judgment verdict in judgments. So Christ has the
authority in the process and execution (krima, verdict at end of judging
process)…. Although the Father is equally able to judge fairly, in His
fairness He gives the judgment work to Jesus because He lived a human
life and was judged…. Not even the Father and the Spirit, though
equally loving and just, can contribute to these aspects of the sin
problem as effectively as the God-Man Jesus Christ557.
This situation where both Father and Son have active roles might be indicative of the
idea that Jesus is sharing the throne with His Father.
On question two it is those who have professed to have a saving relationship with
Jesus who are judged, as also indicated by 1 Peter chapter 4 verse 17 where the
writer says judgment must begin in the house of God, or the believers558. The
rationale for this conclusion will be further discussed below when the SDA
interpretation of Daniel chapter 8 is analysed. It should however be mentioned here
that SDA eschatology does not view judgment559 as necessarily condemnation, but
553 2000:387; cf. 1986:546-547

554 Gane 2007:3-4
555 Hasel (2000:840; cf. Hasel 2000:840; cf. Moskala 2004:139, 140; cf. Shea 1986:325) argues:
“The first phase of the last judgment has God the Father as its judge…. God the Father is the judge in
the Pre-Advent Investigative Judgment. Christ does not judge at that time”.
556 Moskala 2004:151; Paulsen 1992:275, 291; Specht 1989:156. Jesus is also an Advocate (Hasel
2000:840; Moskala 2004:142; Wade 2000:280, 281).

557 Gulley 2012:497, emphasis mine
558 Gane 1997:183; 2007:5; Hasel 2000:842; Veloso 1989:192
559 Judgment may have 1 of 2 meanings - dual aspects or dynamics. It can positively mean
vindication, resulting in deliverance, but can also negatively mean condemnation, resulting in punishment.
Judgment is not essentially negative (Hasel 1989:120; 2000:816, 817; cf. 2000:844; cf. Shea 1992:144,
149).
119
also vindication; judgment may be vindication or condemnation depending on the
subject’s relationship with Christ. So the judgment of the saints is merely the
vindication of the saints resulting in deliverance.
On question three the answer is that the Investigative Judgment occurs in heaven.
That is where the eschatological sanctuary is located, and that is where Christ
ministers as King-Priest. This understanding has already been discussed above in
reference to issues of typology.
On question four, there are four objectives of the Investigative Judgment. (1) The
revelation of who goes into eternal life is for the heavenly beings to see God’s justice
and grace. The recording system of heaven, symbolized by books 560, is edited in the
removal of the confessed and forgiven sins of the saints 561. (2) The righteous are
vindicated before the on-looking heavenly beings – this judgment is not concerned
about condemnation but vindication562. (3) This judgment vindicates God’s
character against the accusations of Satan – the judgment reveals Him as just and fair
in His dealings with humanity and the Cosmic Conflict563. (4) The cleansing of the
sanctuary itself is an objective – the sanctuary is cleansed through the removal of the
record of sin as needed by the understanding that holiness and sin have no
fellowship with each other564.
On the question five, regarding the timing of this judgment, it may be better to make
reference to an elongated discussion565. Essentially, however, SDA eschatology says
the Investigative Judgment began in heaven in October 22 of 1844 CE. The basis of
this date will be explained later. This judgment process is still going on in heaven
until the close of probation. No revelation in Scripture exists as to how long it will
take and therefore there is no date that can be calculated. At the close of the
Investigative Judgment, probation closes for humanity and soon after the Parousia
occurs.
Azazel
There were two goats that were contrastive to each other on the Day of Atonement
in Leviticus 16:7-10. The first was “for the Lord” (used as a sin-offering) and the
second was “for Azazel” (sent alive into the wilderness). SDA eschatology
identifies the goat for Azazel with Satan, and the goat for the Lord with Christ.
Azazel is seen as a personal being based on the parallelism between “for the Lord”
and “for Azazel”. It is further reasoned that Azazel only comes into the picture after
the cleansing by blood of the sanctuary – this goat does not shed its blood for use in
the sanctuary. Again it is seen that the phrase “to carry iniquity away” to the
wilderness does not have expiatory overtones - only here does one find it followed
by a destination (a solitary land). The goat is therefore seen as not part of the
560 See Appendix V

561 Gane 2007:7; Hasel 2000:844
562 Hasel 2000:844; Moskala 2004:152; Wade 2000:280, 281
563 Gane 2007:8; Hasel 2000:844
564 Hasel 2000:844, 845; cf. Treiyer 1986:228-255
565 See Appendix IV
120
expiatory rituals of the Day of Atonement. The goat does not vicariously “bear” the
sins of the Israelites566. This Day of Atonement revealed God’s power over Satan, by
the placing of sin onto its originator. God is vindicated by the distancing and
removal of sin away from Himself567.
Just as the high priest in Leviticus 16:20-21 would leave the sanctuary after its blood-
cleansing, and then place his hands (confessing/transferring the sins from the
cleansed sanctuary) onto the goat for Azazel, to be sent away into the wilderness, so
too will Christ as High Priest close his ministry in heaven, ending human probation,
and thereafter come out of the sanctuary down to earth – Parousia - to figuratively
imprison the Devil for a 1,000 years and afterward destroy him by fire568.
The interpretation of key texts on the theology of the Investigative Judgment
The researcher considers it important that one studies the theology of the
Investigative Judgment also in light of how SDA thinkers biblically arrive at their
conclusions. Whether the conclusions are true or false is another matter.
Therefore, this section of the chapter aims to analyse SDA principles of apocalyptic
interpretation, and the SDA use of the critical passages on this judgment view in the
books of Leviticus, Daniel, Hebrews and Revelation.
The relevant principles of apocalyptic interpretation
There are specific principles that are utilized in biblical interpretation, particularly in
the apocalyptic sections of Scripture. The researcher has located 6 of them.
The first principle of apocalyptic interpretation is that God is omniscient. His

omniscience includes knowledge of the future. The principle is not just that God
knows the future but that He also reveals it in Scripture so that it is knowable to the
reader and student. The predictions found in Scripture are not pseudo but are
genuinely foretold events; they are not historical or past events written as if they are
future569.
The second one says that apocalyptic predictions, unlike classical predictions, tend
not to have preconditions. The sovereignty and foreknowledge of God hold
dominance. It is classical predictions that tend to have dependency on human
response. Only in a few exceptional passages where God’s covenant with Israel is
primary would apocalyptic predictions have conditionality570.
The utilization of the biblical historicist571 or continuous-historical method of

interpretation is the third principle. Johnsson acknowledges that other 572 methods
566 Hasel 1989:115, 118, 119; Rodriguez 1986:546, 547; 2000:387

567 Rodriguez 2000:387; cf. Gane 2007:4; cf. Rodriguez 1986:546, 547
568 Rodriguez 2000:387; cf. Nam 2000; cf. Webster 2000
569 Canale 2000:113, 114; Johnsson 2000:791; Paulien 2003:23, 24, 33, 34
570 Johnsson 2000:792-796; Paulien 2003:28; Strand 1992:21
571 This approach (see chapter 2 for discussion on historicism) is based in SDA thought on
various texts where there is a sequential development of predicted events such as in Daniel 2 and 7-12
(with signpost words like “after”, “first”, “second”, etc, leading to the establishing of God’s kingdom)
121
do exist but that this is the one deemed most consistent with biblical evidence: “In
contrast with other modes of exposition, historicism – though sometimes marred by
diverse, sensational, speculative, and contradictory approaches – appears as the
most valid hermeneutical approach to the biblical apocalypse”573. Biblical
historicism sees apocalyptic prophecies portrayed in a “cosmic range that begins in
the writer’s own day and takes the reader down to the end” to the “establishment of
God’s eternal kingdom”574.
SDA apocalyptic interpretation also has what it calls the “year-day principle”, “year-
day thinking” or “year-day equivalency” based on Hebrew patterns of thought.
This is the fourth principle. This simply means that whenever biblical apocalyptic
mentions a “day” in a symbolic way, that “day” will in reality workout as a
“year”575. It has been argued by Paulien that this principle cannot be biblically
supported through exegesis, but can be supported through a systematic approach, as
it shows to be a pattern of the Hebrew mind. He refers to a number of Jewish
cultural practices and laws, an example being the sabbatical years576.
As the fifth principle, SDA interpretation claims to use Scripture as a self-interpreter

of symbols, and not reading sensational and unmentioned meanings into the
symbolic details. Johnsson argues against sensationalism: “It would be
presumptuous and probably unproductive...for modern interpreters to advance
meanings that have not been revealed. In fact, fanciful interpretations often have
attracted – occasionally justifiably – the opprobrium of scholars who reject the
historicist approach”577. This statement encourages the contextual interpretation of
texts. While keeping Scripture as the beginning place and final authority, it is
recognized that sometimes an author explains the meaning of the utilized symbol in
the very passage studied. But sometimes the writer uses an earlier author’s imagery,
and even the writer’s own historical background comes to play578.
It is also recognized that apocalyptic writers at times tend to juxtapose their visions,
going ahead of their topics and thereby repeat themselves. This is the sixth
principle. This characteristic is termed “recapitulation” or “progressive parallelism”.
Johnsson argues: “the structure of the book of Revelation suggests that sequences
like the seven seals and seven trumpets are parallel and take the reader from
apostolic times to the second advent of Christ”579. This principle of repetition
implies that one should rule out the idea of “a continuous or straight-line reading”
and Revetion 12-14 (Johnsson 2000:796, 797; Paulien 2006:253, 254; Shea 1986:165-182; Strand 1992:13;).
Not every text in the apocalyptic books is considered to be within such sequential developments.
572 Preterism, Idealism and Futurism which are defined in chapter 2 of this research
573 2000:797; cf. Doukhan 2002:15
574 Bennett 1986:346; Johnsson 2000:797; Paulien 2003:15-20; 2006:249, 250, 268; Strand 1992:5
575 Gordon 2000:73-80; Johnsson 2000:798; LaRondelle 2000:875; Schwantes 1986:463; Shea
1992:67-110, 139; 2001:89

576 http://www.atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/spirit_prophecy_jon_paulien.mp3, accessed on
the 8 of January 2013

th
577 2000:799; cf. Paulien 2006:256; cf. Strand 1992:22, 26
578 Johnsson 2000:798, 799; Paulien 2006:256, 257
579 2000:799
122
through the chapters since they do not represent chronological events in
fulfilment580.
The above six principles are the ones that govern apocalyptic interpretation for SDA
theology.
Texts in the book of Leviticus
The book of Leviticus is very relevant to SDA eschatology with regard to the
Investigative Judgment. The chapter that matters most is 16 – the Day of
Atonement. This chapter is considered to be structured in a chiasm 581. The
following is the proposed structure according to Rodriguez 582:
“And Yahweh said to Moses”
A Aaron should not go into the most holy place any time he wishes 16:2
B Aaron’s sacrificial victims and special vestments 16:3-4
C Sacrificial victims provided by the people 16:5
D Aaron’s bull, goat for Yahweh, goat for Azazel 16:6-10
E Aaron sacrifices his bull as a sin-offering 16:11-14
F Community’s goat is sacrificed as a sin-offering
16:15
G Make atonement 16:16-19
G’ Atonement is finished 16:20a
F’ Community’s goat for Azazel sent to the
wilderness 16:20b-22
E’ Aaron’s closing activities 16:23-25
D’ Goat for Azazel, Aaron’s bull, goat for sin-offering 16:26-28
C’ People rest and humble themselves 16:29-31
B’ Anointed priest officiates wearing special garments 16:32-33
A’ Anointed priest makes atonement once a year 16:34
“As the Lord commanded Moses”
The above chiastic structure makes the atonement the central focus of the chapter.
580 Johnsson 2000:799; Strand 1992:4, 5; Webster 2000:928

581 Gulley (2012:490) explains the word chiasm: “A chiasm is a corresponding mirror
inversion, with the most important event in the middle”.
582 1996:283; cf. Gulley 2012:490
123
Texts in the book of Daniel
For an analysis overview of how SDA eschatology interprets Daniel, see Appendix
IV. It will suffice here to just mention that the critical chapters in the book of Daniel
for the Investigative Judgment are 7 to 9. In chapter 7 where the notions of pre-
advent and investigation are partly derived from, verses 9-14 receive greater focus.
In chapter 8 where the link is made with the Leviticus sacrificial system and the Day
of Atonement, verses 9-14 get the most attention. In chapter 9 which when linked
with chapter 8 there is a calculable timeline of events leading to 1844 CE, verses 24-
27 are most relevant.
Texts in the book of Hebrews
In the book of Hebrews 9, the Investigative Judgment theology finds itself

challenged by some translations that make Christ’s location since His ascension the
Most Holy place583, and other scholars584 would argue that this chapter of Hebrews
finds the fulfilment of the Day of Atonement limited to Christ’s sacrificial death and
first entrance into heaven as High Priest.
It is acknowledged in SDA scholarship that Hebrews chapter 9 makes references to

the Day of Atonement sacrifice (Hebrews 9:25, 26 and 10:1-10), the objective of its
mention being “to show the superiority of the sacrifice of our Lord”585. To show that
the Day of Atonement per se is not the subject of the chapter, SDA scholarship points
to the fact that other types of sacrifices are mentioned in that chapter. The “red
heifer” (Hebrews 9:13) is an example of sacrifices mentioned that are not associated
with the Day of Atonement, and also the reference to the day of inauguration of both
the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries586. The focus is on the all-comprehensive
and superior blood sacrifice of Christ and not on the Day of Atonement per se.
Hebrews chapter 9 is interpreted to portray Christ as entering for the first time into
the heavenly sanctuary, after obtaining eternal redemption for humanity. This
inauguration signals the commencement of Christ’s “application of the merits” of his
death. The inauguration is not so much of the sanctuary as it is of Christ’s ministry,
for the heavenly sanctuary pre-exists the earthly one587.
Texts in the book of Revelation
Revelation chapter 5 depicts Christ’s inauguration or enthronement as King-Priest in

the heavenly sanctuary. He qualifies based on His life and sacrifice. Rodriguez
argues for this interpretation: “One of the purposes of this vision is to throw light on
the enthronement of Christ as king and high priest in the heavenly
sanctuary…because He died to pay the ransom for the world (verses 9, 12)…. The
583 See above under “The Typical Cleansing of the Sanctuary”

584 See next chapter
585 Kiesler 1989:69, 70; Rodriguez 2000:394; Salom 1989:214, 215
586 Rodriguez 2000:391; cf. Davidson 2002; cf. Gane 2007:4; cf. Salom 1989:214
587 Gane 2007:4; Rodriguez 2000:391, 392
124
Son is enthroned as king and high priest. From this point on in Revelation, the Lamb
is associated with God on His throne”588. Doukhan affirms Rodriguez:
Yohanan sees Yeshua standing at the right of ‘him who [is sitting] on
the throne,’ an image that closely resembles Peter’s description during
Shavuot (Pentecost), the Feast of Weeks, concerning the Messiah’s
enthronement after His death…. This scene from the Apocalypse
follows the traditional ritual of enthronement found throughout
ancient Near Eastern culture. It was customary for the new king to
read the covenant that bound him to his suzerain out loud…. The
prophet of the Apocalypse interprets the enthronement of Yeshua as an
inauguration of the sanctuary589.
Kingship and priesthood are bound together.
Chapter 11 verses 1 and 2 are interpreted to refer to the Investigative Judgment

especially through the verb “measure” and the objects of measurement which are the
temple, its altar and those who worship in it. It is only the saints that are measured
by divine instruction, and not the unbelievers590. The measuring can mean two
simultaneous things: it can imply “evaluation” and in that way “judgment” (cf.
Matt.7:2), or it can also imply preservation/restoration/rebuilding (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2;
Ezek. 41:13, 15; Zech. 2:2:8). Therefore it is here interpreted as both – the sanctuary
being “evaluated in heaven is at the same time being restored on earth, establishing
thus a connection between what goes on in heaven and its impact on earth”. The
truth of the sanctuary and Christ’s ministry is being restored on earth because the
“beast” (Rev. 13:5-6; cf. Dan. 7:25; 8:12) has attacked the sanctuary of God for 1260
days/years591.
The relevant phrases of Revelation 14 verses 6-7 are (1) the “everlasting gospel” and
(2) “the judgment has come”. The point is that the everlasting gospel consists also of
the judgment message, the two being inseparable because salvation includes and
implies judgment592. This judgment in verse 7 is interpreted as the Investigative
Judgment593 – it is current and going on in heaven as the message is still being
preached on earth by the angel which represents God’s movement on earth through
believers. This text will be better analyzed later in this research as to how it is
interpreted.
The entire book has visions in a sanctuary setting 594. As one progressively reads the
book of Revelation, it is as if one is taken for a walk through the sanctuary. Ranko
Stefanovic says: “The structure of these introductory sanctuary scenes indicates two
definite lines of progression. First, there is a complete circle moving from earth to
588 2000:392; cf. Gulley 2012:493; cf. Stefanovic [Ranko] 2002:33, 206-207
589 Doukhan 2002:55-56, emphasis mine
590 Paulsen 1992:282; Stefanovic 2002:338-343
592 Gulley 2012:491, 497-498; cf. Doukhan 2002:93, 123-124
593 Gulley 2012:490; Paulsen 1992:283-284
594 Davidson 1992:99-130; Doukhan 2002:14, 52; Paulsen 1992:275-294; Stefanovic 2002:30, 339
125
heaven and then back to earth again. Then, there is a definite progression from the
inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary to intercession, to judgment, to the cessation
of the sanctuary function, and finally to its absence” 595. The book is filled with
sanctuary imagery as it lays down the plan of salvation for humanity.
The historical theology of the Investigative Judgment
Historical theology is essential in the understanding of any systematic theology.

Better appreciation and understanding of the Investigative Judgment theology, even
for one who disagrees with it, is accomplished through the study of the history
behind its origin and development.
This section of the chapter aims to accomplish this through the historical analysis of
the Millerite movement and its theology, and the historical analysis of the
developing theology of the Investigative Judgment.
A historical overview of the Millerite Movement and its theology
The father of the Millerite movement596 was William Miller. He was born on
February 15th of 1782 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts – the oldest of sixteen children597. It
was not long after accepting the Christian faith that he was confronted and
challenged by his former skeptical associates who referred to alleged biblical
inconsistencies and mysteries as bases of their disbelief in Scripture598. Having
requested time from them to study Scripture and prove its self-consistency, he
formed his own “rules of interpretation”599 and said: “Give me time, and I will
harmonize all those apparent contradictions to my own satisfaction, or I will be a
deist still”600. He then pursued his purpose of proving Scripture’s self-consistency,
putting away commentaries and using marginal references and concordances as his
only tools601.
He soon came to conclusions contrary to his previous beliefs, like the one that there
would be a “spiritual reign of Christ – a temporal millennium before the end of the
world, and the Jews return”602. He became a premillennialist603, meaning the
595 2002:31
596 Although proponents of this movement published many tracts and pamphlets to be sent
throughout the world, the imminent advent message (not in an identical prophetic interpretation)
was also proclaimed by others in other parts of the globe, independently but concurrently with the
Millerite Movement (Gordon 2000:11; Loughborough 1905:101-105; White [Ellen] 1911:357). An
example of this would be that of Joseph Wolff who was a German that travelled throughout much of
Europe proclaiming the soon appearing of Christ, to be just a few years different from the
expectation-date set by William Miller. Another example was in England. There the coming of Christ
was proclaimed by many ministers from as early as 1826. Robert Winter, one of the ministers,
preached in England around 1842. In South America, a man by the name of Lacunza echoed the
urgent advent message (White [Ellen] 1911:359-362).
597 Bliss 1853:2; cf. Gordon 2000:11-12; cf. White [James] 1868:27-28
598 Bliss 1853:69-71; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:319, 320
599 See Appendix VII
600 Bliss 1853:68
601 Bliss 1853:69-71; cf. White [Ellen]1911:319-320
602 Bliss 1853:72; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:321, 323
126
Parousia occurs before the millennium that is spent by the righteous in heaven. He
also felt a need to study the apocalyptic books of Scripture604. He came to a
conclusion after about two years: “I was thus brought, in 1818, at the close of my two
years' study of the Scriptures, to the solemn conclusion, that in about twenty five
years from that time all the affairs of our present state would be wound up”605. He
developed the view, based on his study of Daniel chapter 8 (the prophecy of 2300
days) that the world would end in 1844 CE. No specific date of month and day,
beyond that, was ever calculated by him606. Evidence suggests that he began his
public preaching ministry in the Autumn of 1831, attracting thousands of listeners
and adherents607.
The adherents of Miller’s view of the Parousia experienced struggle with doubt and
uncertainty after the passing of their set date of October 22, 1844. Joseph Bates, a
man recognized as one of the three principal founders608 of the SDA church, writes:
“The effect of this disappointment can be realized only by those who experienced
it”609. This appears to be a disappointment 610 bigger than the description of words.
603 Millennialism is discussed in chapter 4 of this research

604 Bliss 1853:75; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:320
605 Bliss 1853:76; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:327-329
606 The calculation of month and day was done by proponents of his message as he was
reluctant to do this himself. Bliss (1853:180) records Miller’s words: “I have never, for the space of
more than twenty-three years, had any other time preached or published by me; I have never fixed on any
month, day, or hour, during that period; I have never found any mistake in reckoning, summing up,
or miscalculation.” Evidence suggests that he was initially expecting Christ to come at some time
between 21st March 1843 and 21st March 1844 (Bliss 1853:172; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:328, 329). After the
passing of another date in April, the last and final date was set to be 22 October 1844 (Tuesday) by
Samuel S Snow, based on his study of typology that implicated the tenth day of the seventh month, in
the Jewish calendar. Miller eventually accepted this calculation together with a great majority of the
movement, inspiring even greater revival than the first date (Bates 1868:299; Bliss 1853:270, 271;
Knight 2000:52, 53; Timm 2006:5). William Miller confessed his numerical errors after
disappointment, but also stated that if he were to live again with the same evidences that he had,
before the disappointment, he would have done nothing differently (Bliss 1853:256). Bliss (1853:277;
cf. White606 1911:407) records: “although I have been twice disappointed, I am not yet cast down or
discouraged. God has been with me in spirit, and has comforted me. I have now much more evidence
that I do believe in God's word. My mind is perfectly calm, and my hope in the coming of Christ is as
strong as ever.” Miller died on December 20th, 1869 (in his 68th year of age), reportedly happy in the
Lord, and still in the hope of the Coming of Christ. Miller never accepted any more date proposals of
the Second Coming (Bliss 1853:384, 379).
607 Bliss 1853:80-82, 92, 98; cf. White [Ellen] 1911:329-331
608 They are Joseph Bates, James White and Ellen White
609 1868:300; cf. Gordon 2000:12
610 Ellen G White, the SDA prophetic voice, suggests a parallel between the disappointment-
experience of the Millerites with that of Christ’s disciples. She however considers that of the disciples
greater in depth. Christ’s disciples were certain that Jesus was about to become a political king and
deliver Israel from its oppressors. They were very happy when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.
Although they were fulfilling God’s will and purpose, disappointment was certain because of their
lack of prophetic understanding. They became bitterly disappointed when Jesus died. Only during
post-resurrection with retrospection did they understand that all had been foretold by prophecy. “In
like manner Miller and his associates fulfilled prophecy and gave a message which Inspiration had
foretold should be given to the world” (White [Ellen] 1911:404, 405). James White (1868:229, 230)
made the statement: “Disappointment by no means proves that God has no hand in the guidance of
his people. It should lead them to correct their errors, but it should not lead them to cast away their
127
In response to the great disappointment, the Millerites broke into about six groups of
people. (1) The first group is of those who made the choice to give up all faith in
Scripture and in religion611. (2) The second group is of those who began to see the
whole Millerite movement as of the devil; some of them seem to have returned to
their Christian denominations 612. (3) The third group consisted of those who
considered both the calculations and the expected event as correct; they argued that
Christ really had come but in a spiritual way in the life of those who were
believers613. (4) The fourth group was the largest in comparison. It consisted of
those who said that the mathematical calculations giving October 22 nd 1844 as the
Parousia date were incorrect, but that a divine hand had led the movement and that
the Parousia was still soon to occur. Evidence suggests that William Miller was part
of this group614. (5) The fifth group only considered the mathematical calculations as
incorrect and continued with date-setting that led to further disappointment. This
research considers groups 4 and 5 as separate although other sources combine them
regardless of the fact that not everyone that considered the calculations as erroneous
continued with date-setting615. (6) The sixth group viewed the calculations as
accurate, but the expected event as inaccurate. It was not to be Christ coming down
to earth, but Christ moving from the holy to the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary. The SDA church comes from this group616.
A historical overview of the origin and development of the theology of the

Investigative Judgment
As noted above, the SDA church developed from the post-Millerite group which
considered the mathematical calculations leading to October 22, 1844, as accurate but
that only the expected event was wrong. The date for the Parousia is not revealed in
Scripture, but the date of the transition of Christ’s priestly ministry from the holy
into the most holy place is the one brought to view in Daniel chapter 8 verse 14 – the
cleansing or justifying of the sanctuary. It has also been observed above that the
investigative judgment is an interpretation of this cleansing of the sanctuary.
However, this pre-advent judgment interpretation of Daniel chapter 8 verse 14 did
not develop overnight or by one person.
Hiram Edson was the first known person to get what some may call insight into the
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This happened on October 23, 1844, the day
after the disappointment. He was travelling to encourage others when, after prayer,
a flash of insight allegedly entered his mind, leading him to understand that the
sanctuary to be cleansed was not on earth but in heaven. He then entered into a
confidence in God”. These words show that the founders of the SDA church did not consider their
disappointment as a result of emotionalism, sensationalism or alarmism.
611 Bates 1868:300; Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12
612 Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12; White [Ellen] 1911:407; White [James] 1868:182, 265. The
Millerite movement was not however a denomination as there was no structure and no membership.
613 Bliss 1853:293; Gordon 2000:12; Vyhmeister 2000:3- 4
614 Bates 1868:300; Bliss 1853:293; White [James] 1868:194, 199
615 Bates 1868:300; Gordon 2000:12
616 Bates 1868:300, 301; Crosier 1846:37-44; Edson 1921:4, 5; Gordon 2000:12; Knight 2000:62,
63; Maxwell 1989:132; Rodriguez 2000:405; White [James] 1868:141.
128
biblical study of this with Owen RL Crosier and FB Kahn. Ellen G White 617, earlier
known as Ellen G Harmon, allegedly arrived at the same conclusion through a
vision she had soon afterward in mid-February of 1845, without any communication
between her (in Maine) and Edson’s team (in New York). Edson published his view
in a paper in February 1845 and Ellen G White published in March of the same year,
before knowing of Edson’s study. Some considered her publication as a
confirmation of Edson’s study . The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was
618
considered the key to the puzzle of the disappointment of 1844 619. It seems that the
Sabbatarian Adventists (later to be Seventh-day Adventists) would come to general
agreement on the nature of the sanctuary by 1847, and would agree on the meaning
of its “cleansing” in the mid-1850s620.
Although Hiram Edson was the first to conceive a cleansing of the heavenly
sanctuary, it is Joseph Bates, made aware of Hiram Edson’s and his friends’ view of
the heavenly sanctuary sometime in 1846, that in his book which seems to be out of
print, Second Advent Way Marks and High Heaps (May 1847), made a direct bond
between the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the idea of pre-advent
judgment of the saints. To Joseph Bates the pre-advent judgment was intrinsic to
Christ’s priestly ministry in the Most Holy Place. He further linked the judgment
scene of Daniel chapter 7 and Revelation chapter 14 verse 6 with the ministry of
Christ in the heavenly sanctuary621. James White significantly wrote on this
connection between cleansing and judgment. He had initially objected 622 to the idea
of a pre-advent judgment of the saints as part of the cleansing of the sanctuary.
Seemingly having had a change of mind sometime between 1850 and 1857, he wrote
an article in which he popularized the name “investigative judgment” as part of the
cleansing of the sanctuary623.
617 She was eventually recognized as a prophet by the SDA church, equally inspired as any
other prophet of Scripture, but whose literary works are considered as an inspired commentary rather
than an addition to Scripture.
618 Knight 2000:63; Maxwell 1989:132; Vyhmeister 2000:4; White [Arthur L] 1985:107, 108;
White [James] 1868:267

619 Joseph Bates (1868:301) identifies Christ’s cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as the
explanation of the disappointment: “Light began to shine…as never before, and…a...well-defined

position was obtained on the subject of the sanctuary and its cleansing, by means of which we were
enabled to satisfactorily explain the passing of the time, and the disappointment following.” James
White (1868:308) concurs: “The subject of the cleansing of this sanctuary… is the key to the great
Advent movement, making all plain. Without it the movement is inexplicable”.
620 Knight 2000:61, 71
621 Andrews 1873:503; Damsteegt 1989:42; Knight 2000:65, 66, 68, 70; Maxwell 1989:137-139
622 James White (1850:49) said in The Advent Review in September: “Some have contended that
the day of judgment was prior to the second advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the
word of God.” James White at that time interpreted the judgment as of the wicked, located
concurrently with the millennium and introduced by the Second Advent (White [James]1847:23-24).
The only sense of pre-advent judgment of the saints that James White would accept was in the form of
the saints being tested by the then preached message of the gospel, in the context of the Sabbath
(Maxwell 1989:144, 146; White [James] 1851:103).
623 White [James] 1857:100, 323; Knight 2000:81; Maxwell 1989:147. The term “Investigative
Judgment” was however first used about a month before on January 1 st, in an article for the same
129
After Joseph Bates connected the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary to a pre-advent
judgment of the saints, Ellen White, who did not earlier write much about this
theology, added the Cosmic Conflict theme as an inseparable element to the
discussion of the pre-advent judgment624. Although she was a firm proponent of the
Reformation theology of justification by faith alone, her language bordered on
legalism, possibly in a comparative way to the book of James in the New Testament.
The development of the theology of the Investigative Judgment did not however go
on unchallenged from within the SDA movement. Main names throughout the
history of the SDA movement are Dudley Marvin Canright (1840-1919), Albion Fox
Ballenger (1861-1921), William Warde Fletcher (1879-1947), Louis Richard Conradi,
EB Jones and Desmond Ford. These ministers simply rejected the notion of pre-
advent investigative judgment in heaven625.
The SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment has not been static but has been
changing and developing with time, in keeping with the church’s expectation of
theological growth. The changes have been in both content and presentational
form626. Some of the changes have been as a result of some of the theological
challenges faced by the church over the years627.
Due to the SDA emphasis on the law of the Ten Commandments, among other
possible factors, many SDA members easily lost sight of the theology of justification
by faith alone in connection to the theology of the Investigative Judgment. Edward
Heppenstall therefore significantly contributed towards a shift in emphasis on
“grace” and “vindication628. Heppenstall in his book, Our High Priest, argues against
the spirit of fear and a lack of the assurance of salvation: “God’s people have nothing
to fear from the judgment. The saints of the last days can also find confidence and
security in facing the judgment when their names are confessed before the Father
and the angelic host”629. He emphasizes that those who are in Christ are guaranteed
of vindication.
There are currently at least two proposals of new names for this theology, in the
place of “Investigative Judgment”: (1) “Pre-Advent Heavenly Audit”630, and (2)
“Affirmative Judgment”631. These seem to be intended to avoid misinterpretation
and to strengthen a sense of security for those who are in Christ.
periodical by Elon Everts (1857): “It appears that…the righteous dead have been under investigative
judgment since 1844.”
624 White [Ellen] 1911:479-491
625 See Appendix VI for a better analysis of them.
626 Knight 2000:11, 160, 161; Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: An
Explanation of Certain Major Aspects of Seventh-day Adventist Belief 1957:29-32; cf. Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual 2005:9; cf. White [Ellen] 1938:25-28, 34
627 Damsteegt 1989:57, 80
628 Knight 2000:171, 172, 196
629 Heppenstall 1972:121, 207
630 Wallenkampf 1989:214, 215
631 Moskala 2004:154
130
The missiological significance of the theology of the Investigative Judgment
SDA eschatology recognizes missiological significance of the Investigative

Judgment. This significance is a spiritual one in that believers receive a call to
remain faithful to God and at the same time see a mandate of warning the
unrighteous of the importance of faithfulness to God’s commandments. Hasel
argues this missiological significance:
The present ‘hour of His judgment’ involves a call to remain faithful or

to return to the Lord of life in preparation for the imminent Second
Coming…. The commission to preach the ‘good news’ in all the world
as a powerful witness is seen in a new light in connection with the pre-
Advent investigative judgment…. All followers of God and Christ are
to maintain their biblical ethics with the power of the Holy Spirit 632.
As currently thought, the Investigative Judgment in heaven is seen as a general call

to fidelity to God. The researcher is convinced that the Investigative Judgment in
heaven has more than a general call to fidelity; it is not just a spiritual call but rather
a socio-spiritual one. The next chapter of this research will demonstrate this
hypothesis.
Conclusion
The aim of this chapter has been to analyse the Seventh-day Adventist theology of
the Investigative Judgment. Analysis of the metanarrative that gives rise to this
doctrine was undertaken. Its theology was then outlined, key texts were interpreted
and the history of how this doctrine came about was outlined. Finally the
missiological significance of the Investigative Judgment was discussed.
It has been argued that the Investigative Judgment is incomprehensible without the
metanarrative of the Cosmic Conflict. It is informed by a theology of the sanctuary
and its vertical/horizontal typology, and is an interpretation of the sanctuary’s
cleansing on the Day of Atonement. This interpretation provides an explanation to
the SDA movement about the disappointment of its parent movement in 1844. It
was then ‘realized’ that Jesus was not to come to earth in 1844, but was transitioning
in His High Priestly ministry from the holy to the most holy place of the heavenly
sanctuary.
This theology of an Investigative Judgment in heaven is seen to be a call to believers

to remain faithful to God and His commandments, while giving a missiological
mandate for Christians to warn unbelievers of their condemnatory status and
impending destruction should they not repent of their sins and turn towards God in
faith.
The next chapter will propose a constructive socio-spiritual implication for this
theology of the Investigative Judgment, using Moltmann’s theology of social justice,
as well as exegesis of some key texts.
632 Hasel 2000:846
131
Chapter 7
A PROPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY

ADVENTIST THEOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT: A DIRECT
RELATION TO SOCIAL PRAXIS IN LIGHT OF MOLTMANN’S LINK BETWEEN
ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN MISSION
Introduction
It has been already noted in earlier chapters that SDA eschatology appears to fall
short when it comes to direct relation to issues of social justice, particularly due to its
emphasis on the individual person’s preparation for the Parousia in contrast to the
socio-political transformation of society. This applies especially to the theology of
the Investigative Judgment. This chapter is dedicated to interpreting the theology of
the Investigative Judgment in terms of its relevance for social justice. This
interpretation should demonstrate a potential contribution of SDA thought into
general Christian theology and mission.
The proposed version of Investigative Judgment will be frequently labelled as

“socio-spiritual” in significance to the Christian and the community633. Throughout
this chapter and the next, unless indicated otherwise, the prefix “socio”634 means
“societal [or socio-political] life on earth”, and by “spiritual”635 is meant “the
individual’s standing or relationship with God who is in heaven”. Whereas the
current version of the Investigative Judgment is given by SDA theology a “spiritual”
significance for the believer, the reinterpreted version that follows takes a step
further and gives it societal significance for the community at large, especially for
those in political power. The proposed version expands the direct focus of
significance beyond the individual to society as a whole.
This chapter will accomplish the stated purpose by drawing some socio-political
principles from Moltmann and applying them to the SDA theology of the
Investigative Judgment, with the extra support of exegetical insight from Scripture.
Social Justice in Moltmann: Implications for the doctrine of Investigative

Judgment
It has already been observed in chapter 3 of this research that Jurgen Moltmann is a
socio-activist through his eschatological thought. The death and resurrection of
Christ, as unitary, is the primary eschatological moment, and the key motivation for
633 This designation is also used in this chapter regarding the thematic context of the book of
Daniel
634 “socio-political” could have been a better term here, but it would appear too long (“socio-
political and spiritual”) since there is also another important term “spiritual” that cannot be deleted
without debunking the whole theology of the Investigative Judgment, which is not the intention of
this research. The notion of “spiritual” depends on accepting the Investigative Judgment as part of
Christ’s priestly ministry as explained in chapter 6 of this research.
635 The researcher could have used the term “heavenly” but the challenge with that word is
that it limits the notion behind it to the locality of heaven whereas the purpose is to highlight the
relationship the individual has with God.
132
social justice. This section will very briefly review his theology of justice and
identify key aspects to it.
A Review of Moltmann’s theology of Social Justice
At the very heart of Moltmann’s eschatology is the reign of God through Christ in
his death and resurrection636. The cross of Christ does not merely have spiritual
(concerning one’s personal relationship with God) significance, requiring faith, but it
also has political significance. As quoted earlier on in chapter 3, Moltmann says:
Political hermeneutics of faith is not a reduction of the theology of the

cross to a political ideology, but an interpretation of it in political
discipleship….Faith gains substance in its political incarnations and
overcomes its un-Christian abstraction, which keeps it far from the
present situation of the crucified God…. The crucified God is in fact a
stateless and classless God. But that does not mean that he is an
unpolitical [apolitical] God. He is the God of the poor, the oppressed
and the humiliated. The rule of the Christ who was crucified for
political reasons can only be extended through liberation from forms
of rule which make men servile and apathetic and the political
religions which give them stability637.
As indicated in this quote above, Moltmann develops a liberation theology, or

theology of social justice, from his theology of the cross. He argues for what he calls
God’s “preferential option” for the poor638, or his “one-sided activity” and “victim-
oriented” approach. God’s reign through the cross brings liberation from poverty in
its various forms, independent of a faith-relationship with God on the behalf of the
victim of injustice. God’s preference for the poor is in order to bring them up to
equality with the perpetrators of injustice, since justice demands equality.
The main question now is: How can such a position be integrated into the doctrine of
the Investigative Judgment? The answer requires a further elaboration on
Moltmann’s key concepts of his theology of social justice. They are: (1) the cross is
spiritual639 and inseparably socio-political in significance, not merely at the Parousia,
but also in the present; (2) God’s justice implies preference for the poor; (3) the
reception of social justice for the victims requires them to renounce all desire for
636 See chapter 3

637 Moltmann 1974:318, 329; Prof AO Balcomb (1982:85, 101) rightly acknowledges this stance
of Moltmann: “Moltmann’s theology of the cross steers him inevitably towards a political theology.
[His] approach towards a political hermeneutic via the crucifixion stems from his conviction that the
historical trial and death of Jesus at the hands of the politico-religious status quo is, by virtue of its
call for support for religious reasons, in transgression of the second commandment”. To Moltmann,
the cross cannot make sense without taking into account the political.
638 See chapter 3: Examples of ‘the poor’ or the beneficiaries of God’s bias are ‘people crippled
by debt, the impoverished, the unemployed, the homeless, the HIV infected, the profoundly
depressed and the abandoned children’ (Moltmann 2010:122-123).
639 Moltmann does not seem to use the word “spiritual” but he does seem to imply its notion
here of a faith relationship between God and the individual.
133
retaliation and revenge; (4) social justice is about the restoration of equality 640; (5)
social justice is equivalent to ecological justice. This research will therefore use these
five elements that the researcher identifies as key to Moltmann’s theology of social
justice as a tool to revise the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment.
Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the light of Moltmann’s View of the

Spiritual and the Social as Inseparable
It was demonstrated in chapter 3 that Moltmann considers theology valid only

through its socio-political significance. For Moltmann the spiritual is inseparable
from the socio-political:
But what is righteousness and justice? If Jews and Christians want to

bring righteousness into the world, they will start from their experience
of God’s righteousness. They experience his righteousness as a creative
righteousness and justice that makes people just and creates justice. God is
just and righteous because he creates justice for people who are without
rights and puts to rights the unjust. His righteousness is a saving
righteousness, through which he creates the peace which endures:
shalom”641.
From this one cannot but recognize the manner in which Moltmann makes no
distinction between personal righteousness and social righteousness, the former
being manifest in the latter. Hence God is defined as righteous because of the rights
he creates for people; it is a “creative” righteousness and not just a forensic or
theoretical righteousness. In Old Testament thought “justice” and “righteousness”,
central concepts in the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment, are never
merely spiritual at the expense of direct societal significance. Vincent E Bacote
elaborates on this concept in affirmation of Moltmann:
The Hebrew words for justice and righteousness (mishpat and tsedaqah,
respectively) both reflect significant aspects of the biblical concept of
justice. Tsedaqah reflects God’s righteousness in moral character and
his covenant love and faithfulness, as well as the legislative, judicial,
and administrative aspects of his action in the world….Mishpat and its
cognates emphasize God’s role as lawgiver and just judge as well as
the attribute of rectitude. Mishpat and tsedaqah commonly appear as a
word pair that expresses social justice throughout the OT….To walk in
the right way, in the straight and right path, is to practice justice and
righteousness…in the institution of social equity for the downtrodden,
the poor and the widow642.
Walter J Houston speaks in affirmation of this understanding of the Old Testament

prophets: “Generally speaking…injustice is treated as a social and political theme in
the prophets….Through the prophets we have learnt to understand social
640 See chapter 3

641 Moltmann 2012:64-65, emphasis mine
642 Bacote 2005:415; cf. Gitay 1994:1; cf. Mafico [vol.3]1992:1128-1129; cf. Viviano 2000:757-758
134
relationships as governed by morality as interpersonal relationships are – that social
relationships are moral relationships, and hence that we can speak of social
justice”643. The Aramaic word “diyn” used in the book of Daniel chapter 7 verses 10
and 22644 for “judgment” is itself used in the same way as its equivalents in the rest
of the Hebrew bible. An example is that of Ezra: “Whoever will not obey the law of
your God and the law of the king, let judgment [“diyn”] be strictly executed on him,
whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for
imprisonment”645. In this context “judgment” is societal. Even within the book of
Daniel itself direct “judgment” by God on Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 has direct
social significance in the king’s loss of the throne and removal from society into the
wilderness for a long time.
In New Testament thought, in as much as there is emphasis on “righteousness” as

spiritual, probably due to the legalistic Jewish context and the fact that Christians
had no political government of their own, it is never conceived of as separable from
the social646. Vincent E Bacote argues this time from the New Testament perspective:
“While the final, eschatological justice where God establishes his reign in full is yet to
come, the inaugural presence of the kingdom reflects not only that believing sinners are
saved, but also that glimpses of the end come through the practice of justice exhibited by
God’s new covenant people”647. A prime example may be James chapter 2 where the
author argues that those who have faith must show it through works of
“righteousness”: “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled’, without giving
them the things needed for the body, what good is that”648. This text argues for
righteousness as socio-activism.
Anthropomorphism may also be another way of affirming Moltmann’s notion of the

spiritual and the socio-political being inseparable. In general it is defined as “the
attribution of human characteristics or behavior to that which isn't human” 649, and
also as “an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or
personal characteristics: humanization”650. A more biblical definition may be given
by Jeffery Tucker: “The attribution of human characteristics to God, specifically the
conceptualization of God as having aspects of the human”651. This research is
particularly concerned about biblical anthropomorphism where God is described
with “human characteristics or behaviour”. Anthropomorphism is metaphoric
language about God, and this appears necessary when one considers Scripture as
revelation about God who is humanly invisible and mysterious. Millard Erickson
explains:
643 Houston 2006:96-97; cf. Ladd 1974:480-481

644 It has been observed in chapter 6 of this research that this book of Daniel (chapters 7-9 in
particular) is at the heart of the theology of the Investigative Judgment
645 chapter 7 verse 26 (English Standard Version)
646 Tooley 2000:757
647 Bacote 2005:416
648 Chapter 2 verses 15-16 (English Standard Version)
649 www.wiktionary.org, “Anthropomorphism”, accessed on the 26th of June 2013
650 www.merriam-webster.com, “Anthropomorphism”, accessed on the 26th of June 2013
651 Tucker 2000:66; cf. Rae 2005:48-49
135
God is spirit; that is, he is not composed of matter and does not possess
a physical nature….One consequence of God’s spirituality is that he
does not have the limitations involved with a physical body. For one
thing, he is not limited to a particular geographical or spatial
location….There are, of course, numerous passages which suggest that
God has physical features such as hands or feet. It seems most helpful to
treat these as anthropomorphisms, attempts to express the truth about God
through human analogies. There are also cases where God appeared in
physical form, particularly in the Old Testament, in theophanies, or
temporary self-manifestations of God. It seems best to take the clear
statements about God’s spirituality and invisibility at face value and interpret
the anthropomorphisms and theophanies in the light of them652.
Reading Daniel chapter 7 verses 9-10 with the above recognition that God “is not
limited to a particular geographical or spatial location” and does not essentially have
“physical features such as hands or feet” identical to humanity, one is persuaded to
interpret this text metaphorically or anthropomorphically: “thrones were put in
place”, “Ancient of Days”, “garment”, “hair”, “court” and “books were opened”.
Furthermore in chapter 8 verse 11 the “Prince of the host”, that is generally
interpreted in SDA theology as referring to Christ, is described in metaphoric
imagery of an earthly priest ministering in an earthly sanctuary where he has his
ministry forcefully “taken away” from him by the “little horn”. In as much as it may
not be all anthropomorphic passages of Scripture that are interpreted to give a
Christ-modelled mandate for humanity, SDA hermeneutics allow for such an
interpretation, at least in some instances. The interpretation of Genesis chapter 2
verses 1-3 about the Sabbath is a case in point. That text is interpreted in a way that
God’s rest after six days of creation was not because he needed rest, but that he
rested as an example for human rest, every seventh day of the week, in light of other
biblical texts that are interpreted to be giving such a mandate 653. The incarnation of
Jesus is also an anthropomorphic act of God. Rae recognizes this: “The divine Word
takes human form. This is the most significant anthropomorphism, for by this
means God enables human beings, in speaking of one who is like them in all
respects, but without sin, to speak truly of God himself”654. Paul in his book to the
Philippians draws out a lesson from the incarnation that is a mandate of Christianity:
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he
was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but
652 Erickson 1998:294, emphasis mine

653 Angel M Rodriguez (https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
sabbath-catholic2002_0.pdf, accessed on the 19th of November 2013; cf. Gulley 2012:59-60; cf. Nichol
[vol.1] 1978:229; cf. Tonstad 2009:3) makes this interpretation of anthropomorphism in Genesis 2:
“The anthropomorphic language clearly points to God's concern for humans who do not only need to
work but also to separate a particular time to enjoy deep personal communion with the Creator. The
divine action - God's rest - reveals His willingness to join humans in fellowship during the seventh
day. It is the Creator, not the creature, who determines the time of rest”. Sigve K Tonstad (2009:126)
in his book “The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day” argues the same point: “The rest that marks
cessation of God’s activity is the pattern according to which human beings will order their lives.
Human need may not appear at first, but the need is anticipated”.
654 Rae 2005:49
136
emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the
point of death, even death on a cross” 655. Christ’s anthropomorphic incarnation is a
model of Christian humility. Therefore, if the Investigative Judgment is understood
anthropomorphically, it may be interpreted beyond the traditional spiritual manner,
but also as a model for socio-political manner of engagement.
The socio-spiritual context of the book of Daniel also affirms Moltmann’s notion of
the spiritual and the socio-political as inseparable. In as much as the theology of the
Investigative Judgment is systematically and exegetically derived from many parts
of the bible other than the book of Daniel, it is the book of Daniel that is thought to
stand out above all others in ‘revealing’ this phase of judgment, as may be noted
from chapter 6 of this research. Most particularly, it is Daniel chapter 8 verse 14
which played a central role in the disappointment of 1844 and also in its post-
disappointment explanation656. Chapter 7 of the book of Daniel is interpreted in
SDA theology as a pre-revelation of sequential major empires, geographically related
to Palestine, in world history from the time of the author until the Parousia of Christ.
This is the meaning given: (1) the lion-like beast represents Neo-Babylonia, (2) the
bear-like beast represents Medo-Persia, (3) the leopard-like beast represents Greece
or Macedonia, and (4) the indescribable beast represents pagan Rome and its “little
horn” papal Rome. The Investigative Judgment is recognized from the judgment
interlude scene of verses 9 and 10, the result of which the beast of the little horn is
destroyed (verses 11 and 12), Christ and the saints are vindicated, and Christ also
receives the kingdom (verses 13 and 14)657. The point argued here by the researcher
is that besides the already mentioned observation that “judgment” always has social
significance to it in the Old Testament and in the book of Daniel, the whole vision of
Daniel chapter 7 is filled with social meaning. The beasts are social empires, and
even the “little horn” that seems to have a religious or spiritual conflict with God is
also a social power on earth such that it can persecute the saints here on earth (verse
25). If Daniel chapter 7 verses 9 and 10 refer to the Investigative Judgment in favour
of the saints and in condemnation against the “little horn” power, it then follows
that the saints are the opposite of the “little horn” power. The vision is therefore a
call for the “little horn” to cease its socio-spiritual abuse and warfare, and also a call
for the saints to continue in socio-spiritual life against it as a representative of all evil
forces. The interlude does not cut off the social, but continues with it. Chapter 8 of
the book of Daniel is interpreted in SDA theology in a similar way to chapter 7: (1)
the ram with two horns represents Medo-Persia, the (2) goat represents Greece or
Macedonia, and (3) “little horn” represents papal Rome. This time, unlike in chapter
7 where the solution to the “little horn” comes from the scene of the courtroom, the
solution is seen coming from a process of the sanctuary being “justified” or
“cleansed”. SDA theology sees this synonymously as representing the Investigative
Judgment. Again, the same argument is held here by the researcher, that the saints
655 Philippians 2:5-8, English Standard Version

657 See Appendix IV
137
are hereby receiving a call to socio-spiritual resistance and activism against the
socio-spiritual powers that are there.
The whole book of Daniel reveals a God who is intimately involved in the daily
affairs of humanity and even with desire and intent to be obeyed by the rulers of
earth. Andrew E Steinmann in his commentary acknowledges God’s control of
world governments as a major theme in the book of Daniel:
God’s control over human events is found in every major section in

Daniel….Daniel’s visions (7-12), all of which prophesy about future
events, clearly demonstrate that God will never lose control over human
history, but that he will always govern world kingdoms for the sake of his
own kingdom and ultimate purposes”658.
Stephen R Miller in his commentary also affirms: “Without doubt the principal
theological focus of the book is the sovereignty of God. Every page reflects the
author’s conviction that his God was the Lord of individuals, nations, and all of
history659. The God who is repeatedly entitled in the comparative “Most High”660,
“King of kings”, “Lord of kings” and “God of gods”661, has his lordship on earth
affirmed. Again, the spiritual is inseparable from the socio-political.
It may also be that the man Daniel is an illustration of the persecuted saints that he
prophesies of in his book. SDA theology generally interprets the first six chapters of
the book of Daniel as thematic illustrations of the last six. A classic example of this
interpretation is the theme of judgment: the God who vindicates/delivers the
victims in chapters 3 and 6, and condemns/destroys the perpetrators therein, is the
same God who destroys the beast and its perpetrator “little horn” and gives the
kingdom over to the victims or the saints. Daniel features in all the chapters from 1
to 6 with the exception of chapter 3. Daniel serves as a prophet of God and at the
same time as an official of the court, possessing both spiritual and socio-political
responsibilities. Daniel and his friends were exemplarily in open resistance against
what they recognized as abuse against their rights – religious ones in this case: (1)
Daniel decided to preserve their Jewish names, as he writes the book, even after they
had been given Babylonian ones662; (2) the four boys decide not to eat the food of the
king663; (3) the three boys resist the king’s order to worship the image of gold in the
face of the fiery furnace664; (4) Daniel resists the king’s command by openly praying
to his own God within the thirty stipulated days of prayer to the earthly king665.
Social justice is a theme of the book of Daniel as illustrated by his life that was
balanced between the spiritual and the social, and by resistance to social injustice.
658 Steinmann 2008:28, emphasis mine

659 Miller [vol.18] 1994:50, emphasis mine; cf. Redditt 1999:36; cf. Seow 2003:14-15
660 (chapter 3 verse 26, chapter 4 verses 2, 17, 24—25, 32, 34, chapter 5 verse 18, 21, chapter 7
verses 18, 22, 25, 27)

661 (chapter 2 verses 37, 47 and chapter 11 verse 36)
662 Doukhan 2000:18-19
663 Doukhan 2000:19
664 Doukhan 2000:50
665 Doukhan 2000:91-92
138
Christians, like Daniel and his three friends, must be in active resistance against
corporate evil in the world, and involved in socio-political transformation of earthly
governments. Challenges and even death may arise in this socio-spiritual struggle
against evil and sin, but the message of the book of Daniel is that divine judgment
will eventually vindicate the saints in their reception of the kingdom.
Regarding the Investigative Judgment, the revelation and vindication of God’s

justice in heaven cannot merely have spiritual significance (instructing believers to
have faith in God), but socio-political significance (instructing believers to be faithful
like God, and rulers to rule like God) as well. If God places himself and his
administration in judgment, anthropomorphically, it follows that saints should see
in his act a call for human administrations and governments to be held accountable
on how they have executed their responsibilities666. SDA thought need not entirely
abandon its classification of the spiritual as more important than the socio-political,
but it should be true to its stance that the spiritual is inseparable from it by
interpreting this theology of the judgment in socio-political terms as well. On the
foregoing basis, the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment cannot be
interpreted as a mere spiritual call but a socio-spiritual one to resistance and
activism against the socio-spiritual forces of injustice on earth. God is with the
expectation that earthly rulers and kings recognize his authority and carry out their
responsibilities in harmony with his own will. Christians should therefore consider
earthly rulers as accountable to God, and those through whom God might have put
them into power, regarding the manner in which they govern God’s creatures.
Hypothetically speaking, if Moltmann were to somehow adopt the SDA theology of
the Investigative Judgment, he would probably develop it further to socio-political
significance as suggested here.
Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the light of Moltmann’s Theology of

God’s Preferential Option for the Poor
Moltmann is a liberation theologian and it is typical of liberation theologians to

interpret God as having special favour for the victims of social injustice: “Classically,
liberation theology takes the Bible as a whole as proclaiming the God who has a
preferential option for the poor”667. This can be seen from the following quote:
Christian universalism is no hindrance to partisanship for the victims

of injustice and violence, but promotes it. In a divided and hostile
world the universalism of God’s mercy with all can only be vouched
for by way of the familiar preferential option for the poor. God himself
acts in history with a bias in favour of the victims, so that through them
he can save the perpetrators too…. For Paul [in 1 Cor. 1:26-29] the
community of Christians is itself a witness to this one-sided activity of
God on behalf of all human beings668.
666 This thought will be further developed in the next chapter of this research
667 Houston 2006:5
(“victim-oriented”).
139
SDA evangelical or conservative hermeneutics prevents the acceptance of
Moltmann’s proposition that the spiritual and the social are generally and equally
important except under certain circumstances where one or the other may take
priority669. Moltmann defines “poor” equally in social terms as in spiritual670 ones,
as long as the subject is a victim of injustice 671, whereas an SDA would define it
primarily in spiritual terms, where “poor” would then apply to a person either
desiring a closer faith-relationship with God or one who is literally poor but does
have a faith-relationship with God. The SDA approach seems to be typical of
evangelical or conservative traditions, as may be further demonstrated by Thomas R
Schreiner in his interpretation of “poor” from Luke chapter 6: “The sayings here
cannot be interpreted as literal statements, as if every single person in the world
suffering from poverty receives blessing from God. Those suffering physical
deprivation represent those trusting in the God of Israel for their every need….Jesus
speaks of those who have placed their lives in the hands of God and suffer poverty,
hunger, sorrow, and persecution”672. A clash of hermeneutical presuppositions
seems present here.
It is not mere giving towards the poor that Moltmann has in mind, but the church’s
identification with the poor and oppressed. Moltmann develops this idea thus:
No one can do anything good ‘for the poor’ who does not live ‘with the
poor’; for it is not just the giving that is a problem for us as human
beings; it is the taking in dignity too. The preferential option for the
poor must never make the poor the object of missionary endeavours,
charitable care and revolutionary leadership. That would be a
fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. The poor do not
need any ‘carer’ or welfare officer, advocate or leader. They need
brothers and sisters who live with them and listen to them before they
talk to them673.
The implication of this statement would drive SDA mission to lengths beyond the
usual remedial approach, but to engagement in actual resistance with the poor
towards socio-political transformation of societies.
Regarding the Investigative Judgment, SDA theology should develop towards the
recognition that what is true in the spiritual regarding God’s bias for the faith-full
victims674, also applies to the societal victims, regardless of their faith-relationship
with God. The Investigative Judgment in which God vindicates or affirms the saints
based on their genuine faith, evidenced by their obedience to God’s will, therefore
argues also for the vindication, affirmation and liberation of the victims of social
injustice - a bias in favour of the victims. Furthermore, God is the primary675 ‘object’
669
Moltmann 2012:37; cf. 1974:317, 332-334
670 See above
671 Moltmann 2010:122-123; cf. 1990:99, 105
672 Schreiner 2008:758-759
673 Moltmann 2000:234
674 God’s bias is shown by his vindication of the saints (see chapter 6 of this research).
675 The saints are of secondary focus (see chapter 6 of this research).
140
under judgment in the Investigative Judgment – a review or audit of how he has
responded to the human condition of sin 676. By socio-political extension, SDA
theologians should recognize a call here for human administrations and
governments to be gauged by their service delivery of social justice to all victims of
injustice. The poor, or the victims of socio-political injustice, become a special test
case in point. Another lesson SDA theologians should recognize is from the
Investigative Judgment’s proposition of objectivity and transparency – through the
records of the heavenly books - in this judgment that works out in favour of the
saints; social justice for the victims should be without corruption and fraud. Perhaps
on a closing note to this section, SDA theology should acknowledge a socio-political
implication of Moltmann’s notion of the church identifying itself with the oppressed
of society: just as Christ identifies himself with the sin-oppressed in the Investigative
Judgment, such that they are considered worthy of vindication because of his own
righteousness that they accept by faith, so too does Christ identify himself with the
victims of social injustice. SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment cannot
therefore but develop into the socio-spiritual form suggested here, recognizing
God’s call for the church to identify itself with the oppressed.
Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the light of Moltmann’s advocacy of

refusing the option of Retaliation and Revenge
In as much as Moltmann has no regard of the faith677 experience of victims in matters

of social justice, he does lay some responsibility on the part of the victim of socio-
political injustice, as a requirement in the process of liberation: “[The victim must
take a step that] may lead on to a renunciation of retaliation for the evil
experienced”678. All desire for retaliation and revenge must be renounced if
complete liberation from socio-political injustice is to be achieved. Moltmann seems
to argue that the experience of socio-political injustice does not give one the right to
personal retaliation and revenge in as much as the right to resist injustice is
justifiable and preserved. This principle of the sacrifice of all desire for personal
retaliation and revenge in the socio-political sphere is locatable in the spiritual
context. The book of Daniel, from which SDA theologians largely derive 679 the
theology of the Investigative Judgment, combines the socio-political with the
spiritual. In the book of Daniel, as already mentioned above, the saints are seen to
be vindicated and delivered while the evil socio-spiritual forces of oppression are
condemned and destroyed680. The researcher here argues for the existence of a
parallel between what happens in the spiritual and the societal (thus the term “socio-
spiritual”): in the spiritual, the victims of sin-oppression by the Devil appeal to God
for vindication and judgment, renouncing all personal revenge against the Devil
who is the oppressor 681; in the societal or socio-political, the same victims, having no

677 This refers to the belief and submission to the God and Christ of Scripture
678 Moltmann 2012:183
679 In conjunction with sanctuary theology (see chapter 6 of this research)
681 SDA theologians link Daniel chapter 8 with Leviticus chapter 16 (because of the cultic or
sanctuary language of Daniel chapter 8), and therefore spiritualize the problem of the “little horn” in
141
higher earthly authority to appeal to (since the rulers are the oppressors), also call
upon God’s intervention, rather than retaliating, while they resist the socio-political
aspect of injustice through insubordination that leads them to be persecuted and
killed682. Moltmann obviously does not believe in the existence of a personal Devil
and personal evil spirits or demons683, and he therefore cannot accept this
interpretation of the Investigative Judgment that assumes the Cosmic Conflict684
between Christ and Satan. The closest he can get to the spiritual aspect of
significance of the judgment (not the Investigative Judgment) is that the narrative of
Daniel provides divine encouragement and hope685 to resisting saints, against socio-
political injustice.
Perhaps the Cosmic Conflict metanarrative, in SDA theology, itself provides

reinforcement of the need for the renouncing of personal retaliation and revenge.
According to this metanarrative, the Devil rebelled against Christ and God, arguing
that God is unjust in his dealings with the heavenly beings and the rest of created
intelligences; that his law is unrighteous. He therefore made himself paramount in
self-exaltation over and against God 686. The Investigative Judgment is therefore
viewed as part of the resolution of this dispute between God and Satan, with Christ’s
self-sacrifice on the cross as the key evidence in favour of God’s justice and
selflessness687. Whereas justice may require the punishment and death of the
offender or oppressor, through due process and the right hands, retaliation and
revenge, which Satan seems bent on, carries selfish connotations. Moltmann’s
discrimination against socio-political retaliation and revenge therefore indicates an
opportunity for the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment to be enhanced
beyond the spiritual into the socio-political, and therefore producing a socio-
spiritual Investigative Judgment.
Interpreting in the Investigative Judgment in the light of Moltmann’s Theology of

Social Justice as Restoration of Equality
The researcher here argues that SDA theology should learn from Moltmann who
underscores the importance of social equality: “One can live in poverty if everyone is
in the same plight, but not if things are going undeservedly well for other people. It
is not the poverty that hurts; it is the injustice”688. For this reason, he speaks of
restorative justice where the victims of injustice are restored to equality, in whatever
its form, with the perpetrators. Even the perpetrators are brought to conversion
Daniel chapter 8, with the spiritual solution being given in Leviticus chapter 16 (see chapter 6 of this
research). This interpretation seems narrow to the researcher since the socio-political aspect of the
context of Daniel chapter 8, and the whole book for that matter, is sacrificed.
682 See chapter 6 of this research and consider chapter 7 verse 25 in the book of Daniel.
685 See chapter 3 of this research, regarding apocalyptic
686 See chapter 6 of this research. It seems from the Cosmic Conflict narrative that it is not all
revolt, revolution or resistance that is right; the act of resistance to authority is not a sign of
righteousness
688 Moltmann 2012:179; cf. 2012:66
142
from their evil – all eventually live harmoniously and with equality – and restitution
for all the damaged caused is made. The traditional spiritualized theology of the
Investigative Judgment carries a limited parallel to Moltmann’s proposal. The
traditional theology of the Investigative Judgment argues that this judgment is based
on the records of the metaphoric Book of Life and the Book(s) of Deeds689. There are
two ways in which “restoration of equality” is a theme in this Judgment: (1) this
judgment is part of the salvation-restoration process based on Christ’s sacrificial and
priestly ministries; this would then be “restoration of equality” with God’s sinless
and deathless ideal for humankind as a reference point or standard of restoration;
and (2) “restoration of equality” between the saints is signified by the common
vindication and reward, regardless of denominational or cultural backgrounds, since
the above books are not biased in these respects. Perhaps the greatest limitation or
contrast between Moltmann’s socio-political and SDA theology’s spiritualized
notions in “restoration of equality” is that the former refers to equality between the
oppressor and the oppressed whereas the latter refers to equality with God’s ideal
and of the saints among themselves. In the spiritualized restoration the Devil is not
brought into equality with the saints in any way, but is rather destroyed with all of
his followers690. This seriously limited comparison (too narrow for the use of the
word “parallel”) presents a challenge at this point that may undermine the
credibility of the attempt of the researcher to develop the concerned SDA theology
through dialogue with Moltmann regarding “restoration of equality”. However,
another consideration presents a solution to the dilemma. Moltmann’s “restoration
of equality” carries with it an assumption and in that way a condition:
Because oppression always has these two sides, the liberation process
has to begin on both sides too. The liberation of the oppressed from
their suffering must lead to the liberation of the oppressors from the
evil they commit….The oppressors will first of all have to see themselves in
the suffering eyes of their victims, and recognize themselves as
oppressors….They will have to withdraw their violence and their
structures of violence if they want to turn back again to the community
of human beings….The liberation of the oppressors is in most cases not a
self-evident duty, at least not for the oppressors….They are blind, and
fail to see the suffering they inflict on their victims….The liberation of
the oppressors, so that they can arrive at their own human dignity and
at true human community with others, is an experience which requires
more than good will: the master has to die so that the brother can be
born691.
The assumption or condition is that the oppressors should also change and
“withdraw their violence”, and also “do everything to eliminate the damage they
have caused”692. The shortcoming of Moltmann’s suggestion here is that it seems not
to address the situation of oppressors who never get to the point of acknowledging
689 See chapter 4 and Appendix V

690 See chapters 4 and 6 of this research
691 Moltmann 2000:186-187
692 Moltmann 2012:183
143
the wrong done by them; he acknowledges that it is a difficult task to convert the
oppressors, requiring “more than good will”, but assumes that the process will be a
success. This incipient contradiction in Moltmann’s theology of social justice in this
respect must be contrasted with SDA theology in that it regards the condition of
Satan and his demons as beyond help, and thus addressing the situation by their
destruction693. Therefore, there seems to be a limited comparison, between
Moltmann and SDA theology, presented here by the destruction of the Devil and his
followers. The model made by the destruction of the Devil socio-politically implies
punitive justice against the oppressor if the oppressor does not renounce the
injustice694. It is the position of the researcher, therefore, that the SDA theology of
the Investigative Judgment should also shift from mere spiritual to socio-spiritual
relevance through this socio-political interpretation of restorative equality.
Interpreting the Investigative Judgment in the light of Moltmann’s theology of

Social Justice as Equivalent to Ecological Justice
Moltmann considers human rights as equivalent to the rights of nature: “The

protection of nature – plant and animal species as well as the conditions for life and
the equilibriums of the earth – must be given a rank among the goals of states and in
international agreements equivalent to the protection of human dignity” 695. Also,
“social and ecological justice correspond[s]”696 and “the rights of nature must be
assigned the same rank as human rights” 697. His consideration of the rights of
nature as equivalent to human rights is based on the presupposition that “the image
of God” is not that which distinguishes humanity from nature, and it particularly
does not make humanity superior to nature698. SDA theology in contrast does
consider the image of God as uniquely characteristic of humanity, while human
dominion over nature does not however legitimize the abuse of nature. According
to SDA theology, the dominion of humanity over nature implies human
responsibility to care for it699. The main point of agreement between Moltmann’s
693 Therefore, while SDA theology should learn from Moltmann’s theology of social justice in
the conditional “restoration of equality”, SDA theology perhaps gives Moltmann something to learn
from – addressing a humanly hopeless condition – unless if one considers that Moltmann holds to the
universalistic belief that all human effort may not change the oppressor(s) but the Parousia will do so
when he recreates the earth (see chapter 3 of this research).
694 Perhaps the two stories of the two kings (Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 and Belshazzar in
chapter 5) in the book of Daniel are relevant here. These chapters present individuals with a similar
problem of pride and arrogance against God, but with different resulting experiences - one is
removed from office and then restored in repentance, and the other is killed the same night of
judgment. The significance of those two stories, and their location at the center of the pyramid-like
chiasm of Hebrew literary style, and signifying theological centrality in SDA interpretation, may be
related to the proposed conditional double-outcome of the fate of the oppressors (Shea 2005:14;
Stefanovic 2002:37; Stefanovic 2007:28-29). Restorative justice may require punitive justice on the non-
repentant perpetrator of injustice.
696 Moltmann 2012:147
697 Moltmann 2012:150
144
and SDA theology in this matter of human and natural rights is human
responsibility and need to protect nature.
The ecological interpretation of the Investigative Judgment should imply that this
judgment is also a reminder of human responsibility to care for nature. While SDA
theological presuppositions prohibit the consideration of human rights and the
rights of nature as of equal rank, the Investigative Judgment may however be
interpreted as a reminder of human responsibility in harmony with the rights of
nature. Just as God’s dominion over creation implies his love and caring justice as
revealed in the Investigative Judgment, particularly for humanity, so should human
dominion over the rest of creation be manifested in love and caring justice for it.
A Sample of a Revised Seventh-day Adventist Statement of Fundamental Belief

#24
In light of the proposals made in this chapter of this research, it seems best to
suggest a revised SDA fundamental belief regarding the Investigative Judgment.
The original one700 says nothing of social justice, but this would be the researcher’s
proposal of what could be added to it:
….The investigative judgment moreover provides a model for earthly

governments and administrations on how to administer social justice
for their constituents, highlighting principles of equality, objectivity,
due process, and service particularly for the victims of injustice.
Through God’s example of his dominion and rule over humanity as
manifested in love and justice, it also serves as a model for humanity,
of earthly dominion over nature, to care justly for the environment.
In this way, this fundamental belief does not become heavenly minded at the
expense of earthly usefulness.
Conclusion
The primary objective of this chapter was the interpreting of the theology of the
Investigative Judgment towards concerns of social justice in the light of Moltmann’s
theology and in this way demonstrating a potential contribution of SDA thought
into general Christian theology and mission. This chapter has accomplished that
objective by first identifying five principles of Moltmann’s theology of social justice
with the intent of using them as a more specific framework to revise the SDA
theology of the Investigative Judgment.
It has been attempted to be shown in this chapter that the SDA theology of the
Investigative Judgment, in light of Moltmann’s theology, should actually be
interpreted socio-spiritually rather than merely spiritually since (1) the spiritual and
the social meanings of justice are inseparable, (2) God has a preference or bias in
favour of the victims of social injustice as in spiritual injustice, (3) the judgment
scene is a court environment that implies a willingness to renounce all desires of
700 See Appendix I
145
personal resolution in revenge, (4) comprehensive restoration is an objective, and (5)
justice for the natural environment of humanity is implied. The principles of
Moltmann’s theology of social justice find resonance in the spiritualized principles of
the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment. It is seen, through linguistic,
contextual and theological arguments that necessary parallels701 of significance exist
between the spiritual and the socio-political, the heavenly and the earthly. This
dialogue between Moltmann’s theology and SDA theology has enhanced the social
potential of SDA theology.
This chapter has tried to show how the SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment
can be revised from a spiritual one to one that is socio-spiritual. The next chapter
will attempt to demonstrate the enhanced value of this new socio-spiritual version of
the theology in question, through an application to the South African socio-political
context.
701 Sometimes limited ones
146
Chapter 8
A PROPOSAL OF PAST AND PRESENT TRANSFORMATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN SOUTH AFRICA IN LIGHT
OF A SOCIO-SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
Introduction
The researcher in chapter 7 suggests: “If God places himself and his administration
in judgment, it follows that saints should see in his act a call for human
administrations and governments to be held accountable on how they l responded
and treated their subjects”. Consistent with the explanation previously given that
“socio” means “societal [or socio-political] life on earth”, and “spiritual” is means
“the individual’s standing or relationship with God who is in heaven”, this chapter
will take the South African context as a case in point to interrogate the possibility
that the new version of the socio-spiritual Investigative Judgment mooted in the last
chapter has enhanced its socio-political potential.
This will be attempted through an historical overview of South African racial

discrimination, the role of Christianity in general and Seventh-day Adventism in
particular in this country, and in the identification and demonstration of how this
new version of the judgment may have direct socio-political relevance in this
country. The overview of South African Apartheid history and the overview of
Christian mission during Apartheid are both necessary since the Seventh-day
Adventist church did (and still does) not operate in a vacuum, but was certainly
shaped, positively or negatively, by its socio-political environment. Therefore, a
good understanding of this socio-political environment gives better understanding
of the Seventh-day Adventist church’s past and present responsibilities and
opportunities.
An Overview of South African Apartheid History
South Africa as an organized modern State is in infant in comparison to the

millennia, according to paleontological research, that have passed since people first
lived in the region702. In pre-colonial times, there were Stone-age hunter-gatherers
and the Khoisan who dwelt mainly along the western coast, and the Bantu-speaking
peoples on the eastern coast of the region703. It seems not to have taken very long for
conflict and war to start between the Europeans and the natives after the sea-route to
India was pioneered by the Portuguese through the Cape coast704.
702 Clark and Worger 2004:10-11; www.gov.za, History, accessed on the 8th of November 2013
703 Clark and Worger 2004:10-11
704 “Portuguese seafarers, who pioneered the sea route to India in the late 15th century, were
regular visitors to the South African coast during the early 1500s. Other Europeans followed from the
late 16th century. In 1652, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) set up a station in Table Bay (Cape
Town) to provision passing ships. Trade with the Khoekhoe(n) for slaughter stock soon degenerated
into raiding and warfare” (www.gov.za, History, accessed on the 8th of November 2013; cf. Clark and
Worger 2004:11).
147
Colonists started spreading beyond into the hinterland in the early 1700s705. The
Boers went north and inland especially in frustration with British control and laws
against slavery. The Great Trek occurred in the 1830s (and the 1840s), and the Boers
established independent states, “Transorangia, Transvaal and the Natalia
Republic”706.
This section in this chapter is however concerned more about the segregational707
and apartheid policies that started later, besides the wars708 between the Boers and
the British, from 1899 to 1902, and the establishment of the Union of South Africa in
May of 1910. The Republic of South Africa legally came into being on the 31 st of May
1961, the difference between the Union of South Africa and the Republic of South
Africa being that the Republic system has no king or queen (of England) and no
appointed Governor-General (Head of State) under him or her, with the elected
Prime Minister (Head of Government) to report to the Governor-General; there was
now to be a State President of the Republic709 as “a figurative head” or “non-
executive”, and Charles Robberts Swart was the first State President of the Republic
of South Africa710. Prime Ministers, of whom Louis Botha was the first from 1910 to
1919, continued as the substantive heads until substantively displaced by the State
President position, and abolished, in 1984711. Under the current constitution, the
term “President” has replaced “State President”712.
705 www.gov.za, History, accessed on the 8th of November 2013

706 Clark and Worger 2004:13; cf. Deegan 2011:9
707 Clark and Worger (2004:18) define “segregation”: “Racial discrimination as practiced in
South Africa from 1910 to 1948. It legally separated races to the benefit of those of European descent.
Segregation policies affected the rights of Africans to own land, to live or travel where they chose,
and to enjoy job security”.
Segregationist policies had their foundation laid through the recommendation of the South
African Native Affairs Commission (SANAC) in 1905. This commission suggested principles, the gist
of which “left Africans, in their own ancestral homelands, without the right to own land, to determine
their own government, or even to decide where to live or work”. There was a further
recommendation Africans should have limited ownership of land and that there should be separate
‘locations’ “established for Africans” (Clark and Worger 2004:18; cf. Deegan 2011:5-6).
It appears however that the notions of segregation were already present, even in the
nineteenth century (see below about the Dutch Reformed Church adoption of such a congregational
policy in 1857). In the political sphere, regarding segregational ideas, Deegan (2011:4; cf 2011:9) notes:
“The debate about the origins or formative years of segregation go back into the nineteenth century
and the policies of the British colonial administration. African reserves were established by the
British, while African chieftancy survived in Natal under British rule. When the British were in
control, local authority was devolved to African chiefs, who were instrumental in maintaining order”.
709 www.wikipedia.org under “South African Constitution of 1961”, accessed on the 9th of
November 2013
710 www.thepresidency.gov.za, History, accessed on the 9th of November 2013
711 www.thepresidency.gov.za, History, accessed on the 9th of November 2013;
www.wikipedia.org under “Prime Minister of South Africa”, accessed on the 9 th of November 2013
712 www.wikipedia.org under “Prime Minister of South Africa”, accessed on the 9 th of
November 2013
148
An Overview of Pre-Apartheid Racial Discrimination
Racial discrimination appears to have been there, in a perhaps mild manner, from
the beginning of commerce at the Cape, as intermingling between the races
developed. Speaking about the Dutch East India Company which had not intended
to create a “permanent settler community” in the Cape, noting that ‘mixed’ offspring
were sometimes “incorporated into the European colonial population without
regard to race”, Clark and Worger make the observation that the company’s
commercial policies of designating employees and trade partners according to race,
started what would develop into a racial South African community 713.
After the 1860s, there was a representation of all the population groups (later
considered under Apartheid) in the southern region, but all of them were relatively
living in separate units: there were two British colonies, two Afrikaner republics and
also a number of large African kingdoms. They were not economically united, but
the discovery of diamonds (1868) and gold (1886) brought about great changes to the
economic and political structure of this region714. It was not everyone that had an
equal share in this discovered wealth, and the African workers received the shortest
end of the stick715.
Moltmann seems to write fitting words that describe the injustice of this situation:
“One can live in poverty if everyone is in the same plight, but not if things are going
undeservedly well for other people. It is not the poverty that hurts; it is the
injustice”716. It appears that the black or African people experienced increasing
discrimination in part due to their just resistance: “Government policy in the Union
of South Africa did not develop in isolation, but against the backdrop of black
political initiatives. Segregation and apartheid assumed their shape, in part, as a
white response to Africans' increasing participation in the country's economic life
713 Clark and Worger (2004:12, emphasis mine) say: “During the course of the century and a
half that the Dutch East India Company controlled the Cape, new population groups developed as people
intermingled in the developing colonial society….Although the Company did not want to encourage
the growth of a permanent settler community, European males denied the company of European
women frequently procreated with slave and Khoikhoi women. Some of the offspring were incorporated
into the European colonial population without regard to race, although most became part of a rapidly
developing ‘mixed’ community whose members were labelled ‘Bastaards’ by the Company….Escaped slaves
also intermingled with Africans in the interior, creating a new group of people who called themselves
Griqua. The Company tried to control these desperate groups through trade and provided a limited
legal framework for settling disputes. In all matters, individual rights were linked to racial designations,
however, thus creating a racial hierarchy beginning with Company employees at the top, followed by
settlers, the ‘mixed’ racial groups, and with slaves at the bottom. Despite their limited commercial
intentions, the Dutch had precipitated the development of a new, racialised society at the Cape”.
714 Clark and Worger 2004:14; Deegan 2011:6
715 Clark and Worger (2004:15) explain the injustice in this way: “In the new industrial cities,
African workers were subjected to a bewildering array of discriminatory laws and practices, all
enforced in order to keep workers cheap and pliable….In short, many of the discriminatory features
so typical of twentieth-century South Africa – pass laws, urban ghettos, impoverished rural
homelands, African migrant labour – were first established in the course of South Africa’s industrial
revolution”.
716 Moltmann 2012:179; cf. 2012:66
149
and their assertion of political rights”717. The black or African population chose
resistance to what it saw as discrimination. Even by the beginning of the twentieth
century, black resistance was already operational and maybe at its ‘early’ stages718.
In 1910, the Union of South Africa was formed, and blacks were excluded from the
right to vote and have equal participation in socio-political matters. Heather Deegan
points out the discriminatory nature of the Union: “The Union consolidated the
interests of the white population over the black community” 719. This is confirmed by
Clark and Worger: “Segregation policies attempted to protect white political and
economic interests while at the same time drawing Africans increasingly into the
country’s economy as the chief source of labour”720. The intrinsic racial
discrimination, against non-Europeans, of the new Union, seems to have escalated
African resistance721.
717 www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:18-19, 22
718 See below regarding Nehemiah Tile who was a minister that founded the Thembu Church
in 1884, in resistance to white domination, particularly within the Wesleyan Methodist Church.
Clark and Worger (2004:18-19) note that African, Indian and Coloureds begun organized
political resistance from the end of the nineteenth century: “Africans, along with Coloured and
Indians, were dismayed that the British did nothing to eliminate racial discrimination existing
throughout the colonies and republics. As a result they began to form new political bodies of their
own, ranging from the South African Native Congress, established in 1898 but really expanding after
1902 as it considered how to protect the rights of Africans as British citizens, to the Native Vigilance
Association (1901), formed to look after ‘the educational and local interest of the Transkeian natives
generally’, the African Political (later People’s) Organization (1902), which argued for political and
civil rights for all South Africans irrespective of colour, to the Natal Congress (1900) and the Natal
Indian Congress (founded by Mohandas Gandhi in 1894) which concerned themselves with,
respectively, providing a forum for Africans to vent their grievances and defending the voting rights
of Indians. Together with these organisations, Africans, Coloureds and Indians developed an
expanding and vibrant vernacular and English-language press throughout the country, with only the
Orange River Colony lacking a local black-owned newspaper (although a Basutoland newspaper
circulated widely in the colony) in the years after the war”.
719 Deegan 2011:3
720 Clark and Worger 2004:22
721 The African National Congress (ANC) was born in 1912, although its name was initially
South African Native National Congress (SANNC). Its objective was to protest against racial injustice
and “appeal for equal treatment before the law”. It is significant here to note that although blacks
were the majority in population, the ANC, perhaps representing most black people, demanded
“equal” and not special treatment. Moltmann, as seen in the preceding chapter of this research, argues
for “restorative equality” and not retaliation or revenge that would bring about reverse oppression.
Nelson R Mandela’s ([vol. 2] 2002:54) words at the 1964 Rivonia Trial seem fitting here as well: “I
have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination”. The numerous
“petitions and deputations” of the SANNC came short of persuading white politicians to dismantle
segregationist policies (Clark and Worger 2004:24; cf. Deegan 2011:14-15). However, Nelson R
Mandela ([vol.2] 2002:47-48, emphasis mine; cf. Deegan 2011:15, 30-31), in 1964, standing in court and
justifying the transition from violence to non-violence within the African liberation movements, notes
the failure of this method of “petitions and deputations” and mass non-violent action: “We of the
ANC have always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might
drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts were that fifty years of non-
violence had brought the African people nothing but more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights”.
Various organizations of liberation expanded throughout the 1920s, and there was interest in the
1930s for all African organizations to combine efforts of resistance to segregation. And so 1935 saw
the representative meeting of all the African organisations, in Bloemfontein, and the All-Africa
150
While African resistance continued, Afrikanerdom was reviving; “Afrikaners had
started to reclaim their political identity, shattered by the South African War, and to
fashion a South African nationalism that was radically exclusionist”722. This
development, among other socio-political factors, gave a boost to the National Party
that had been founded early 1914 by JBM Hertzog, who had been removed from
office by Prime Minister Louis Botha723. The National Party, under the leadership of
Hertzog, united with the South African Party of Jan Smuts in 1933, forming the
United South African National Party. DF Malan formed the Purified Nationalist
Party in 1934724. The Reunited National Party, headed by DF Malan, was reformed
after Hertzog, and many former members of the National Party, split away from the
United South African National Party in 1939, over South African support of Britain
in World War II, and later reunited with the Purified National Party725. DF Malan, of
the Reunited National Party, won the elections of 1948726.
A Historical Overview of the Rise and Fall of Apartheid
Apartheid is at its core about separation, as the meaning of the word is “apartness”
in the Dutch and Afrikaans languages727. The separation is according to race, and it
covers where one lives, studies at school, works and dies. Further, Apartheid also
assumes white supremacy and structures races in a hierarchy, with whites at the top
and Africans or blacks at the bottom of privileges728. This is the policy or principle
that came with DF Malan’s government that ascended into power in 1948: “After the
Second World War in 1948, the [National Party], with its ideology of apartheid that
brought an even more rigorous and authoritarian approach than the segregationist
policies of previous governments, won the general election”729. The new
government did not introduce racial discrimination, but escalated it further in
society. There are a number of things that seem to have had a role in securing the
Reunited National Party’s (RNP) victory in the elections730.
Convention was established, rejecting all political and economic segregation. In as much as there was
agreement in aim, there was friction regarding methodology (petitions and deputations of the ANC
or the mass action of the Communist Party) (Clark and Worger 2004:26-27). The ANC’s Youth
League was formed in 1944, with Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, and Walter Sisulu as its leaders. Its
formation seems associated with the ANC’s revival of resistance in the 1940s (Deegan 2011:18; cf.
Clark and Worger 2004:40, 57).
722 Clark and Worger 2004:27. It is worth noting that “while Afrikaner ethnicity was
mobilized primarily against the dominance of English speakers in South African business and
politics, Afrikaners and English alike were practically unanimous in support of segregation as the
policy of choice regarding Africans. Such unanimity reflected the basic fact that white privilege
rested on black labour in every part of the country” (Clark and Worger 2004:32; cf. Deegan 2011:12).
723 Clark and Worger 2004:28-29; cf. Deegan 2011:14
724 Clark and Worger 2004:30; cf. Deegan 2011:14
725 Clark and Worger 2004:32; www.wikipedia.com, “National Party (South Africa)”, accessed
on the 4 of November 2014; cf. Deegan 2011:17

th
726 Deegan 2011:19
727 Clark and Worger 2004:3, 37
728 Clark and Worger 2004:3, 10, 48
729 www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013; Clark and Worger 2004:37
730 “For those who supported the NP, its primary appeal lay in its determination to maintain
white domination in the face of rising mass resistance; uplift poor Afrikaners; challenge the pre-eminence of
151
The movement to “challenge the pre-eminence of English-speaking whites” did not
mean that the RNP never enjoyed the support of English-speaking whites. Some left
the country “to organise campaigns against apartheid overseas” but some welcomed
Apartheid, as indicated by the increased votes RNP gained in the 1950s 731. RNP did
not ever lose during elections from thereon until the fall of Apartheid, when the
African National Congress won in 1994.
The furtherance of racial discrimination through the entrance of Apartheid was not
sudden, but gradual through numerous discriminatory legislations732. The Group
Areas Act733 was possibly one of the most devastating legislations of Apartheid,
especially to Africans. It required the relocation of masses of people, millions734,
regardless of the historical and sentimental value of the land to its communities.
Deegan puts it this way: “Land held by Indians and coloureds in the city centres was
expropriated by the government, and residents were resettled in housing estates on
the peripheries of cities. The black population who lived in Sophiatown, one of the
oldest black settlements in Johannesburg, had their homes destroyed…and they
were moved to Soweto”735. Sophiatown had much historical and cultural value to
its black community, and all efforts to resist relocation were fruitless, particularly
English-speaking whites in public life, the professions and business; and abolish the remaining imperial
ties. The state became an engine of patronage for Afrikaner employment” (www.gov.za, accessed on
the 8th of November 2013, emphasis mine; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:38).
731 Deegan 2011:26; Clark and Worger 2004:56
732 Here are some few examples from Heather Deegan (2011:24; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:45-
46, 49-55, 67): “[1]1949 Immorality Act – extended the existing ban on sexual relations between whites
and Africans to prohibit all sexual contact between whites and coloureds and Indians. [2] 1950
Suppression of Communism Act – organisations that supported communism were banned. [3] 1950
Group Areas Act – extended the principle of separate racial residential areas on a comprehensive and
compulsory basis. [4] 1951 Bantu Authorities Act – established government-approved chiefs in the
reserves but no provision for African representation in the towns. [5] 1952 Abolition of Passes and
Coordination of Documents Act – all Africans had to carry a reference book to include an employer’s
signature renewed each month. This became a new form of pass law. [6] 1953 Reservation of Separate
Amenities Act – enforced social segregation in all public amenities, such as transport, cinemas,
restaurants and sports facilities. Separation was later enforced in schools, colleges and universities.
[7] 1953 Bantu Education Act – all African schools brought under the control of the Department of
Native Affairs; independent missionary schools for Africans were phased out. Imposition of a strict
curriculum that stressed ‘Bantu culture’ and prepared students for manual labour. [8] 1953 Criminal
Law Amendment Act – prescribed heavy penalties for civil disobedience. [9]1954 Natives Resettlement
Act – gave the state the power to remove Africans forcibly to separate townships. [10] 1955 Natives
(Urban Areas) Amendment Act – rights of Africans to live in a town were confined to those who had
been in continuous residence for 10 years or had worked for 15 years with a single employer. All
others needed a permit to stay longer than three days”.
733 Deegan (2011:24-25) explains the uniqueness of this legislation: “The creation of the
‘homelands’ (or Bantustans) was an extension of the separated areas that had been demarcated as
‘African reserves’ in 1936. Black South Africans were to be restricted to the separate territories that
they had been allocated as part of the segregationist policies of the interwar years, but under the
Nationalist government, mobility would be strictly controlled”.
734 Clark and Worger (2004:70; cf. http://www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013)
enumerate: “During the three decades that the South African government pursued this policy from
the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s, approximately 3.5 million Africans were removed from ‘white’ areas
in a process the government came to refer to as ‘erasing black spots’”.
735 Deegan 2011:23-24; cf. Mandela [vol.2] 2002:8
152
due to military intervention736. Apartheid policy was also developed by a
“comprehensive development plan” that HF Verwoerd, minister of Native Affairs,
had commissioned – the “Commission for the Socio-Economic Development of the
Bantu Areas within the Union of South Africa” or “Tomlinson Commission”. The
report of that Commission was published in 1954, and it defined Apartheid in terms
of science and culture, and focused on how segregation could be implemented
regarding the “consolidation and development” of the Bantustans737.
The resistance also intensified, in general, as Apartheid deepened. Deegan writes:

“The ANC Youth League’s Progamme of Action, which called for strikes, boycotts
and defiance, was formally adopted by the ANC in 1949”. It would seem that the
oppressed also realized the escalation of racial injustice with the ascension of the
RNP to power. The government responded to the defiance campaigns through
banning its leaders and passing new laws738. The Congress Alliance was formed
through the partnership of various organizations – African National Congress,
South African Indian Congress, South African Coloured People’s Organisation and
the Congress of Democrats (which was of white democrats). The Congress Alliance
had collected the opinions of the people and the popular demands when, after a
year of doing so, it presented the Freedom Charter. The Freedom Charter “called for
equal access to health, education and legal rights”, and that all the Apartheid racial
laws and practices should be dismantled739. The publication of and the support of
the Freedom Charter were both considered by the government as criminal offences,
and about 156 leaders of the ANC and Congress Alliance were charged 740. It was
not everyone within the ANC that agreed with the Charter and the growing
cooperation it had with Indians and whites. These differences of opinion ended up
with the faction of those who referred to themselves as Africanists, within the ANC,
forming another organization called Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) in 1959741. The
federal structure of the ANC in the 1950s seems to have been conducive to much
diversity of opinions, and led to much disagreements of opinion, leading some on
the verge of violence, but it seems that its “Protestant missionary-trained
leadership” was equal to the task742.
Sharpeville 1960 is considered by some as a turning point for both sides (liberation
movements and the government) of the struggle743. The Pan Africanist Congress
736 Deegan 2011:24; Clark and Worger 2004:69-70

737 Deegan 2011:25; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:46, 64; cf. http://www.gov.za, accessed on the
8th of November 2013
738 Deegan 2011:27; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:57-60; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of
November 2013
739 Deegan 2011:27; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:61; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of
November 2013
The South African Communist Party seems to have assisted in the drafting of some of the
sections of the Freedom Charter (Deegan 2011:29).
740 Deegan 2011:29-30
November 2013
742 Deegan 2011:29; cf. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:200
743 Deegan 2011:32
153
had asked people to leave their passes at their homes and to gather at police stations
so as to be arrested for the violation of pass laws. The chosen date was the 21st of
March 1960. Sharpeville in the Transvaal and Nyanga with Langa near Cape Town
seem most notable for their gathering in large numbers at police stations. The
gathered people were unarmed and were engaging in passive opposition. At
Sharpeville, the police opened fire on them, killing sixty-nine and wounding 186.
Many of those who were killed were shot from the back 744. These killings led to
much protest internationally and widespread unrest within South Africa. After the
detaining of many thousands of supporters of both the ANC and the PAC, both
parties were eventually banned by the government745.
Moltmann, as if in conversation with Mandela, comments on the dehumanizing

effect of injustice: “Oppression destroys humanity on both sides. The oppressor acts
inhumanely, the victim is dehumanized. The evil the perpetrator commits robs him of
his humanity, the suffering he inflicts dehumanizes the victim”746. Mandela never
thought he would die in prison, but that he would go free at some point 747. That was
his expectation even though he acknowledges that prison and its authorities would
“conspire to rob” them of their “dignity”, which could have led them to
hopelessness and despair in the loss of all faith in humanity748.
The resistance against Apartheid was renewed in the 1970s. This is recognized by
Deegan: “If the 1960s witnessed a period when resistance against apartheid
appeared to be undermined by the power of the state, the 1970s represented a time
744 Deegan 2011:31; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:62; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of
November 2013
745 Deegan 2011:31; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:62. This banning, and the apparent failure of
the prolonged methods of peaceful opposition, led to the formation of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK),
which means “Spear of the Nation”, in 1961. This was an underground guerrilla army with the
objective of hitting back “by all the means within…power”. Within a period of eighteen months since
formation, MK had carried out 200 “acts of sabotage” against property and buildings of government
(Deegan 2011:31; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:62; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November
2013). The government responded by upholding the death penalty for sabotage and opened a way
for police to detain people for a period of ninety days without trial. The police were able to raid the
headquarters of the MK in 1963, and arrest its leaders. The leaders’ names included Nelson R
Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi, Andrew Mlangeni,
Ahmed Kathrada and Dennis Goldberg. All of them were found guilty of sabotage against the
government and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The MK struggle was hard hit by this turnout
of events (Deegan 2011:32; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:62-63; cf. Mandela [vol. 2] 2002:10-11, 25-69; cf.
www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013). Nelson Mandela was already serving a five-
year sentence on Robben Island. He had served just nine months of that sentence when the Rivonia
Trial began (Mandela [vol. 2] 2002:3-26).
While serving as “political prisoners”, Mandela and others continued the struggle for social
justice in their own sphere of prison, over the years (Mandela [vol. 2] 2002:133-136; cf. 2002:87).
Nelson R Mandela ([vol. 2] 2002:110) writes: “For us, such struggles – for sunglasses, long trousers,
study privileges, equalized food – were corollaries to the struggle we waged outside prison. The
campaign to improve conditions in prison was part of the apartheid struggle. It was, in that sense, all
the same; we fought injustice wherever we found it, no matter how large or how small, and we
fought injustice to preserve our own humanity”.
747 Mandela [vol. 2] 2002:87
748 Mandela [vol. 2] 2002:87
154
when people renewed their fight against the system” 749. One of the factors to the
revival of protest was seemingly economic challenges among Africans due to such
realities as the recession from 1973 to 1976; black workers were struggling to survive
on low wages. Working conditions were also a major issue of improvement. Many
worker-strikes broke out throughout the country, and some success stories of met
demands resulted750. Deegan comments on the economic effects on Apartheid: “As
black purchasing power grew, the incentives to remove apartheid and improve
services and facilities for Africans increased….In short, strict apartheid policies were
starting to be bad for white businesses”751. Perceptions of the value of Apartheid
started to change in favour of liberation movements. Prime Minister John Vorster,
unlike Verwoerd, “bowed to the economic necessity of creating a larger pool of
skilled and semi-skilled black workers”, and PW Botha, his successor, also
accelerated his policies; education for Africans gradually received better resources752.
At around the same time of the 1970s, the Black Consciousness Movement 753 was
gaining ground754. Another cause of protest and source of grievance by the African
people was the compulsory use of the Afrikaans language in schools as a medium of
instruction. About 15,000 students marched in protest to this regulation in Soweto
on June 16, 1976. The police responded by opening fire on the students to the death
of many of them. This incident was a cause of further challenges to the government:
“Following these killings, workers went on strike in Johannesburg, Cape Town and
the Eastern Cape, schools were burned, administrative buildings were attacked and
there were general uprisings in townships”755. The ANC also, while underground,
linked, through pamphlets, the student’s struggle with its national liberation
campaign756.
The 1980s saw a growing realization of the failure of Apartheid, particularly from
the perspective of business and the economy757. The policy that certain skilled and
semi-skilled jobs should be retained for whites alone was in part terminated in 1979,
under Botha. And “the last discriminatory barrier in the work place was removed in
1987”758. While there was progress in the labour market, the political arena
continued to exclude the African population. Some political rights (through a new
constitution) were offered to the Coloured and Indian communities. The divisive
nature of partial political rights being offered to only some non-whites was evident.
The United Democratic Front (UDF) was formed in 1983 initially as in opposition to
749 Deegan 2011:43

750 Clark and Worger 2004:77; Deegan 2011:43-44
751 Deegan 2011:44
752 Deegan 2011:49-50
753 See below
754 Deegan 2011:45-46
November 2013
756 Deegan 2011:48
757 Deegan 2011:51-52, 54; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:74. Deegan (2011:53) notes: “In the racist
state of South Africa a perverse situation emerged: while the business classes favoured racial reform
because of their concern for higher profits, the white working class continued to support the
subjugation of black workers”.
758 Deegan 2011:53
155
the then introduced idea of a Tricameral Parliament that excluded Africans and gave
Coloureds and Indians limited representation. The UDF also called for the release of
ANC leaders and political prisoners from prison. Being a heterogeneous movement
rather than being a party by itself, it was at the forefront of the struggle for social
justice against the government in the 1980s 759. The year 1985 is perhaps notable for
instability as part of the UDF’s campaign and policy of ‘ungovernability’760.
Secret negotiations seemed best by the government, between a government

committee and Nelson R Mandela, from May 1988. However, this negotiation seems
to have been intended to somehow preserve white supremacy 761. Mandela ended up
being an educator through history to them in those meetings in May 1988, and in
July 1989 when Botha also became part of them762. In August of 1989, Botha
resigned over public criticisms from his subordinates, and de Klerk replaced him.
De Klerk dramatically announced to his parliament on the 2nd of February 1990 that
the “banning orders on the ANC, SACP, PAC, and 31 other organizations were to be
rescinded” as necessary steps for negotiation. Mandela was released on the 11th of
February 1990 at the age of 71763. De Klerk also repealed the “main laws
underpinning apartheid: the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act…in October
1990; the Natives’ Land Act, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration
Act were all swept off the law books in February 1991”. On December of 1991 he
759 Deegan 2011:56-57, 59; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:68, 91-93; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on
the 8th of November 2013; cf. www.wikipedia.org, “United Democratic Front (South Africa)”,
accessed on the 7th of January 2014
760 Deegan (2011:59-61; John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:195-196; cf. Clark and
Worger 2004:98, 103; cf. www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013) says: “In 1985, township
residents were called upon to destroy the black local authorities, and councillors were called on to
resign. Municipal buildings and the homes of government collaborators were attacked….In Soweto,
some areas ‘bore all the marks of a war zone: streets were patrolled at night, fire was exchanged with
fire, nobody could enter or leave hostels, money was collected from houses to finance the purchase of
food and ammunition, women cooked collectively and fed the “troops” and young men walked about
openly parading arms….Although the UDF supported the idea of unity, violence worsened in the
eastern Cape townships as the UDF battled against the rival Azanian People’s Organisation
(AZAPO), which was loyal to black consciousness ideals and opposed to the UDF’s acceptance of
whites….The situation became grave in 1985 as the government announced a state of emergency in
parts of the country….International pressures began to have an impact as foreign banks suspended
credit and economic sanctions were imposed on the country by the United States”.
It seems that the authoritarian control of the government was failing as the successive states
of emergency in the 1980s contributed to growing lawlessness (Deegan 2011:61). Clark and Worger
(2004:68) explain the effect of the proposed constitution: “When the government offered a farcical
constitutional ‘reform’ in 1983, African frustrations boiled over and signalled the beginning of
unrelenting opposition that spelled the final downfall of apartheid”. The challenges were so great
that Botha offered to release Mandela on condition that he renounces violence, which he did not.
And so the government either had to endure the unrest or make substantial changes to policy (Clark
and Worger 2004:93, 99). Social unrest and strikes continued through 1986 (Clark and Worger
2004:105). The UDF targeted local authorities in the mid-1980s many of whom were of the Inkatha
organization of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Buthelezi came to rely on the government and received
support in killing ANC and UDF supporters (Clark and Worger 2004:107-108; Deegan 2011:65).
761 Clark and Worger 2004:110
763 Clark and Worger 2004:111; Deegan 2011:67-70, 74; John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy
2004:206-207; http://www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of November 2013
156
met with the ANC and many other political organizations in a multiparty conference
known as the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), the objective of
which was the discussion of a process by which South Africa should be
transformed764. The negotiations were not without challenges and disruptions, but
there was eventual progress: “Throughout 1993 and early 1994 the National Party,
the ANC and other groups negotiated as to the form that political transformation
would take. They agreed on an interim constitution under which South Africa
would be ruled by a Government of National Unity”765. The first non-racial
democratic elections were held on the 27th of April, 1994, with the ANC winning
them, and Mandela becoming the first African president of the Republic of South
Africa. “Apartheid was formally at an end. White supremacy had lost its control of
the state”766. “The dreadful years of apartheid were finally over. The next task was
to rebuild the country”767. Nelson R Mandela was inaugurated as President on the
10th of May 1994768.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was formed in 1995 for the purpose
of assisting the country come to terms with its violent and racial past 769. The
objective of the TRC was to effect restorative justice: “The mandate of the
commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the
perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as reparation and
rehabilitation”770. It seems to have not been welcomed by everyone, but others
considered it a success771.
A Historical Overview of the Role of Christian Mission in Apartheid South Africa
It is a historical fact that Christian mission in South Africa had a strong influence in
the political society of Apartheid South Africa: “Mission Christianity and its
associated educational institutions exerted a profound influence on African political
life, and separatist churches were early vehicles for African political assertion”772.
That influence, as will be seen below was both positive and negative. This section
will analyse the historical role that Christian mission played for and against
Apartheid governance in South Africa. It will however briefly also locate the
entrance of Christianity into South Africa.
764 Clark and Worger 2004:114; Deegan 2011:78

765 Clark and Worger 2004:116-117; Deegan 2011:91; cf. http://www.gov.za, accessed on the
8th of November 2013
766 Clark and Worger 2004:118-119; John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:222
767 Deegan 2011:111
768 Deegan 2011:110
769 Deegan 2011:66
770 www.wiktionary.org, “Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)”, accessed on
the 7 of January 2014

th
771 www.wiktionary.org, “Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)”, accessed on
the 7th of January 2014

772 www.gov.za, accessed on the 8 th of November 2013; cf. Oosthuizen 1990:101, 107-108, 112-
113
157
The Advent of Christian Mission into the South African Region
The South African region first had significant contact with Christianity in the 17 th
century CE, although there was both an incidental and temporary presence of
Christianity prior to then. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy regard the 17 th
century as the significant time of Christian presence in the region concerned: “It is
true that the history of the church begins with the coming of the Dutch (1652), the
French Huguenots (1668), and the early German settlers a little later”773. They
further note that Portuguese Catholics had preceded the Dutch in the Cape since
there was a small Catholic chapel built at Mossel Bay in 1501, but that this small
presence had ceased by 1652774. Prior to 1501, there may have been an incidental or
symbolic presence or contact of Christianity with the South African region, when
Portuguese mariners, in 1488, placed a small cross on an erected pillar775.
It appears that Christianity was at first present, 17th century and forward, in the
South African region without however being offered to the black population. James
Kiernan makes this assertion: “Christianity was for a long time the exclusive
property of whites in South Africa before it purposefully reached out in the 1820s to
touch the African population, the great majority of whom were settled Bantu-
speaking farmers and pastoralists”776. There were very limited and temporary
attempts to evangelize the indigenous people, until the “nineteenth-century
international missionary movement provided new impetus and concern for the
evangelization of the ‘heathen’”777. There were tensions between the missionaries
and the settled church (or churches) regarding the need to evangelize the indigenous
peoples778. There also seems to have been tensions due to the tendency of
missionaries to take the side of the natives779. Bitterness by some in the white
community was in this way nurtured.
It may be significant to note at this point, in light of later developments of apartheid

policies, that the church, at least for the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NGK)780,
773 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:1; cf. Prazesky 1990:2
774 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:1
775 Martin Prozesky (1990:1) writes: “To the best of our knowledge, the long story of Christian
influence on what would later be called South Africa began with the arrival of Portuguese mariners
led by Bartholomew Dias early in 1488. On 12 March, the feast day of St Gregory the Great, they
erected a padrao or limestone pillar topped by a small cross on high ground at what is now called
Kwaaihoek, overlooking the Indian Ocean near the mouth of the of the Bushman’s River on the
eastern Cape coast. It is possible that Mass was also said….In all probability the events of that day
were thus the earliest distinctively Christian activities to take place in South Africa”.
776 Kiernan 1990:9; cf. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:2
779 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy (2004:13) note: “The basic reason that Dutch and
English settlers alike resented the presence of some missionaries was thus precisely because the
missionaries not only evangelized the indigenous peoples, but took their side in the struggle for
justice, rights, and land. Such missionaries, being white, regarded themselves as the conscience of the
settlers and the protectors of the ‘natives’”.
780 There are three Afrikaner churches of Calvinistic tradition: (1) Nederduitse Gereformeerde
Kerk (NGK), (2) Gereformeerde Kerk (GK), and (3) Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (NHK). NGK
“produced the Sendingkerk, for Coloured members, the NGK in Afrika for blacks and the Reformed
158
initially did not promote racial discrimination as strongly as religious
discrimination. This was shown by the initial tolerance towards interracial
marriages between people of the same NGK faith781.
In time, social pressure, blended with missionary strategies 782, resulted in the NGK
adopting, in 1857, a notion of separate congregations along racial lines. This notion,
beginning ecclesiastically, had great influence in later South African social life: “The
missionary programme of NGK as it developed during the next hundred years
followed custom and culture consistently, thus providing an ecclesiological
blueprint for the Nationalist policy of separate development. This separation of
settler and mission churches had implications far beyond the ecclesiastical realm”783.
This ecclesiastical and theological impact on society will be explored below. The
NGK’s ecclesiastical segregation strategy was also adopted by the English churches:
“The English-speaking settlers and their churches had also begun to follow the
pattern established by their Afrikaner or Dutch counterparts….Though white and
black Methodists belonged to the same church, they worshipped in different
buildings and belonged to separate circuits. The settler/mission-church pattern was
adopted by them as well”784. In the English church the division along racial and
Church in Africa for Asians”. It is important to note that the “term Dutch Reformed Church usually
refers to this whole group” (Mbali 1987:40). David Thomas (2002:xxiii) adds: “The two other white
churches in the Dutch Reformed Bloc were both offshoots of the NGK. They were the Nederduitsch
Hervormde Kerk (NHK), founded in 1855, the membership of which originally comprised those
Boers who had trekked away from the Cape Colony in 1838 and the Gereformeerde Kerk…(NG)
which, in turn, broke away from the NHK in 1857, because it deemed that church to be too
theologically liberal”.
781 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy (2004:7; cf. Kinghorn 1990:58; cf. Oosthuizen
1990:102-103) observe: “In the very early days at the Cape colony, discrimination practised between
white and black, slave and free person, was ostensibly based more on religion than race [although]
racism and a European sense of cultural superiority were rife….A Khoi convert, Eva, who was
baptized in 1661, married an influential European official, and such mixed marriages between
Christians of different races, though rare, were initially tolerated [as] race proved more powerful [in
time] than religion”.
782 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy (2004:14) observe: “It is perhaps strange to note that
the most articulate exponents of the need for separating settler and mission churches were not always
the settlers but often the missionaries, van der Kemp and John Philip leading the way….They
regarded this as necessary for the sake of the indigenous peoples”.
783 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:9; cf. Kinghorn 1990:73-78. John de Gruchy and
Steve de Gruchy (2004:9-10) also note the theological role towards segregational policies: “Kuyper’s
idea of separate spheres of sovereignty embedded in creation corresponded well with the Lutheran
doctrine of the ‘orders of creation’ as expounded by German missionary science and embodied in
NGK policy. Together they have had considerable influence on South African social history. Indeed,
it helps explain why at a later date the NGK could give its support to the Nationalist policy of
separate development as being in accord with the will of God. It was this theological position that
provided the religious ground for the policy. But it was a position somewhat removed from the
theology propounded by the reformer of Geneva”.
784 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:13-14. There was at the same time a different
development in the opposite direction: “But at the same time, there was development in the opposite
direction. The Coloured congregations of the LMS [London Missionary Society] joined with the white
Congregationalists in the Evangelical Voluntary Union in 1864, which became the Congregational
Union in 1883 and included a fair number of Africans. The white Presbyterians gradually developed
their own mission work and so became multiracial in principle, though, like the Congregationalists,
159
ethnic lines did not always mean different synods or denominations785. Also, the
Catholic and Anglican churches did not experience structural separation between
whites and blacks due to doctrinal or ecclesiological convictions, in as much as
discrimination was not absent786.
After apartheid arrived in 1948, there was further development of three streams in
reaction to it. Two of them may be described in the statement787 drafted at a Federal
Missionary Council of the NGK that met in 1953 in Pretoria. This Council had
invited “church leaders from other denominations to attend”, especially those that
belonged to the Christian Council of South Africa which had condemned apartheid
in its own conference in 1949, and from which the NGK had withdrawn its
membership788.
The last two groups correspond to the anti-apartheid stream in as much as there are
some differences between them. It should be noted that the above groups refer to
separation within the church, but that the stances taken also reflect on separation in
society789. The churches’ division in reaction to Apartheid was not a static but rather
dynamic: “Some reacted against unjust laws, though their own earlier racial
attitudes helped in building up a climate for such laws…others supported the
promulgation of these laws….Some Christians call for evolutionary methods for
change, others have moved from status quo attitudes to the acceptance of gradual
reform while yet others wish to retain the status quo at all cost”790. The churches also
experienced an evolution in their views.
Pro-Apartheid Christian Mission
The NGK seems to be the representative church of pro-apartheid Christian mission.

This was the most powerful church that in a sense was a key in providing the
seldom in practice, except in the higher courts of the church. The Baptists took a similar approach,
with a multiracial union, but separate congregations and work” (John de Gruchy and Steve de
Gruchy 2004:15-16).
What is meant by “English-speaking” churches is not a single denomination or similar
denominations, but it is rather a focus on origin and common purpose against apartheid: “…the
designation refers to those churches of British origin that have grown together over the years as a
result of the ecumenical movement and their common attitude towards the racial situation in general
and apartheid in particular….[The] denominations normally included [are] ttehe Anglican,
Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational….They are all different”(John de Gruchy and Steve de
Gruchy 2004:84).
786 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:16, 60
787 The statement (John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:55; Kinghorn 1990:59; cf.
Cochrane 1990:92) reads: “In the words of one of the representatives, these differences divided the
conference into three groups, [firstly,] those who sincerely believed in a righteous racial separation in
the Church based on the Scriptures; secondly, those who made no such confession but nevertheless
practiced some form of separation because circumstances demanded it although such separation did
not correspond with the ideals of the Christian Church; thirdly, those who were convinced that
separation in the Church was wrong and stood condemned according to Scripture”
788 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:53-54; cf. Cochrane 1990:87
789 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:56; Kinghorn 1990:62, 65-66
790 Oosthuizen 1990:112
160
theological rationale791 behind the principle of apartheid, particularly the aspect of
“separate development”792. The NGK may be said to have been representative
because it did have sister churches – the NHK and the GK – that more or less shared
the same political sentiments as mentioned above. GC Oosthuizen notes the
similarity of views, as he makes reference to their support for the Apartheid
government: “Through all the trauma that the apartheid laws developed, the
Nationalist Party felt secure because it received support from the three Afrikaans
churches, especially the DRC (NGK)”793. The NGK is the largest of these three794.
NGK had been a member of the Christian Council of South Africa but it withdrew
from the Council with the entrance of apartheid and did not denounce apartheid. It
did not denounce apartheid because it supported the notion of “separate
development” of the races, but it did not necessarily support the methodologies of
the government in implementing this notion795.
It therefore appears incorrect to say that the NGK was in full support of historical
Apartheid. Actually it evolved to a point at which it designated historical Apartheid
a sin as an attitude, in 1986796. Also, it was not all the members of this church that
supported Apartheid. Some of the leading theologians for example were voices
against it. This was so particularly after 1956. GC Oosthuizen states this: “After
1956 some changes in approaches to apartheid were to be discerned among DRC
leaders and theologians. They questioned some of the motives behind the DRC’s
emphasis on separate churches for the racial groups as unscriptural”797. It would
therefore be incorrect to regard the NGK church as totally pro-Apartheid.
791 Kinghorn 1990:57-80; cf. Mbali 1987:42; cf. Nurnberger 1990:152-155

792 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy (2004:67-68, emphasis mine; cf. Mbali 1987:80-81; cf.
Oosthuizen 1990:122) writing on the great influence of the NGK, put it this way: “The NGK has had a
great deal of influence in South Africa…[The] NGK with its million-and-a-half white members was,
until 1994, quite clearly the dominant church in terms of its access to the policy makers of the nation. Included
within its ranks were most of the members of Parliament and of the provincial councils. Its members virtually
controlled many of the town councils throughout the land. The vast majority of people employed by the
government in various capacities and institutions, including the police and the military, belonged to
the NGK….Given this impressive position within society, and the access it had to the corridors of power
at the national and local level, the NGK held one of the keys to the future of South Africa”.
793 Oosthuizen 1990:109; cf. Thomas 2002:xxiii
794 www.wikipedia.org, “Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa”, accessed on the 2 nd of
January 2014
795 Johann Kinghorn (1990:79-80, emphasis mine) writes of the difference between the
envisioned apartheid of the NGK and the actual apartheid, arguing that the proposed NGK version of
apartheid ended up encouraging the then existing form, or historical apartheid: “In the absence of a
serious attempt to come to terms with the real social dynamic of South Africa, the [NGK] church was
nevertheless forthcoming with ‘general principles’. These ‘principles’ gave legitimacy to political
activities, some of which history will sentence harshly. But the church did not monitor the political
use that was made of its ‘principles’. Had it done so, the DRC [or NGK] would have found that its version
of apartheid was nothing more than a flight of fantasy. However, in the absence of this recognition, the
DRC [or NGK] kept on promoting apartheid as a means of fulfilling the Christian norms of respect for
human dignity, equality and freedom – thereby legitimising in reality more or less the opposite of what it
had meant to promote”.
796 Kinghorn 1990:70-71; Oosthuizen 1990:109, 119
797 Oosthuizen 1990:110; cf. Mbali 1987:42-44, 60, 83
161
The NGK’s reaction to the Native Laws Amendment Bill, Clause 29(c), is an example
of the fact that this church was not extending its hands of blessing to every piece of
legislation that the government passed. GC Oosthuizen recognises the NGK’s
position against the government’s approach to Apartheid, regarding the
government’s interference with religious or church freedom of interracial worship in
this Bill, as a first stand that was in unison with other churches: “Fortunately, the
‘Church Clause’ brought the mainline churches into remarkable unanimity in their
resistance to it. For the first time the DRC also took a definite stand. The non-
implementation of the Act, which ruthlessly affected the principle of religious liberty
and the church’s sovereignty, was due to the threat of a unanimous disregard of it
by the churches”798. The success of the churches in this regard may be an evidence of
how Apartheid could have been prevented, or earlier dismantled, had all churches
been in unity in effort against it, taking into consideration that Christianity was the
dominant religion in South Africa.
Anti-Apartheid Christian Mission
There were many churches, more so at the level of representative councils, which
did not suffer or tolerate Apartheid in silence, particularly those who were members
of the Christian Council of South Africa, later called the South African Council of
Churches. From the very outset of Apartheid, this Council rejected it. Christian
resistance to Apartheid was not uniform and it took many forms in time799. The
churches in resistance might have been anti-Apartheid but that does not mean that
they were not themselves struggling internally with racial discrimination or
separation800. They tended to be influenced by society, rather than them
transforming it . There was also an apparent tendency for resisting churches to
801
trail behind liberation movements rather than taking the lead802. There are some
indications however of Christianity being an influence on liberation movements – “a
restraining and pacifying influence on black resistance to white oppression” – such
that it could take fifty years before violence could be considered an alternative
method of resistance803.
It was not only churches as corporate entities, but even Christian specialized
institutions and individuals804 that did oppose Apartheid. James Cochrane suggests
that there were nine phases in the development805 of Christian resistance to racial
segregation and Apartheid: (1) the first two decades of the twentieth century
experienced the development of segregational and separation ideas that climaxed
with the Land Act of 1913, partitioning South African land along racial lines.
798 Oosthuizen 1990:109; cf. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:59-60
799 Cochrane 1990:83
800 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:91-92; Oosthuizen 1990:110
803 Mbali 1987:64-67
804 GC Oosthuizen (1990:119) states: “The few prophetic figures in the NGK and in the
mainline English-language churches and the prophetic leaders in the black and coloured churches
have helped to save this country from disaster”.
162
Christian resistance, between 1903 and 1912, took the form of schisms where black
church congregants formed their own “separatist churches in protest against
conquest and colonial domination” – African Independent [now Initiated] Church
movement - such as the Ethiopian movement (started in 1893 by Moses Mokone), the
Zionist movement (started in 1897) and the Apostolic movement (started in 1908)806;
(2) From 1913 to 1926 saw the emergence of “Christian Trusteeship” where there
would be supportive “pleading of the case of blacks in public”807; (3) From 1926 to
1948 was the emergence of “specialised institutions”, the Christian Council of South
Africa being the most prominent and originally established to tackle new mission
demands808. Talks with government through formal representations characterize this
phase of Christian resistance809; (4) From 1948 to 1960 was the phase of formal
protest and passive resistance: “with the loss of any intimate contact to the reigning
government, the [English-speaking] churches turned more and more now to formal
protest [and] passive resistance810. James Cochrane notes the weakness written
resolutions as a common method of passive resistance: “Passive resistance to the
unfolding policies of apartheid took form most frequently in resolutions from the
high courts of the churches….However, while this may have worked to some extent
while church leaders of English-speaking denominations still had good connections
to government, the weakness of the method soon became apparent to many, at least
outside of the churches” 811; (5) From 1960 to 1968 was the phase in which the themes
of “identification” with the poor and oppressed, and “reconciliation” across the
colour lines, were dominant in Christian ethical discourse812; (6) From 1968 to 1977
saw the emergence of black theology and conscientisation, as the Christian Institute
became “closely connected to the young generation of blacks who launched the black
consciousness movement”813. (7) From 1977 to 1983 there seems to have been a shift
towards the consideration of the legality of the South African government, and a
move from mere identification to solidarity with the suffering 814; (8) From 1983 to
1986 is the characterization of “delegitimization” of the Apartheid government
accompanied with civil disobedience; the church becomes a “site of the struggle”815;
806 Cochrane 1990:85, 93; cf. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:151; cf. Thomas
2002:xxiv-xxv; cf. Oosthuizen 1990:102-103; Nehemiah Tile, who had been a Wesleyan Methodist
Church minister, founded the Thembu Church in 1884, and in that way became the “first African to
lead an independently established church of consequence in this part of Africa, and thus the father of
the independent church movement in South Africa” (Oosthuizen 1990:102). The African Independent
[now Initiated] Church (AIC) movement seems to have eventually lost its political and anti-racial
flavor (Oosthuizen 1990:103, 115-116)
807 Cochrane 1990:85, 93
808 Cochrane 1990:86, 93
810 Cochrane 1990:86, 93
812 Cochrane 1990:89, 93
813 Cochrane 1990:90; cf. Oosthuizen 1990:119; Nehemiah Tile, who founded the Thembu
Church in 1884, may have been the first Black theologian a century before Black Theology is
recognized to have mushroomed in the 70’s, since he argued for a contextualized Gospel for Africa
(Oosthuizen 1990:103).
814 Cochrane 1990:91, 93
163
And (9) from the Kairos Document, 1986 and forward, was the ‘last’ phase816. In
general, however, Christian opposition to Apartheid seems less than satisfactory, in
light of the numerous resolutions passed, with relatively little practical application
in many cases817.
As noted by Takatso Mofokeng, the historical emergence of black818 theology was a

very significant development in Christianity in relation to Apartheid 819. There was a
relationship between black consciousness and black theology. The Black
Consciousness Movement, led by such people as Stephen Bantu Biko, “sought to
raise the level of awareness within the black community – awareness of their
situation and identity as blacks, and of their potential to change their lot”, and had
tremendous impact on churches820. Black theology “gained considerable
prominence through the University Christian Movement (UCM) in the late 1960’s”,
and may be described as “the reflection of black Christians” regarding their situation
and struggle for liberation”. Black theologians also wrestle with the question of the
relationship between Christ and culture821.
Black theology was not unique to South Africa, but was therefore sought to be made
more relevant. John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy describe this intent in this way:
“The earliest articulation of black theology under that title was primarily the work of
the African-American theologian James Cone….Though influenced by James Cone
and others, black [South African] students of theology were not content to import
theologies from elsewhere. They sought to develop a theology that spoke directly to
their own condition”822. “Their own condition” refers to liberation from white
domination and the indigenization of Christianity (“contextualization” is a term that

817 Cf. Cochrane 1990:91-92; cf. Oosthuizen 1990:111
818 Mofokeng (1990:46) explains as to who is included under the word “black”: “While there
was unanimity at the beginning that all the oppressed people of South Africa, that is, Africans,
Coloureds and Indians, are black people, the same cannot be said regarding inclusion of black
culture, black history and African traditional religion as formative factors in Black Theology”.
Indians and Coloureds are not necessarily excluded, but the context determines the meaning.
819 Mofokeng 1990:37
820 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:146; cf. Clark and Worger 2004:73, 79-82, 154-
157; cf. Deegan 2011:46; cf. Mofokeng 1990:38-39; cf. http://www.gov.za, accessed on the 8th of
November 2013
821 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:147-148; cf. Mofokeng 1990:38-39. John de
Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy (2004:150) further describe Black Theology as an ongoing process:
“Black theology is rooted in the ongoing search by black Christians for authentic expressions of
Christianity in Africa”.
This is how Zolile Mbali (1987:61) describes (commenting on another writer, Pityana) the
inseparable relationship between Black consciousness and Black theology: “The entire lives of black
people are permeated by religion, hence the added significance of black theology for the self-
awareness of black people….In other words…black theology…was [directing] black attention to the
role of the church in its subjugation. Hence the linking of black theology and black consciousness.
This linkage in turn cuts the bond, as it were, of the black man’s dependence on white interpretations
of the gospel”.
822 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:148; cf. Mofokeng 1990:39; cf. Moltmann
2000:190
164
embraces both concepts) in Africa823. Jurgen Moltmann recognizes the liberation
element in black theology, in as much as he is general and not referring particularly
to South African black theology:
Whether it be black theology, liberation theology, minjung theology or

feminist theology, the liberation theologies familiar to us from the
Third World are without exception theologies focused on the liberation
of the poor and oppressed masses from the rule of the oligarchies
which exploit them….It is also self-evident that they must avoid falling
into the trap of self-pity. They would then be doubly imprisoned, by
their oppressors and by themselves824.
It is noteworthy that Moltmann should make reference to the psychological power of

oppression, seemingly echoing the sentiments of the black consciousness movement.
In that way, one may describe black theology as liberation theology, however
recognizing it at the same time as more than that – the inculturation of the gospel.
The formulation of the Kairos Document (KD) seems to be regarded as one of the
highlights of South African black theology. The first edition of the KD was
published in September 1985, and the second one in 1986825. Frank Chikane and
Albert Nolan gathered pastors and theologians, largely black, in Soweto for the
formulation of a theological response to Apartheid826. The document rejected both
the “state theology” of those who supported Apartheid and the “church theology” of
those who proposed ‘cheap reconciliation’, without socio-political transformation,
and it advanced towards “direct Christian participation in the struggle” even if civil
disobedience becomes necessary827.
Silent Christian Mission to Apartheid
It is not acceptable for any Christian church to be apolitical, where “silent” or

“apolitical” means a disengagement of the church from socio-political concerns,
Apartheid in particular. GC Oosthuizen asserts this: “How any church could
823 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:151; cf. 2004:155. Takatso Mofokeng seems to
locate four concerns of Black theology: (1) racism, (2) capitalism, (3) identity, and (4) women’s
oppression (Mofokeng 1990:41-42).
Mofokeng (1990:50) further explains as to how the agenda for Black theology is formulated:
“In the field of Black Theology it is evident that the selection of themes and determination of priorities
was related to the historical development of objective conditions as well as the subjective state of the
Christian faith of the oppressed. At no point in time did Black Theology follow the European and
white American agenda, because it was part of the problem”. The socio-political environment of the
theologians significantly informs the agenda.
Mofokeng (1990:50) also identifies two biblical references of Black theology, particularly at its
earlier stages of development, that were utilized in a special manner: “In the actual systematic
development of Black Theology two poles of reference stand out: the Exodus and the praxis of Jesus,
the Messiah (Christology). Much of the earlier Black Theology revolves around these events that
provide a powerful paradigm of liberation”. The Israelite liberation and the liberating works of Christ
provided the needed language, imagery and theology of liberation for Black theology.
824 Moltmann 2000:187
825 Mbali 1987:61-62
827 John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy 2004:197-198
165
acquiesce in a situation of injustices committed for the sake of self-preservation, is
beyond comprehension….The church can never wash its hands in innocence when
principles affecting the lives of millions are trampled upon as it they can be
manipulated at will and are expendable”828. As Moltmann indicates, the church has
a God-given mission to transform society in ways beyond mere proclamation, but
also through socio-political endeavour. AO Balcomb seems to acknowledge the
existence of this “apolitical” church (seemingly not a specific denomination, but a
movement within Christianity) as he locates it in the 1980s:
[The church in the 1980s] attempted to follow the narrow way between
the forces of liberation on the one hand and the forces of preservation
on the other. To do this it constructed its own myth of
neutrality….The thesis of this study is that it could not….The study
has therefore attempted to show that if political theology must be done
it must be done without pretensions to political neutrality….Third way
theologians…not only increase the level of mystification around
political issues but also ended up legitimising political ideologies that
clearly favour their own interests in society829.
This approach of “neutrality” between the oppressed and the oppressor is rejected
by Balcomb. However, he is more concerned about the absence of “commitment” by
“third way theologians” to either side of the struggle, while they make attempts to
engage socio-political issues830. The “silent” supporters of apartheid spoken about in
this section are similar to those critiqued by Balcomb as “neutral” but are even more
culpable because they seem generally to shun engagement in socio-political issues,
let alone make any definitive commitments to either side.
It would seem that the SDA church (in South Africa) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses
were of those that tended to be politically “silent” in society, meaning that they
neither openly supported nor opposed the government in its Apartheid policies. As
noted in chapter 4 of this research, there appears to be no record of SDA resistance
regarding military service to the unjust Apartheid government831. This lack of
historical resistance could be described by Zolile Mbali as either due to confusion
“about their motivation” or an unwillingness “to challenge the pressures of social
conformity”832. The researcher suspects the latter regarding the SDA church in
South Africa. In contrast, the Jehovah’s Witnesses showed remarkable courage not
exhibited by the SDA church in South Africa: out of the 159 of those imprisoned for
828 Oosthuizen 1990:108

829 Balcomb 1993:247
830 Balcomb 1993:248
831 Jeff Crocombe (2012:10, emphasis mine) states: “Most Seventh-day Adventists served in
the SADF in a medical capacity….It seems that most Seventh-day Adventists who served in an unarmed
capacity as part of the SAMS did so without reflection as to the contribution that such participation made to the
supporting of the unjust and immoral Apartheid government….There is no evidence of a single instance of a
Seventh-day Adventist administrator or pastor questioning the idea of compulsory military service in print
– let alone condemning it….This…means that South African Seventh-day Adventists were little different
from South African society overall, where only a small percentage of conscripts refused to serve”.
832 Mbali 1987:69
166
refusing to serve in any capacity in the South African Defence Force in 1973, 158
were Jehovah’s Witnesses. In as much as there was regular resistance on the part of
Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding military service, this resistance was purely religious
and not political, hence the researcher still categorizes this Christian faith under
“silent” Christian mission to Apartheid; the basis of resistance was a religious
conviction that all governments are evil, and not particularly the racialism and
Apartheid form of government. Zolile Mbali elaborates: “Their resistance to military
service does not stem from views on violence or non-violence, but from their beliefs
about power and authority. It is an other-worldly theology which sees all political
systems as evil and so poses no particular ethical or religious critique to the South
African government any more or less than to the government of an independent
black-ruled state”833. The African Independent [Initiated] Churches also developed,
as noted earlier in this chapter, a similar disengagement from socio-political
concerns in society. Another group that may fall into this category is that of the
Pentecostal and Charismatic churches834.
A Historical Overview of Seventh-day Adventist Mission in South Africa
This section will by no means be comprehensive as the word “overview” above

should indicate. It will however be fairly reasonable in detail since this chapter
concerns the potential missionary contribution of the SDA theology of the
Investigative Judgment in South African society. This section will start with some
outline of the advent of this tradition into South Africa, and then give insight on the
church’s own internal struggle with the racial environment of South Africa, and after
that this section will do an analysis of the current situation in the SDA South African
church regarding social justice in general and racism in particular.
The Advent of the Seventh-day Adventist Tradition into South Africa
The SDA tradition arrived in South Africa in 1887, when its first missionaries from
the United States of America, CL Boyd and DA Robinson arrived835. Other pioneers
of this tradition in South Africa were the Pieter Wessels family in Kimberley, where
there was also the first SDA church established, the Van Drutens, and also a
Californian named William Hunt836. Ellen G White, one of the pioneers of the SDA
church, and also a recognized prophet of this church, is documented to have also
been in letter-communication with the Pieter Wessels family837. As noted above,
there had just started a diamond (1868) and gold (1886) rush in the South African
region, and it is possible that it was one of the things that brought the region to the
833 Mbali 1987:70

834 Thomas (2002:xxv) describes this group as apolitical: “O increasing numerical importance
towards the end of the period under study were the Pentecostal and charismatic churches, such as the
Apostolic Faith Mission and the Pentecostal Protestant Church….While they did develop a significant
black following with the passage of time, their teaching and theology were very individualistic, and
officially they claimed to be apolitical”. This does not mean however that none of the members of
these churches could be individually categorized under the “anti-apartheid” group, an example being
Rev Frank Chikane.
835 Nzimande 2012:14
836 Nzimande 2012:9
837 Nzimande 2012:9
167
attention of missionary endeavour by the growing SDA church in the United States
of America.
The known first black man, and his wife, and also the first black minister in South
Africa, was Richard Moko (1850-1932). He was baptized in 1895 at a Camp
Meeting838 in Kimberley, after having accepted the faith in 1893, and having been
evangelized by Fred Reed. He became ordained into the ministry in 1915. He was in
a line of “culturally-proud” Xhosa chiefs, and seems to have had his ministry of
preaching, teaching and raising churches largely, if not exclusively, in the Eastern
Cape839. There were also other prominent names in the black church, some of whom
like Richard Moko, translated material into black languages. Such names are as
David Kalala who became an SDA in 1895, bringing with him his publishing skills
and translated into the seSotho language, travelling throughout Lesotho and the Free
State and setting up churches with an evangelist named Mthimkhulu 840. Other
translators were Pastor E ka J Kuboni and HRS Tshukudu, who also authored some
books. E ka J Kuboni partnered with Pastor Jeremia Mseleku in translating the
Advent Hymnal into IsiZulu, and D Chalale with Jeremia Mseleku translated other
material as well841. This is noted here to indicate the progressive acceptance of the
SDA tradition in those early times, particularly in the black SDA church.
The Historical Internal Struggle of the Seventh-day Adventist (South African) Church
with Racial Discrimination
After the Union of South Africa was formed, as the church grew throughout the
country, it is no secret that the SDA church in South Africa struggled with the same
issues of social injustice that the country was then struggling with. The environment
of the church had great influence on it. This is acknowledged by MC Nhlapho, the
current President of the SDA church in KwaZulu-Natal and the Free-State, in his
book “Tears of the Black Pulpit”:
At the time the socio-political milieu outside of the church had created
conditions that were less favourable for the full expression of basic humanity
for our [black] pioneers, while socio-theological conditions within the
corporate body of Christ were stifling the unleashing of the potential
for [black] leadership and ministerial advancement. Black ministers
operated within a hostile and mission-unfriendly socio-political
environment that was laced with objectionable racial and attitudinal issues
within the church system 842.
AN Nzimande, a retired pastor and a former President of the church in the same
area as Nhlapho, affirms:
838 These are annual conferences that may last for as many days as 3 to 7 (maybe more in
some areas), depending on the area. They are not considered to be originating from a biblical
mandate, but are simply a tradition from the church’s American heritage of the 19 th century CE.
839 Nhlapho 2012:13-16; Nzimande 2012:12, 15
840 Nhlapho 2012:16-19
841 Nhlapho 2012:20
842 Nhlapho 2012:9-10, emphasis mine
168
It is hoped that everybody will learn from any mistakes that might
have been made here in the past. Perhaps the most important one of
them all is that while the church operates within a socio-economic
environment, its decisions should be informed primarily by the divine
mandate rather than the social, economic or political considerations and
expediency. Historically, the church in South Africa has been tainted by
the political thinking of the day843.
He laments this condition. It is also worth noting that the SDA church in South
Africa, like the NGK and the English-speaking churches, practiced racial
segregation’ at least at the congregational level: “Long before the government policy
of separate development among various cultural groups in the country was
introduced [under Apartheid], the practice was far advanced within the Seventh-day
Adventist Church”844. It is therefore not the socio-political environment that solely
influenced the church. Rather, the SDA church in South Africa in this way
contributed to the racially discriminatory mentality of the day, rather than resisting
it.
Perhaps it is best to observe the internal struggles of SDA Christian mission on an

institutional level, rather than on encounters and experiences of some individuals, so
as to retain a fair amount of objectivity. The institutions to be considered are
Helderberg College, Bethel College (now merely a high school), the Local
Conferences and the umbrella organization that is South African Union Conference
(split into two in 1960 and then again merged into what is now the Southern Africa
Union). Social injustice is recognizable in the histories of all these institutions or
organizational structures of SDA Christian mission in South Africa. The histories of
Bethel College and Helderberg College cannot be fairly represented in isolation from
each other. Bethel College was established for the black SDA community, and
Helderberg College was established for the white SDA community. This study will,
for the sake of brevity, limit itself to these two as there was also another smaller
institution called the Coloured Training School 845. The racial discrimination
exercised in 1928, regarding the concerned age-group of youth, may have been one
of the fundamental damages that haunted the SDA church in South Africa for
decades to come:
The criterion that determined which of the schools a prospective student

would attend was his or her skin colour. That 1928 racial criterion was to
complicate the entire mission of the Adventist Church in South Africa for
many years to come….The Adventist school system became an effective
mechanism for racial division and institutionalising racial prejudice in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church in South Africa846.
843 Nzimande 2012:10, emphasis mine

844 Nhlapho 2012:178
845Nhlapho 2012:22-23
846 Nhlapho 2012:22-23, emphasis mine
169
It was not just the segregation of students according to skin-colour, but even the
quality of the curriculum reflected the theory of white supremacy. Speaking of the
black curriculum in contrast to the white one, Nhlapho notes: “The curriculum was
also downgraded….The courses were carefully structured to prepare students for a
life of servitude, dependency and perpetual subjugation under White patronage and
supervision”847. Furthermore, the infrastructure at Bethel College was also inferior
to Helderberg College. This would be regarded by Moltmann as a crime indeed:
“The oppression of human beings by other human beings has many different
faces….But it is always a crime against life….Life means ‘loving your neighbour as
yourself’, not ‘subdue him and make him submissive’”848. When the white College
moved from Spion Kop, near Ladysmith, to Cape Town, the current location of
Helderberg College in Somerset West in the year 1928, the black College was moved
from Butterworth, Eastern Cape to Spion Kop, signalling the secondary status of the
black students. The move away from Spion Kop was due to some logistical
“insurmountable problems” and yet it was fine for Bethel to move there 849. The
black College also moved back to the Eastern Cape in 1938. After the Southern
Africa Union was formed (see below), uniting black and white, and one of the two
Colleges had to close since it was not financially practical to operate two Colleges,
Bethel was shut down as it was the one “less financially viable” and with “lesser
developed infrastructure” and with more vulnerability to “competition from
government tertiary institutions”. Bethel is now merely a secondary school, and no
longer a College850.
In inseparable relation to the above two institutions is the history of its higher
organization(s). For the sake of clarity, one needs to understand the representative
governance structure of the SDA church as it stands today: (1) The General Conference
(GC) is the highest administrative structure of the church; it has world-wide
authority and also has world-wide constituent representation. (2) The Divisions,
currently thirteen of them across the world, are regarded as regional offices of the
General Conference, in as much as they also have their own constituents according to
region. South Africa falls, with neighbouring countries, under the Southern Africa &
Indian Ocean Division (SID) with offices currently located in Pretoria. (3) Divisions
are further broken down into Unions. South Africa has only one Union with offices
in Bloemfontein. Southern Africa Union (SAU) constituents are in South Africa,
Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia. The Union is the one that has the responsibility of
tertiary institutions within its territory. (4) Unions are further broken down into Local
Conferences. A Local Field has a similar role to a Conference but with partial authority
(more dependent on the Union) in comparison. The Southern Africa Union that is
based in Bloemfontein has seven Local Conferences: Northern Conference (formerly
“Transvaal Conference”, until November 3, 2013), Trans-Orange Conference (TOC),
Cape Conference (CC), KwaZulu-Natal Free-State Conference (KNFC), Lesotho
Conference (LC), Swaziland Conference (SC), and Namibia Conference (NC). (5) The
847 Nhlapho 2012:23, 26. This appears to have been even before the Bantu Education Act of
1953
848 Moltmann 2000:185
849 Nhlapho 2012:21-22
170
Local Conference will then have all the local churches in its territory as its
constituents, and most churches are grouped together based on proximity and then
become a District with one pastor as a supervisor of the churches that elect elders
serving as assistants to the district pastor, who is appointment and employed by the
Local Conference.
The year 1960 became a turning point in the administration of the church in South
Africa. At an “emotionally-charged” meeting at the Union in Bloemfontein, the
Black members were expelled, while the White, Coloured and Indian members were
still to be under the same South African Union851. The notion of separation had been
floating around for some years, so one cannot conclude that the emotional condition
in the meeting was directly due to the socio-political crisis of Sharpeville that year on
the 21st of March. However, if this SDA meeting occurred after Sharpeville, it is
most likely that it did contribute to the emotional atmosphere then existent in the
meeting. A secondary organization was formed and called South African Union
Group 2852 (for Blacks), reporting to the original and white-dominated South African
Union Group 1853. The resolution was bitter, and conducive to the break in
interracial relationships, but it did produce a better environment for the professional
development of black people: “That decision to separate was to be a cause of
fractured relationships and alienation within the church in South Africa for decades
to come….Expulsion from Bloemfontein had an unexpected long term spin-off in
that it provided an opportunity for Black leadership development”854. It however
did not take long for Group 1 to feel the heat from Group 2, so Group 1
recommended to the higher organization, Trans-Africa Division, that Group 2 be
given full status and independence. The Division therefore resolved on the 9 th of
December 1965 that Group 2 gets full status as a Union, and the name of it became
Southern Union Mission855.
President Neal C Wilson of the General Conference (1979-1990) brought a strong

proposal that there be talks towards the formation of one Union between South
African Union and Southern Union Mission. There were three excuses put forward:
(1) financial implications, (2) the fear of the unknown (3) and cultural differences856.
After long talks, there was finally a merger of the two Unions in 1991 at a joint
Session held at Helderberg College. The chosen name was Southern Africa Union.
The first President was black (Pastor Chalale) and his vice white (Pastor JT
Bradfield). However Chalale soon became incapacitated after a car accident and
Bradfield rose to the task until the term was over. Dr VS Wakaba was the successor
851 Nhlapho 2012:36-44, 179; Nzimande 2012:17

852 North Bantu Mission Field and South Bantu Mission Field were dissolved in that 1960
meeting, and under the new South African Union Group 2 were nine new Mission Fields: Southern
Transvaal, Northern Transvaal, Transkei, South Tswana, Natal-Eastern Transvaal, Cape Eastern,
Lesotho-Orange Free State, Cape Western, Swaziland. They were however reduced to 5 in 1963:
Transvaal Field, Cape Field, Lesotho-Orange Free State, Natal Field, Swaziland Field (Nhlapho
2012:43; Nzimande 2012:17-19).
853 Nzimande 2012:17-18
854 Nzimande 2012:18-19; cf. Nhlapho 2012:180-181
856 Nzimande 2012:22-31
171
until 2005 at his retirement. Pastor F Louw followed until 2010, and the current
President is Dr T Letseli857. When the winds of change came in the country through
the fall of Apartheid, there was a call from within the church that a public apology
be issued regarding the decision to expel black people in 1960, but not enough
support was gained for that to happen858.
After the merger of the two Unions that now became the Southern Africa Union, the
respective Local Conferences and Fields, nine of them859, also had to follow. Similar
challenges, and worse, were to be experienced at Local mergers as at the Union
merger. All have gone through mergers, except the Trans-Orange Conference and
the Transvaal Conference although they share the same territory. KwaZulu-Natal
Free State Conference was the first to be formed in November 1994 through merger
(from Natal Field and Orange-Natal Conference). Cape Conference was also formed
through merger (from Southern Conference, Good Hope Conference and Cape
Conference – the first two in 1997 and then the third joined in 2005)860.
The Past and Present Transformative Responsibilities of the Seventh-day

Adventist Church in South Africa in light of a Socio-Spiritual Theology of the
Investigative Judgment
By “past” this chapter refers to the pre-Apartheid and Apartheid eras combined,
including the late 1990s of the TRC during post-Apartheid. By “present” this
chapter refers to the post-Apartheid era, particular from recent years (from the very
late 2000s) to the present time of this research. And by “transformative” is meant
socio-political transformation. The need for the consideration of past opportunities
of transformative contributions by SDA theology is based on the assumption that the
present is influenced by the past. Therefore, in as much as the opportunities of the
past have come and gone, and the past cannot be changed, one may still learn from
the past so as to be better prepared for the present and the future. This section will
consider the historical information consolidated and analysed in this chapter to
identify ways in which the socio-spiritual SDA theology of the Investigative
Judgment may have, and still can, contribute to the transformation of South Africa.
This section is broken down according to the four convictions of Moltmann,
discussed in the preceding chapter, that form the pillars of his theology of social
justice. There will first be, however, a brief identification of some of the
contemporary socio-political challenges that this country faces.
An Identification of Some Contemporary Socio-Political Challenges
Present-day post-Apartheid South Africa no longer primarily struggles with

constitutional racial discrimination, but there are a number of ongoing concerns and
challenges that this country needs to address. There are too many of them to be
857 Nzimande 2012:32-33

859 Trans-Orange Conference (Black), Transvaal Conference (White, Coloured and Indian),
Southern Conference (Black), Good Hope Conference (Coloured), Cape Conference (White), Natal
Field (Black), Orange-Natal Conference (White, Coloured and Indian) (Nzimande 2012:53).
860 Nzimande 2012:54-55, 62
172
considered in this limited research space, not to mention the limitations of this
research’s topic. Some of the ongoing challenges that this country faces are these: (1)
economic development that also addresses the legacy of Apartheid in its created gaps
largely along racial lines; (2) education with its challenges of curriculum and teaching
quality, and resources for schools, (3) culture and religion on issues of unity and
diversity, (4) health with special attention to HIV/Aids, (5) women and children abuse,
(6) xenophobia with its causal fears and economic factors, (7) race and integration with
racial identity rising as an issue, and (8) local governance and accountability with
service delivery being one of the sub-issues861. Perhaps one may also add the dire
ecological consequences of the 1913 Natives Land Act862. Some of these challenges
seem to also find consideration by Moltmann where he speaks of the poor: “the poor
[or the beneficiaries of God’s bias are] people crippled by debt, the impoverished,
the unemployed, the homeless, the HIV infected, the profoundly depressed and the
abandoned children”863. He speaks in general terms however, and not specifically
about the South African situation.
This research will however, due to both space and topic limitations, only herein
address the concern of “local governance and accountability”, and also in relation to
the environmental challenges. Local government efficiency appears critical in the
implementation of democracy in South Africa – that is where “the rubber meets the
road”864. According to the 2009 “State of Local Government in South Africa” report,
the current challenges of priority are these: (1) huge service delivery and backlog
challenges, e.g. housing, water and sanitation; (2) poor communication and
accountability relationships with communities; (3) problems with the political
administrative interface; (4) corruption and fraud; (5) poor financial management,
e.g. negative audit opinions; (6) number of (violent) service delivery protests; (7)
weak civil society formations; (8) intra- and inter-political party issues negatively
affecting governance and delivery; and (9) insufficient municipal capacity due to
lack of scarce skills865. The Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional
Affairs is open to contributions from all stakeholders that may include churches:
The proposed Turn-Around Strategy now presents government with

an unique opportunity, together with civil society partners and
stakeholders, to forge new directions in the internal and external
environments that shape local government. COGTA welcomes
contributions to the Turn-Around Strategy from all stakeholders to
strengthen existing or establish new parameters for improved,
861 Asmal, Chidester and James 2003; Deegan 2011; John de Gruchy and Steve de Gruchy
2004:223-246.
862 www.landdivided2013.org.za, “Land Divided: Land And South African Society In 2013, In
Comparative Perspective”, accessed on the 30th of January 2014

863 Moltmann 2010:122-123; cf. 1990:99, 105
864 Deegan 2011:250-251
865 Deegan 2011:253; State of Local Government in South Africa, Working Documents,
Department of Governance and Traditional Affairs 2009:4
173
functional, effective, efficient, responsive and well-performing
municipalities866.
The turn-around strategy has been formulated and its stated objectives are: (1) ensure
that municipalities meet the basic service needs of communities; (2) build clean,
effective, efficient, responsive and accountable local government; (3) improve
performance and professionalism in municipalities; (4) improve national and
provincial policy, oversight and support; (5) strengthen partnerships between local
government, communities and civil society867.
The Investigative Judgment and social justice in South Africa in the light of
Moltmann’s View of the Spiritual and the Social as Inseparable
Perhaps it is appropriate to reiterate that the foundational pillar of Moltmann’s

theology of social justice is that theology needs to make sense through socio-political
practice, and that the two must not be separated. While the researcher, being biased
by his hermeneutically conservative presuppositions, has reservations over
Moltmann’s apparent reductionist approach that identifies the spiritual with the
political, he has been convinced by Moltmann’s emphatic link between eschatology
and socio-political relevance. The theology of the judgment, as linked with the three
angels’ messages of Revelation chapter 14 verses 6-12, is one of the most central
pillars of SDA proclamation, and as such, it is frequently mentioned and preached,
particularly in evangelistic programmes868. Considering that there was legalized
racial discrimination in South Africa for decades during and before Apartheid, and
that mainly synods and large conferences of churches tended to be the prophetic
voices against racial injustice, with the lay people relatively silent869, a socio-spiritual
version of the Investigative Judgment gave the SDA church the responsibility to
make a strong contribution through regular prophetic utterances from all church
levels. In fact, based on its self-understanding as the remnant movement870, the SDA
church in South Africa, assuming it was not hindered by hypocrisy, had the
opportunity of establishing its identity as a prophetic movement against racial
injustice in a way that made it unique amongst other traditions; it should have been
ahead of the church movements for the liberation of the oppressed, even if it did so
alone in light of its reluctance to become involved in ecumenism. There would have
probably been greater motivation for resistance to racial discrimination even from
within the SDA church in South Africa as well, had there been recognition of a socio-
political dimension to the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Its resistance
against unjust racial laws of the state would have empowered it to be an example to
866 State of Local Government in South Africa, Working Documents, Department of

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs 2009:75, emphasis mine
867 Local Government Turn-Around Strategy, Department of Cooperative Governance and
Traditional Affairs 2009:19

869 See above
870 This is argued by the researcher based on the simple fact that the SDA church regards itself
as not absolutely perfect in its theology, but as generally most perceptive of Scriptural truth (See
chapter 4 of this research).
174
society and not implement the same discriminatory attitude and policies of the land
within itself.
In contemporary times, and regarding the challenge of “local governance and

accountability”, opportunities continue to exist. The SDA church has been silent for
so long in South Africa in spite of the understanding that one of its central
theological pillars, interpreted correctly, call it to direct socio-political engagement.
The researcher makes the following recommendations: (1) the socio-political
interpretation of the SDA church’s ‘central’ mission gives the church the
responsibility to make an assessment of the challenges in this area (while
acknowledging the support given to government by other non-governmental
agencies) through dialogue with the relevant government structures, and through
independent research; (2) the SDA church should then formulate its own timeous
strategy of service and contribution to the government and the people of South
Africa, and in that way the church will have a contextual ministry that is also
sensitive to socio-political realities.
Moltmann’s Theology of God’s Preferential Option for the Poor
There were two important points observed in the preceding chapter regarding
Moltmann’s theology of God’s preferential option for the poor 871: (1) Moltmann
defines the “poor” in socio-political rather than “spiritual” terms872; (2) Moltmann
interprets this preferential treatment as not merely implying the church’s giving of
resources to the poor, but its self-identification with them and in resisting the socio-
political forces of injustice with them873. Furthermore, the socio-spiritual version of
the Investigative Judgment was given the following socio-political implications: (1)
“The Investigative Judgment…argues also for the vindication, affirmation and
liberation of the victims of social injustice - a bias in favour of the victims”; (2) “SDA
theologians should recognize a call here for human administrations and
governments to be gauged by their service delivery of social justice to all victims of
injustice”; (3) “SDA theologians should recognize is from the Investigative
Judgment’s proposition of objectivity and transparency [that] social justice for the
victims should be without corruption and fraud”; (4) “SDA theology should
acknowledge a socio-political implication of Moltmann’s notion of the church
identifying itself with the oppressed of society”.
The researcher therefore argues the following: (1) the South African church of
Seventh-day Adventists had the responsibility and opportunity to take sides with
the oppressed. Since “vindication” and “affirmation” are public and unhidden
actions, the SDA church should have publicly and officially declared its support of
the resistance of the racially oppressed people of South Africa during the Apartheid
era. This declaration should have taken the form of written statements that were
(“victim-oriented”).
872 Moltmann 2010:122-123; cf. 1990:99, 105
873 Moltmann 2000:234
175
specific as to the reasons for support. Furthermore, the church had the responsibility
not only to declare its support through statements, but also to actually join (not
necessarily through formal alliances) the liberation movements as far as
conscientiously possible in its self-identification with the racially oppressed. There
also should have been a decided effort by the church to advance remedial help of the
best quality to the oppressed, especially in the areas of education and health874. (2)
The SDA church should not only have affirmed the racially oppressed people of
South Africa, and in that way indirectly condemn the state, but it also should have
directly and publicly called into question the self-imposed authority of the state to
oppress God’s people. In the process of doing so, the SDA church should have made
it clear however the source of its authority in doing so. That would have meant
there was a need for the SDA church to develop its own theology of humanity, since
there was a traditional and oral DRC theology that undergirded the segregational
and Apartheid system. (3) The SDA church also had the responsibility of promoting
“objectivity and transparency” in the state’s manner of governance. The SDA
church, besides its foundational challenge to the racial system of government, had
the responsibility of challenging the state according to its own laws regarding crimes
that were committed by its employees. The SDA church had to fight against bias in
cases where employees of the state violated the state’s laws. Sharpeville 1960 and
the case of Stephen Bantu Biko’s death in 1977 are examples of circumstances where
the government employees went beyond legal authority, and the state should have
brought full and public justice against the violators of the laws of the day through
murder.
Regarding the contemporary challenges of “local governance and accountability”,

the researcher has some recommendations for the SDA church. (1) The church must
decidedly and publicly take the side of the victims of injustice that is in the form of
poor service delivery. It is an objective of this department of the government, as
stated above, to “ensure that municipalities meet the basic service needs of
communities”. The church should therefore hold the government responsible based
on its own objective and also based on the needs of the people who have placed it
into power. This can be done through petitions, dialogue, public declarations, and
where necessary through mass non-violent action with the victims. (2) The church
should form part of the public campaign against corruption and fraud, and also be
available to run necessary workshops and seminars on faithfulness and related
topics in public offices as the authorities grant opportunities. It is noted above that
“corruption and fraud” is among the challenges identified by the department
concerned, so that should make the struggle against such evil easier to win as the
leadership also recognizes it is a challenge. (3) Since there is poor communication, as
noted above by the department concerned, between local government and
communities, the church has the opportunity to facilitate communication between
the people and the service providers as it identifies itself with the oppressed.
874The state afforded non-whites lower qualities of education and public health systems. The
SDA church that prides itself in these very areas of Christian mission should have been ahead in the
supply of the best quality of service in these two areas, and not be perpetrators of injustice within its
very own system as indicated above.
176
Moltmann’s advocacy of refusing the option of Retaliation and Revenge
The preceding chapter has argued, through putting SDA theology in dialogue with
Moltmann, “for the existence of a parallel between what happens in the spiritual and
the societal (thus the term ‘socio-spiritual’): in the spiritual, the victims of sin-
oppression by the Devil appeal to God for vindication and judgment, sacrificing all
personal revenge against the Devil who is the oppressor 875; in the societal or socio-
political, the same victims, having no higher earthly authority to appeal to (since the
rulers are the oppressors), also call upon God’s intervention, rather than retaliating,
while they resist the socio-political aspect of injustice through insubordination that
leads them to be persecuted and killed”876. Furthermore, the researcher has insisted
that the metanarrative of the Cosmic Conflict which forms the background to the
Investigative Judgment reinforces, socio-politically, the biblical discrimination
against retaliation and revenge, noting that not all resistance and revolution is just
and righteous.
In the context of racial discrimination, based on the foregoing, the researcher

suggests the following: (1) The SDA church had the responsibility to take the racially
oppressed people’s attention to God. The SDA church had the responsibility of
deliberately inviting those in the struggle to faith in the God of justice, in light of the
fact that they had no higher authority on earth that they could appeal to other than
the culprit state. This could have been done by the church’s representative presence
in political gatherings to provide spiritual nurture and guidance, while not
neglecting to continue to preach the gospel. (2) The SDA church had the
responsibility to confront the spirit of hatred so characteristic of retaliation and
revenge. It had to motivate the people of the liberation struggle not to cross the line
by harbouring hatred towards the whites, even when the liberation movements
adopted violent means877 as a method of resistance in the 1960s. In the context of the
TRC in the late 1990s in post-Apartheid South Africa, the SDA church had the
responsibility to publicly commend the initiative and to publicly encourage all
people concerned (including past offenders) to take advantage of the opportunity to
contribute to the healing of the nation in any way possible.
Concerning the contemporary challenges of “local governance and accountability”,

the researcher makes these recommendations: (1) the church has the responsibility,
as it identifies itself with the victims of injustice through poor service delivery, to
contribute against “violent” protests878 that are in part born out of frustrations with
injustice. If the church identifies itself with the people and is part of their resistance
875 SDA theologians link Daniel chapter 8 with Leviticus chapter 16 (because of the cultic or
sanctuary language of Daniel chapter 8), and therefore spiritualize the problem of the “little horn” in
Daniel chapter 8, with the spiritual solution being given in Leviticus chapter 16 (see chapter 6 of this
research). This interpretation seems narrow to the researcher since the socio-political aspect of the
context of Daniel chapter 8, and the whole book for that matter, is sacrificed.
876 See chapter 6 of this research and consider chapter 7 verse 25 in the book of Daniel.
877 Further research would need to be done in this area in order to ascertain the merits and
demerits of this method in light of Scripture

878 This is listed above as one of the challenges of the department
177
and struggle, there are better chances of the people lending an ear to it as it channels
them to a God of justice and hope. In this way the church may facilitate in the
renunciation of retaliation. (2) The church may also assist in the escalation of the
people’s grievances to higher earthly authorities should the local ones turn a blind
eye to the people. In this way the church may be a stabilizing influence and a voice
of reason to a sometimes emotional people.
Moltmann’s Theology of Social Justice as Restoration of Equality
The researcher has maintained in the preceding chapter, through putting SDA
theology into dialogue with Moltmann, that “there is an apparent mandate not to
disregard the possibly necessary socio-political punitive element of restorative
justice”. In the times of racial oppression, the SDA church had the responsibility, in
light of the foregoing, to do the following: (1) bring about reconciliation through
facilitated dialogue and spiritual nurture between the racially oppressed (non-white
people) and the oppressors (white government) by encouraging the oppressed to
renounce all desire for revenge, and encouraging the oppressors to withdraw their
racial oppression. As Moltmann notes, this would be a difficult task, particularly in
a situation where the oppressor would not be of a mind open to change879. (2)
Although reconciliation would have been impossible while Apartheid reigned, it
became possible in the post-Apartheid era through the initiative of the TRC – the
church had the responsibility to promote reconciliation where both the offenders
and the living victims were in transition to restored880 equality.
Perhaps, in principle881, the researcher’s assertion of conditional punitive justice in the

theology of the Investigative Judgment882 lends credibility to the TRC’s stance of
granting some amnesty while some are refused of it 883. By the word “conditional” is
meant that punitive justice is conditional to the capability and demonstration of
repentance by the perpetrator(s) of injustice. Punitive justice does not bring about
the realization of restorative equality in the sense of both sides being equal, but
restorative equality is realized only in cases of demonstrated repentance by the
perpetrator(s), unless “restorative” is to be interpreted one-sidedly in favour of the
victims. Both-sided restorative equality is therefore conditional. It does seem that
many people in South Africa did not favour the notion of the offer of amnesty by the
TRC. James L Gibson asserts that “Most South Africans oppose granting amnesty to
those who committed gross human rights violations during the struggle over
879 Moltmann 2000:186-187

880 Another person might challenge the term “restored” in this case since the non-whites have
almost always been treated unequally in South Africa and during its colonial times (see above).
881 The researcher is not necessarily in agreement with the TRC’s criteria of granting amnesty.
More research would have to be done for an informed verdict by the researcher.
883 “The commission was empowered to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses
during the apartheid era, as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate, and there
was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty”(www.wikipedia.org, “Truth and Reconciliation
Commission [South Africa]”, accessed on the 9th of January 2014).
178
apartheid”884. Lyn S Graybill also acknowledges this opposition to the TRC
initiative, particularly the ideas of “repentance” and “forgiveness” being seen as too
Christian for the liking of some non-Christians: “But many criticized the very
framing of the issues in terms of repentance and forgiveness, which they saw as
uniquely Christian concepts and thus alienating to South Africans who did not come
from this faith perspective” 885. If this was actually how a significant number of the
population felt, the church would have certainly had to tread carefully but boldly in
developing its response to the TRC initiative.
The contemporary challenges of “local governance and accountability”, particularly

the one of “[the government’s] poor…accountability [in] relationships” 886 with the
communities, gives the SDA church an opportunity and responsibility to be part of
the solution in line with the department’s objective to “improve performance and
professionalism in municipalities”887. The church can contribute to the improvement
of performance by government workers through publicized support and promotion
of the principle that incompetent workers in local government should be removed
from office. Such a promotion of punitive justice would put pressure on local
government workers to improve in service delivery. This missiological act of the
church would be driven by the conditionally punitive understanding of the
Investigative Judgment as a model for social justice. Poor service delivery by local
government is a form of oppression since such a reality shows disregard for the
rights of people. The restoration of equality in this case therefore refers to the
situation where both sides of local government and people have their rights
respected through the transformation of local government and service delivery by its
workers.
Moltmann’s theology of Social Justice as Equivalent to Ecological Justice
The preceding chapter has demonstrated that Moltmann sees social justice as
corresponding and equal in rank to ecological justice. In light of that, the
Investigative Judgment was interpreted to also serve as a reminder and model for
humanity to care for and protect the environment. This understanding of the
significance of the Investigative Judgment should have made the SDA church more
aware of its responsibility to oppose the racially segregational and Apartheid
policies particularly in relation to land and the ecology. The year 1913 came with the
Natives Land Act that would shape the ecological situation of the country for
decades to come:
The social, economic and ecological consequences of this legislation

remain deeply incised in South African society and the landscape….
Questions of land in South Africa are irreducibly ecological in
character. In a largely semi-arid country with limited agricultural
884 Gibson 2004:284

885Graybill 2002:39. Perhaps this speaks to the issue of the relationship between church and
state. The researcher might need to do further research in this area.
886 Noted above
887 Noted above
179
potential, scarce water resources and a growing population a central
focus on policy must be the long term sustainability of all forms of
land and natural resource use, factors underlined by the projected
impacts of climate change888.
Considering the sympathetic relationship between land policy and ecology, the
church should have argued against the Land Act, and all ecologically unjust land-
related policies that followed. According to recent academic research done and
presented at a three-day conference in Cape Town, in March 2013, these are the
current key challenges related to the Natives Land Act and its legacy:
Can alternative food production systems be developed that are socially

and ecologically sustainable? How can water reform and land reform
be articulated to best effect? How can biodiversity conservation be
integrated into South Africa’s redistributive land reform programme
and be practised on farms, in communal areas and nature reserves?
Can a shift to a ‘green economy’ help address unemployment, poverty
and inequality? To whom do South Africa’s protected areas belong – to
those with ancestral claims on them, to the nation at large or to the
‘global community’?889
Considering that the SDA church has a strong emphasis on healthy living, part of
which includes a proper and healthy diet, the above ecological concerns, particularly
those of “food production” should lead the SDA church to be sympathetic and
actively involved in locating solutions. The ecologically interpreted Investigative
Judgment should provide an extra drive for the SDA church to have a “hands on”
approach to current ecological concerns in South Africa.
Conclusion
This chapter’s stated purpose is to use the South African context as a case in point to
demonstrate that a re-interpreted and contextualized version of the socio-spiritual
Investigative Judgment could enhance the socio-political impact of the doctrine.
This has been attempted through an historical overview racial discrimination in

South Africa. Racial discrimination has been shown to have evolved over the
decades of South African (the region) history, with economic, cultural and
missiological factors having a role. The churches were themselves in many ways
involved with racial discrimination to varying extents. They were divided into three
main categories, some supporting Apartheid, some opposing Apartheid and some
distancing themselves from socio-political issues and from making commitments to
either side. The SDA church in South Africa was no exception and was not immune
to its socio-political environment. This church also practiced institutional racial
discrimination, but it has moved away from it, through merging educational and
church governance institutions that were for decades divided along racial lines.
888
www.landdivided2013.org.za, “Land Divided: Land And South African Society In 2013, In
Comparative Perspective”, accessed on the 30th of January 2014, emphasis mine
889 Ibid.
180
While this church lost many opportunities of contributing to socio-political
transformation in South Africa during the Apartheid era, it does have current
responsibilities and opportunities to contribute to South African society. The lost
and current opportunities seem perceivable through the socio-spiritual
interpretation of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.
The final chapter will give a synopsis of what this thesis has attempted to do and
evaluate the impact of the project on the researcher’s own theology as well, as that of
his denomination, and to outline areas of future research.
181
Chapter 9
CONCLUSION
Bringing Seventh-day Adventist theology down to earth: Pipe Dream or

Possibility?
This chapter will briefly reiterate the primary goal of this thesis and underline its
relevance for SDA theology, summarise the methodology used to achieve the goal,
and make some tentative suggestions regarding a way forward.
The primary objective of this research
The primary goal of this research has been to develop SDA theology through
dialogue with Jurgen Moltmann on the relationship between eschatological hope
and Christian mission. Due to space limitations, the focus has been the doctrine of
the Investigative Judgment. This doctrine is chosen for several reasons that make it
an extremely powerful one for Seventh-day Adventism: (1) it is unique to the SDA
movement, and as such provides this study with a subject that is probably less
familiar to the reader and thus more likely to gain his or her interest; (2) it is
foundational to SDA belief, and it’s revision therefore has great potential of
reshaping other facets of SDA theology and praxis; (3) it is current, which gives it
huge potential from a transformative perspective “in the now”; (4) it is, in fact, about
repentance, metanoia, change, and should therefore resonate well with socio-
political themes. All of these things together make this particular doctrine
enormously relevant for any project that has as its aim the contextualization of SDA
theology. The problem with the SDA doctrine of the Investigative Judgment is that
it has been emphatically “heaven-oriented”, with earthly significance only for the
individual and not for society. Furthermore, it appears quite significant that William
Miller had thought that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” was an earthly (with
political significance) event – Parousia – whereas the SDA doctrine makes it
primarily a heavenly event. This study therefore suggests that the focus of the
church should be brought back to earth (with political significance) in “equal” balance
with heaven, rather than on a primary focus on the heavenly aspect. At the same
time it is attempting to re-define the meaning of prophecy. In the Millerite tradition
prophecy was to do with foretelling the future, in the contextual tradition prophecy
is to do with forthtelling the truth in the interests of the justice that must accompany
the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, as it is in heaven. The researcher
chose to put SDA theology into dialogue with Moltmann in particular due to the fact
that Moltmann’s theology is emphatically “earth-oriented”, that is he attempts to
make relevant his eschatology in socio-political terms while at the same time not
leaving out the “heavenly” or eternal dimension. The hope has been that the
dialogue between SDA theology and Moltmann would show the “bringing down to
earth” of SDA theology to be a possibility.
182
The need for this research
There are a number of reasons why it has been necessary to attempt to bring SDA
theology “down to earth”. Some of these are personal. The author belongs to the
tradition in question and has actually served in its pastoral ministry for a number of
years. He has observed over the years attacks against the SDA church, particularly
over the internet and through some published works890 of former SDA theologian
Desmond Ford. Such attacks elicited questions particularly on the doctrine of the
Investigative Judgment. While the researcher is not prepared to renounce the SDA
theology of the Investigative Judgment as biblically baseless, he has made attempts
in this research to answer the question as to what, if any, is the contextual or socio-
political relevance of this doctrine. As a black South African, contextualization
would almost naturally centre in socio-political justice in the light of this country’s
racial past. And hence the attempt is made in this research to underscore the
Investigative Judgment’s potential for socio-political relevance.
Another reason for the project is the fact that the SDA church has a self-conscious
identity as the remnant Christian church in terms of its message within Christianity.
It considers itself exemplary to other traditions for its doctrinal faithfulness and love
for the bible, and yet its theology seems lacking in socio-political relevance. The
hope was therefore to use this idea to attempt to make it realize the implications of
its teachings for the transformation of society. This would be possible since SDA
theology regards Revelation chapter 14 verse 7, in its reference to “judgment”, as
making the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment one of the biblical and doctrinal
characteristics of the remnant church. Therefore, if the Investigative Judgment can
be shown to have socio-political relevance as part of biblical intent, it should then be
challenged to make theological and missiological reforms in this direction.
The use of Moltmann in order to achieve the primary objective
Moltmann was used as the primary dialogue partner in this research for a number of
reasons. Firstly he has wide appeal as an internationally recognized theologian.
Secondly he is genuinely ecumenical in the sense that he dialogues with all
traditions, from Pentecostal, to Liberation, to Seventh-day Adventist. Thirdly his
theology is based in eschatology, as is SDA theology. Fourthly he grounds his
eschatology within the imminent without sacrificing the transcendent. Fifthly he has
a special concern for the poor and the oppressed. The research therefore began with
an analysis of both Moltmann’s theology and SDA theology, and an observation of
how these two relate to the larger conversation in the scholarly world. Although
Moltmann was the main dialogue partner, the researcher has made it clear that he
does not agree with many aspects of his theology. These include his universalistic
understanding of salvation, his view of an impersonal devil, his preterist/idealist
interpretations of biblical apocalyptic and his emphasis on the social to the apparent
exclusion of the individual – that is the need for a personal faith in Christ. But
890 Some examples of his works are “For the sake of the Gospel: throw out the bathwater, but
keep the baby” (2008), “The coming worldwide calvary: Christ versus antichrist” (2009), and “In the
heart of Daniel” (2007).
183
Moltmann’s “earthly” theology in socio-political as well as environmental concerns
could bring a corrective balance to SDA theology. Through this dialogue
particularly on the Investigative Judgment (which is entirely rejected by Moltmann)
it has been argued that SDA theology is capable of accommodating Moltmann’s
socio-political concerns. The doctrine of the Investigative Judgment has been
identified within SDA theology because it is unique and foundational to this
tradition. Another reason is that this Judgment is allegedly current as of 1844 CE till
just before the Parousia, and therefore may appeal especially to the contemporary
context. There are five pillars of Moltmann in the subject of social justice that have
been recognized in this study: (1) the inseparability of the spiritual (defined in this
study as one’s standing or relationship with God) from the societal (socio-political
significance for the community); (2) God’s preferential option for the poor; (3) God’s
requirement that the oppressed renounces all desire for retaliation and revenge; (4)
God’s restoration of equality between the oppressed and the oppressor; and (5)
God’s consideration of social justice as equivalent891 to ecological justice. All five
have been argued to be compatible892 and socio-politically able to contribute to the
SDA theology of the Investigative Judgment, such that the researcher then argues for
a “socio-spiritual” version of the Investigative Judgment. “Socio” would refer to its
“earthliness” in socio-political relevance to society, while the “spiritual” would refer
to its “heavenliness” and relational significance between the saint(s) and Christ. The
socio-political relevance of the theology of the Investigative Judgment has
furthermore been demonstrated in the South African past-racial and present-
building context. This research contextualizes the Investigative Judgment in
harmony with what its metanarrative of the Cosmic Conflict implies and the socio-
political context of Daniel chapters 7 and 8, where this doctrine is derived in
conjunction with Leviticus 16. The Investigative Judgment is a “heavenly reality”, in
SDA theology, the main purpose of which is the resolution of the Cosmic Conflict
between Christ and Satan, and this Judgment is brought to view in the book of
Daniel chapters 7 and 8 within the context of the Cosmic Conflict as manifested in
the politics of earth. In line with an anthropomorphic interpretation of divine
revelation, it has been argued that the God who vindicates himself (in the
Investigative Judgment which resolves the Cosmic Conflict) through his justice in
that way models the same for earthly governments, and therefore gives the church
on earth a mission to transform society accordingly. This socio-political
transformational mission does not however replace the need for divine intervention
at the Parousia. The grand narrative of the Cosmic Conflict in which the
Investigative Judgement takes place is a uniquely Adventist teaching that, as far as
this researcher understands, has no parallel in any other tradition. This, together
with the fact that God is required to vindicate himself before his creation, provides a
unique theological basis of the political interpretation that this thesis takes.
891 SDA theology does not consider the relationship as one of “equivalence” but rather
“inseparability”.
892 The compatibility is partial for numbers 4 and 5; conditionally for number 4 and with
minor revision for number 5
184
Bringing the SDA down to earth – a possible way forward
Although this study has attempted to develop SDA theology towards more concern
and deeper relevance for the socio-political context, particularly through the
reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, this particular
direction of interpretation of SDA theology has not been done by any scholars in the
SDA tradition before and how it will be received remains to be seen. There are a
number of possible ways to move the debate forward in the church. The church has
its own publications that might be used as well as its own academic institutions. It
has a strong tradition of encouraging scholarly debate within its own ranks and over
its own theology, and the intention is to use these channels. There are also
delineated procedures and protocols of SDA church policy regarding the reception
of new or enhanced biblical truth893, and if successful and with significant scholarly
and leadership support, such theological revision may be accepted by the world
church through its delegates when the church is in Session that meets after every five
years. However, as can be seen from the relevant section of the SDA church manual
below, there is a built in conservatism within SDA circles that will not make such
progress very easy.
The Identification of Areas for Future Research
This project has brought to the surface further areas of possible research. Some of
the areas that need attention are: (1) the possible development of the SDA theology
of the eschatological remnant into direct socio-political concerns; (2) the socio-
political value of the socio-spiritual Investigative Judgment regarding Women and
Child Abuse in South Africa; (3) the relationship between the SDA self-
consciousness as the remnant of bible prophecy and its ecumenical reluctance with
respect to other churches in South Africa; and; (4) issues around ecology and the
environment.
While further research still needs to be done in areas related to the topic of this
research, it is the conviction of the researcher that study could make a significant
contribution to the ongoing conversation on the relationship between eschatological
hope and Christian mission and between faith and practice. The fact that this is the
first attempt by a member of the SDA church to propose a revision of the SDA
893 According to the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (2010:156, 114-115, emphasis
mine), the administrative constitution of the denomination, the SDA church does have room for the
revision of fundamental doctrines, but only revisions that enhance rather than undo the established
doctrines: “Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is
led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to
express the teachings of God’s Holy Word….Members who think they have new light contrary to the
established views of the Church should seek counsel from responsible leaders….This plan was followed in the
early church….The counsel to test new light must not be regarded as deterring anyone from
diligently studying the Scriptures, but rather as a protection against the infiltration of false theories
and erroneous doctrines into the Church….When new light shines forth from the sacred page to reward the
earnest seeker after truth, it does not make void the old. Instead it merges with the old, causing it to grow
brighter with added luster….Although the child of God must stand ready to accept advancing light,
one must never give heed to any voice, however pious and plausible, that would lead away from the fundamental
doctrines of the Bible”.
185
theology of the Investigative Judgment towards direct socio-political relevance,
especially through a dialogue with Jurgen Moltmann, beyond, and not instead of,
the traditional spiritual significance means that it is bound to spark some debate. It
is the hope and prayer of the researcher that this debate will lead to serious
consideration of the possibility of bringing the SDA down to earth.
186
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Andreasen NA 2000. Death: Origin, Nature, and Final Eradication. In R Dederen

(ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 314-346. Hagerstown,
Maryland and Silver Spring, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing
Association and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Andrews JN 1853. The Sanctuary. The Review and Herald. Accessed from
www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18530203-V03-19__B.pdf#view=fit,
2014-01-10.
___________ 1873. History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week. Online book.
Accessed from www.adventistarchives.org, 2013-11-19.
Badenas R 1992. New Jerusalem – The Holy City. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Symposium
on Revelation – Book II, 243-271. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research
Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Badina J 1992. The Millennium. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Symposium on Revelation –

Book II, 225-242. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Bennett D 1986. The Stone Kingdom of Daniel 2. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Symposium on

Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, 331-377. Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Blanco J 2000. The Sanctuary and the Mission of the Church. Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society. Online article. Accessed from www.atsjats.org, 2013-11-19.
Blazen IT 2000. Salvation. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Theology, 271-313. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver Spring, Maryland:
Review and Herald Publishing Association and the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists.
Bliss S 1853. Memoirs of William Miller. Boston: Joshua V Himes.
Bradford CE 2000. Stewardship. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Seventh-day Adventists .
Brunt JC 2000. Resurrection and Glorification. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of

Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 347-374. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver
Spring, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association and the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Cairus AE 2000. The Doctrine of Man. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Adventist Theology, 205-232. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver Spring,
187
Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association and the General
Canale FL 2000. Doctrine of God. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Damsteegt PG 1989. Among Sabbatarian Adventists (1845-1850). In FB Holbrook

(ed.), Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey (1845-1863), 17-55. Silver
Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists.
Davidson RM 1984. Typology and the Levitical System – 1. Online article. Accessed
from www.andrews.edu, 2013-11-19.
____________ 1989. Typology in the Book of Hebrews. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Issues in

the Book of Hebrews, 121-186. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald
Publishing Association.
____________ 1992. Sanctuary Typology. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Symposium on

Revelation – Book I, 99-130. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute,
____________ 2002. Inauguration or Day of Atonement? A Response to Norman

Young’s “Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:19-20 Revisited”. Andrews
University Seminary Studies (vol. 40, no. 1), 69-88. Online article. Accessed from
www.andrews.edu, 2013-11-19.
Dederen R 1989. Atoning Aspects of Christ’s Death. In FB Holbrook (ed.), The

Sanctuary and the Atonement, 199-227. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical
Dederen R 2000. The Church. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Doukhan JB 2000. Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile.
Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
__________ 2002. Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse through Hebrew Eyes.

Duffie D 1989. Contemporary Evangelical Views of the Atonement. In FB Holbrook

(ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement, 333-347. Silver Spring, Maryland:
Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Fowler JM 2000. Sin. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology,

233-270. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver Spring, Maryland: Review and
188
Herald Publishing Association and the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists.
Gane RE 1997. Judgment as Covenant Review. Journal of the Adventist Theological

Society. Online article. Accessed from www.atsjats.org, 2013-11-19.
________ 2007. Christ at His Sanctuary: Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue. Online

article. Accessed from www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org, 2013-11-19.
Gulley NR 1998. Christ is Coming! A Christ-centered Approach to Last-Day Events.

__________ 2003. Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (vol. 1). Berrien Springs, Michigan:
Andrews University Press.
__________ 2011. Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (vol. 2). Berrien Springs,
Michigan: Andrews University Press.
__________ 2012. Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation (vol. 3). Berrien
Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press.
Hasel GF 1986. Establishing a Date for the Book of Daniel. In FB Holbrook (ed.),
Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, 84-164. Washington,
DC: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists.
________ 1989. Studies in Biblical Atonement – I: Continual Sacrifice,

Defilement//Cleansing, and Sanctuary. In FB Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary
and the Atonement, 107-121. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research
Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists .
________ 2000. Divine Judgment. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists .
Heppenstall E 1972. Our High Priest: Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary.
Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
____________ 1989. Subjective and Objective Aspects of the Atonement. In FB

Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement, 229-254. Silver Spring,
Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists.
Holbrook FB 1989. The Israelite Sanctuary. In FB Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary and
the Atonement, 3-36. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute,
___________ 2000. The Great Controversy. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-

day Adventist Theology, 969-1009. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver Spring,
189
Johnsson GW 1989. Day of Atonement Allusions. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Issues in the

Book of Hebrews, 105-120. Hagerstown, USA: Review and Herald Publishing
Association.
____________ 1989. The Heavenly Sanctuary – Figurative Or Real? In FB Holbrook

(ed.), Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 35-51. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and
Herald Publishing Association.
____________ 2000. Biblical Apocalyptic. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Kis MM 2000. Christian Lifestyle and Behavior. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of

Knight GR 2000. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-day Adventist

Beliefs, Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
LaRondelle HK 2000. The Remnant and the Three Angels’ Messages. In R Dederen
(ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 857-892. Hagerstown,
Maryland and Silver Spring, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing
Association and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Lehmann RP 2000. The Second Coming of Jesus. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of

Loughborough JN 1905. The Great Second Advent Movement. Accessed from

www.adventistarchives.org, 2014-01-10.
Maxwell CM 1989. The Investigative Judgment: Its Early Development. In FB

Holbrook (ed.), Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey (1845-1863), 119-
157. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference
of Seventh-day Adventists.
Moltmann J 1967. Theology of Hope: on the Ground and the Implications of a Christian
Eschatology. Translated by M Kohl. London: SCM Press Limited.
__________ 1973. Theology and Joy. Translated by M Kohl. London: SCM Press
Limited.
__________ 1974. The Crucified God: the Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism
of Christian Theology. Translated by M Kohl. London: SCM Press Limited.
190
__________ 1977. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: a Contribution to Messianic
Ecclesiology. Translated by M Kohl. London: SCM Press.
__________ 1981. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: the Doctrine of God. Translated
by M Kohl. London: SCM Press.
__________ 1990. The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in Messianic Dimensions.

Translated by M Kohl. London: SCM Press.
__________ 1994. Jesus Christ: For Today’s World. Translated by M Kohl.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
__________ 1996. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by M Kohl.

London: SCM Press.
__________ 1999. God for a Secular Society: the Public Relevance of Theology. Translated
by M Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
__________ 2000. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology.

Translated by M Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
__________ 2004. In the End – the Beginning. Translated by M Kohl. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press.
__________ 2010. Sun of Righteousness, Arise! God’s Future for Humanity and the Earth.
Translated by M Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
__________ 2012. Ethics of Hope. Translated by M Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress

Press.
Moskala J 2004. 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. Online article. Accessed from www.atsjats.org, 2013-11-19.
Nam D 2000. The New Earth and the Eternal Kingdom. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook
of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 947-968. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver
Nichol FD (ed.) 1976. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (vol. 4). Hagerstown,
Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
_____________ 1978. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (vol. 1). Hagerstown,

_____________ 1980. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (vol. 7). Hagerstown,

191
Paulien JK 2003. The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to
Biblical Apocalyptic – Part One. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society.
Online article. Accessed from www.atsjats.org, 2013-11-19.
_________ 2006. The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic. In GW Reid (ed.),

Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, 245-268. Hagerstown,
_________ 2008. A New Look at the Year-Day Principle. Paper presented at the
Adventist Theological Society Bible Symposium, 2 November 2008. Adventist
Theological Society, Berrien Springs, United States of America. Accessed from
www.atsjats.org, 2013-01-08.
Paulsen J 1992. Sanctuary and Judgment. In FB Holbrook (ed), Symposium on

Revelation – Book II, 275-294. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research
Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Reid GW 2000. Health and Healing. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Rice GE 2000. Spiritual Gifts. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Seventh-day Adventists .
Rodriguez AM 1986. Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14. In FB

Holbrook (ed.), Symposium on Daniel, 527-549. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review
and Herald Publishing Association.
_____________ 1986. Transfer of Sin in Leviticus. In FB Holbrook (ed.), 70 Weeks,

Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, 169-197. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and
_____________ 1989. Sacrificial Substitution and the Old Testament Sacrifices. In FB

Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement, 123-143. Silver Spring,
Adventists.
_____________ 1999. Jewelry in the Bible: What You Always Wanted to Know but Were
Afraid to Ask. Silver Spring, Maryland: Ministerial Association, General
_____________ 2000. The Sanctuary. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

192
_____________ 2002. The Biblical Sabbath: The Adventist Perspective. Online article.
Accessed from www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org, 2013-11-19.
_____________ 2009. General Introduction. In AM Rodriguez (ed.), Toward a Theology

of the Remnant: An Adventist Ecclesiological Perspective, 17-22. Silver Spring,
Adventists.
Salom AP 1989. Sanctuary Theology. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Issues in the Book of

Hebrews, 199-218. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General
Schwantes SJ 1986. EREB BOQER of Daniel 8:14 Re-examined. In FB Holbrook (ed.),

Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, 462-474. Washington,
DC: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists.
Seventh-day Adventist church, 2010. Seventh-day Adventist: Church Manual (18th rev.
ed.) 2010. Silver Spring, Maryland: Secretariat, General Conference of
___________________________, 1985. Ecumenical Movement. Online Article.

Accessed from, from www.adventist.org, 2012-12-27.
___________________________, 2005. Seventh-day Adventist: Church Manual (17th rev.

ed.) 2005. Silver Spring, Maryland: Secretariat, General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine: An Explanation of Certain

Major Aspects of Seventh-day Adventist Belief 1957. Hagerstown, Maryland:
Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Shea WH 1986. Literary Form and Theological Function. In FB Holbrook (ed.), 70

Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, 131-168. Washington, DC: Biblical
________ 1986. Unity of Daniel. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Symposium on Daniel:

Introductory and Exegetical Studies, 165-255. Washington, DC: Biblical
________ 1992. Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (revised edition). Silver

day Adventists.
________ 2000. Creation. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Theology,418-456. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver Spring, Maryland:
193
________ 2001. Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date
for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14. Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society. Online article. Accessed www.atsjats.org, 2013-11-19.
Specht WF 1989. Christ’s Session, Enthronement, and Mediatorial and Intercessory

Ministry. In FB Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement, 145-175.
Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of
Stefanovic R 2002. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation.

Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press.
Stefanovic Z 2007. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise – Commentary on the book of Daniel.
Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Publishing Press.
Strand KA 1992. Foundational Principles of Interpretation. In FB Holbrook (ed.),

Symposium on Revelation – Book I, 3-34. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical
_________ 2000. The Sabbath. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Timm AR 2006. Historical background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation. In GW

Reid (ed.), Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, 1-14. Hagerstown,
Tonstad SK 2009. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien Springs, Michigan:
Andrews University Press.
Treiyer AR 1986. The Day of Atonement as Related to the Contamination and

Purification of the Sanctuary. In FB Holbrook (ed.), 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature
of Prophecy, 198-256. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, General
__________ 1989. Antithetical Or Correspondence Typology? In FB Holbrook (ed.),

Issues in the Book of Hebrews, 187-198. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical
Veloso M 1989. Doctrine of the Sanctuary and the Atonement As Reflected in the
Book of Revelation. In FB Holbrook (ed.), The Sanctuary and the Atonement,
177-198. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General
________ 2000. The Law of God. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

194
Vyhmeister NJ 2000. Who are Seventh-day Adventists? In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook
of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 1-21. Hagerstown, Maryland and Silver
Wade L 2000. “Son of Man” comes to the Judgment in Daniel 7:13. Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society. Online article. Accessed from www.atsjats.org,
2013-11-19.
Wallenkampf AV 1989. Challengers to the Doctrine of the Sanctuary. In FB Holbrook

(ed.), Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey (1845-1863), 197-216. Silver
day Adventists.
Webster EC 2000. The Millennium. In R Dederen (ed.), Handbook of Seventh-day

Secondary Sources
Archives, Statistics and Research. Statistics - 2013 Annual Statistical Report.

Online article. Accessed from www.adventiststatistics.org, 2014-01-10.
Asmal K, Chidester D and James W (eds.) 2003. Nelson Mandela: From Freedom to the
Future – Tributes and Speeches. Johannesburg and Cape Town: Jonathan Ball
Publishers.
Aune DE 1972. The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity. Leiden:
Brill.
Bacchiocchi S 1977. From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of

Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian
University Press.
Bacote VE 2005. Justice. In KJ Vanhoozer (ed.), Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible, 415-416; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Balcomb AO 1982. A Critical Analysis of the use of the Crucifixion motif in the
theology of Jurgen Moltmann. Masters dissertation, University of KwaZulu-
Natal. Pietermaritzburg, Republic of South Africa.
___________ 1993. Third Way Theology: Reconciliation, revolution and reform in the
South African Church during the 1980’s. Pietermaritzburg, Republic of South
Africa: Cluster Publications.
Barnes JS 2010. Partnership in Christian Mission: A History of the Protestant

Missionary Movement. Doctoral thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Pietermaritzburg, Republic of South Africa.
195
Barth K 1962. Church Dogmatics (vol. 4, part 3, 2nd half, The Doctrine of
Reconciliation). London: T&T Clark.
Bates J 1868. The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates; Embracing a Long Life on Shipboard,
with Sketches of Voyages on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Baltic and
Mediterranean Seas; also Impressment and Service on Board British War Ships, Long
Confinement in Dartmoor Prison, Early Experience in Reformatory Movements;
Travels in Various Parts of the World; and a Brief Account of the Great Advent
Movement of 1840-1844, by Joseph Bates. Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam Press
of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association.
Bosch DJ 1980. Witness to the World: the Christian Mission in Theological Perspective.
London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott.
________ 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.

Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Bultmann R 1957. History and Eschatology: The Gifford Lectures 1955. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Camps A, Hoedemaker LA, Spindler MR and Verstraelen FJ (eds.) 1995. The

Ecumenical Development of Missiology: Texts and Contexts of Global
Christianity in the Twenty-First Century – An Afterword. In FJ Verstralen
(ed.), Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction – Texts and Contexts of Global
Christianity, 467-470. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Canaan M 2011. The Role of the Church Community in Coping with Spiritualistic
Manifestations. In K Donkor (ed.), The Church, Culture and Spirits: Adventism in
Africa, 157-166. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute.
Carson DA (ed.) 1999. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological
Investigation. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Clark NL and Worger WH 2004. South Africa: The Rise and Fall of Apartheid. Great
Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Cochrane J 1990. Christian Resistance to Apartheid: Periodisation, Prognosis. In M.

Prozesky (ed.), Christianity Amidst Apartheid, 81-100. London: The McMillan
Press LTD.
Crocombe J 2012. The Spirit of War is the Spirit of Satan - Conscientious Objection,
the South African Seventh-day Adventist Experience. The Journal of Southern
African Adventism. Online article. Accessed from www.josa.co.za, 2012-12-29.
Crosier ORL 1846. The Sanctuary. The Day-Star (vol. 9, no. 9e). Online article.
Cullmann O 1962. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and
History (revised edition). London: SCM Press.
196
Daniel J 2008. One Family under Heaven: Response to Paradigm Shifts in Ecumenism.
Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
De Gruchy JW and De Gruchy S 2004. The Church Struggle in South Africa: 25th
Anniversary Edition. London: SCM Press.
Deane-Drummond C 1996. A Handbook of Theology and Ecology. London: SCM Press.
Deegan H 2011. Politics South Africa. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, 2009. State of Local

Government in South Africa, Working Documents. Access from www.gov.za,
2014-01-09.
________________________________________________________, 2009. Local

Government Turn-Around Strategy. Accessed from
www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=118277, 2014-01-09.
Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, 2012. Mission. Accessed from
www.adventistliberty.org, 2012-12-19.
Dodd CH 1936. The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments: Three Lectures with an
Appendix on Eschatology and History. London : Hodder & Stoughton.
Donkor K (ed.) 2011. The Church, Culture and Spirits: Adventism in Africa. Silver
Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute.
Du Preez J 1992. Eschatology and Ecology: Perspectives from the book of Revelation.
Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria.
Edson H 1921. Review and Herald (vol. 98, no. 25). Online article. Accessed from
www.adventistarchives.org, 2013-11-19.
Erickson MJ 1998. Christian Theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic.
Everts E 1857. Communication from Bro. Everts. The Review and Herald. Online
article. Accessed from www.adventistarchives.org, 2013-11-19.
Ewoo A 2011. Spiritualistic Manifestations Challenging the Adventist Church in

Africa. In K Donkor (ed.), The Church, Culture and Spirits: Adventism in Africa,
11-21. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, General
Fackre GJ 1993. Evangelical Faith in Ecumenical Perspective. William B Eerdmans

Publishing Company.
Fahey MA 1992. Ecumenism: A Bibliographical Overview. Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood Press.
Geisler NL 2003. Systematic Theology (vol. 2). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany

House Publishers.
197
_________ 2004. Systematic Theology (vol. 3). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany
House Publishers.
_________ 2005. Systematic Theology (vol. 4). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany

House Publishers.
Gibson JL 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation? Cape Town,
Republic of South Africa: HSRC Press.
Gitay Y 1994. The Human Search for Justice: the Case of Hebrew Literature: Inaugural
Lecture, 9 March, 1994. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
Gordon PA 2000. The Sanctuary, 1844 and the Pioneers. Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press
Gorman GE 1992. Foreword. In MA Fahey, Ecumenism: A Bibliographical Overview, xi-

xv. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Graybill LS 2002. Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Miracle or Model? Boulder,
Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Gregg S (ed.) 1997. Revelation: Four Views – A Parallel Commentary. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers.
Grudem W 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,

England, and Grand Rapids, Michigan: Inter-Varsity Press and Zondervan
Publishing House.
Gutierrez G 1993. Option for the Poor. In J Sobrino and I Ellacuria (eds.), Systematic
Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology, 22-37. Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books.
Hanson BC 1997. Introduction to Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Hodge C 1960. Systematic Theology (vol. 1). London: James Clarke.
________1960. Systematic Theology (vol. 2). London: James Clarke.
________1960. Systematic Theology (vol. 3). London: James Clarke.
Horsley RA 2010. Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.
Houston WJ 2006. Contending for Justice: Ideologies and Theologies of Social Justice in the
Old Testament. London: T&T Clark.
Howard DM 1986. The Dream that would not Die: The birth and growth of the World
Evangelical Fellowship, 1846-1986. Exeter: The Paternoster Press.
Inbody T 2005. The Faith of the Christian Church: An Introduction to Theology. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.
198
Jenson RW 1999. Systematic Theology (vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.
Keener CS 2009. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Kiernan J 1990. African and Christian: From Opposition to Mutual Accommodation.

In M. Prozesky (ed.), Christianity Amidst Apartheid, 9-27. London: The
McMillan Press LTD.
Kiesler H 1989. An Exegesis of Selected Passages. In FB Holbrook (ed.), Issues in the

Book of Hebrews, 53-77. Silver Spring, Maryland: Biblical Research Institute,
Kinghorn J 1990. The Theology of Separate Equality: A Critical Outline of the DRC’s
Position on Apartheid. In M Prozesky (ed.), Christianity Amidst Apartheid, 57-
80. London: The McMillan Press LTD.
Kombo JHO 2007. The Doctrine of God in African Christian Thought: The Holy Trinity,
Theological Hermeneutics and the African Intellectual Culture. Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Ladd GE 1974. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B
Land Divided: Land And South African Society In 2013, In Comparative Perspective
2013. Online article. Accessed from www.landdivided2013.org.za, 2014-01-30.
Lausanne Movement, The, 2013. The Lausanne Covenant. Accessed from

www.lausanne.org, 2013-11-03.
Mafico TLJ 1992. Just, Justice. In DN Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary
(vol. 3), 1127-1129. New York: Doubleday.
Magesa L 2004. Anatomy of Inculturation: Transforming the Church in Africa. Maryknoll,

New York: Orbis Books.
Mandela NR 2002. Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Volume
two, 1962-1994. Great Britain: Abacus.
Martin-Schramm JB and Stivers RL 2003. Christian Environmental Ethics: A Case

Method Approach. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Mbali Z 1987. The Churches and Racism: A Black South African Perspective. London:
SCM Press Ltd.
Merriam-Webster, 2013. Anthropomorphism. Online article. Accessed from

www.merriam-webster.com, 2013-06-26.
Miller SR 1994. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition
of Holy Scripture (vol. 18). Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group.
199
Mngqibisa OT 2006. The relationship of humankind and nature according to Psalm
8. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University. Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Mofokeng T 1990. Black Theology in South Africa: Achievements, Problems and

Prospects. In M. Prozesky (ed.), Christianity Amidst Apartheid, 37-54. London:
The McMillan Press Ltd.
Nhlapho MC 2012. Tears of the Black Pulpit: A Celebration of the Legacy of Black
Ministers in the North Bantu Mission Field from 1925-1965. Wandsbeck, South
Africa: Reach Publishers.
Nzimande AN 2012. Beyond 1960: The Black Work within the Seventh-day Adventist
Church in South Africa. Durban, South Africa: AN Nzimande.
Oosthuizen GC 1990. Christianity’s Impact on Race Relations in South Africa. In M.

Prozesky (ed.), Christianity Amidst Apartheid, 101-121. London: The
McMillan Press LTD.
Osei-Bonsu J 2005. The Inculturation of Christianity in Africa: Antecedents and Guidelines

from the New Testament and the Early Church. New York: Peter Lang.
Pannenberg W 1991. Systematic Theology (vol. 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B
_____________ 1994. Systematic Theology (vol. 2). Edinburg: T&T Clark Ltd.
Papu J, 2012. Relevancy of Adventism in South Africa. The Journal of Southern African
Adventism (vol. 1, no. 1). Online article. Accessed from www.josa.co.za, 2012-
12-29.
Perrin N 1963. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM Press.
Pipa JA 1996. The Lord’s Day. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications.
Presidency, The. History. Online article. Accessed from www.thepresidency.gov.za,

2013-11-09.
Primavesi A 1991. From Apocalypse to Genesis: Ecology, Feminism and Christianity.

Britain: Burns & Oates Ltd.
Prozesky M 1990. Christianity amidst Apartheid: Selected Perspectives on the Church in

South Africa. London: The McMillan Press LTD.
Rae MA 2005. Anthropomorphism. In KJ Vanhoozer (ed.), Dictionary for Theological

Interpretation of the Bible, 48-49. Grand Rapids, Michigan and London: Baker
Academic and Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
Redditt PL 1999. Daniel. Sheffield, Yorks: Sheffield Academic Press.
Schmithals W 1975. The Apocalyptic Movement: Introduction and Interpretation.

Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press.
200
Schnelle U 2009. Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Academic.
Schreiner TR 2008. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
Schweitzer A 1954. The quest of the historical Jesus: a critical study of its progress from
Reimarus to Wrede. London: Black.
____________ 2001. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (first complete edition, translated
by W. Montgomery). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Seow CL 2003. Daniel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
South Africa Government Online. History. Online article. Accessed from

www.gov.za, 2013-11-08.
Steinmann AE 2008. Concordia Commentary: A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture

– Daniel. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
Thiselton AC 2012. The Last things: A New Approach. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge.
Thomas D 2002. Christ Divided: Liberalism, Ecumenism and Race in South Africa.
Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Tillich P 1957. Systematic Theology (vol. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_______ 1964. Systematic Theology (vol. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tooley M 2000. Just, Justice. In DN Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible,
757. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Tucker JT 2000. Anthropomorphism. In DN Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of

the Bible, 66. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Van Lin J 1995. Models for a theology of religions. In FJ Verstralen (ed.), Missiology:
An Ecumenical Introduction – Texts and Contexts of Global Christianity, 184-193.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Van Wyk G 1995. A Practical Theological Perspective on Adventist Theology and

Contextualisation. In GLOR Yorke (ed.), Journal of Adventist Thought in Africa
(vol. 1 no. 1), 132-149. Eldoret, Kenya: The University of Eastern Africa,
Baraton.
VanElderen M and Conway M 2001. Introducing the World Council of Churches

(revised edition). Geneva, Switzerland: WWC Publications.
Viviano PA 2000. Justification. In DN Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the

Bible, 757-758. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
201
Walls AF 1996. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the
Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
________ 2002. The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History: Studies in the

Transmission and Appropriation of Faith. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Walls JL 2008. Introduction. In JL Walls (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, 3-

22. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warren M 1951. The Christian Mission. London: SCM Press.
White AL 1985. The Early Years (vol. 1). Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald
White EG 1911. The Great Controversy. Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing
Association.
________ 1938. Counsels on Sabbath School Work. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and
White JS 1847. The Judgment. In JS White (ed.), A Word to the “Little Flock”, 23-24.
Brunswick, Maine: James White.
_______ 1850. The Day of Judgment. The Advent Review (no. 4). New York: H Edson,
D Arnold, GW Holt, SW Rhodes and J White.
_______ 1851. The Parable, Matthew, XXV 1-12. Review and Herald (vol. 1, no. 13).
Online article. Accessed from www.adventistarchives.org, 2013-11-19.
_______ 1857. The Judgment. Review and Herald (vol. 9, no. 13). Online article.
_______ 1868. Life Incidents in Connection with the Great Advent Movement, as
Illustrated by the Three Angels of Revelation XIV. Battle Creek, Michigan: Steam
Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association.
Wikipedia, 2013. Albert Schweitzer. Online article. Accessed from

www.wikipedia.org, 2013-10-29.
_________, 2013. Anthropomorphism. Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2013. Catholic Church and Ecumenism. Online article. Accessed from
_________, 2013. Dispensationalism. Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2013. Ecumenical Movement. Online article. Accessed from

202
_________, 2013. Existentialism. Online article. Accessed from www.wikipedia.org,
2013-10-31.
_________, 2013. Historicism (Christianity). Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2013. Inculturation. Online article. Accessed from www.wikipedia.org,

2013-06-09.
_________, 2013. Millenarian. Online article. Accessed from www.wikipedia.org,

2013-10-31.
_________, 2013. Oscar Cullmann. Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2013. Preterism. Online article. Accessed from www.wikipedia.org,

2013-10-31.
_________, 2013. Prime Minister of South Africa. Online article. Accessed from
_________, 2013. Realized Eschatology. Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2013. Seventh-day Adventist Interfaith Relations. Online article.

Accessed from www.wikipedia.org, 2012-12-12.
_________, 2013. South African Constitution of 1961. Online article. Accessed from
_________, 2013. World Council of Churches. Online article. Accessed from

_________, 2014. Blue Laws. Online article. Accessed from www.wikipedia.org,

2014-01-29.
Wiktionary, 2013. Ambivalence. Online article. Accessed from www.wiktionary.org,

2013-01-03.
World Council of Churches. About Us. Online article. Accessed from

www.oikoumene.org, 2013-11-03.
World Evangelical Alliance. History. Online article. Accessed from

www.worldea.org, 2013-11-03.
Yorke GLOR 1985. The Seven Beatitudes of the Book of Revelation. Alberta, Canada:
Parkland Colorpress
___________ 1995. Seventh-day Adventists Believe…: A Biblical Exposition of 27

Fundamental Doctrines: An Afro-Adventist Appraisal. In GLOR Yorke (ed.),
Journal of Adventist Thought in Africa (vol. 1 no. 1), 8-23. Eldoret, Kenya: The
University of Eastern Africa, Baraton.
203
APPENDIX I
FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS894

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain
fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set
forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of
Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference
Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible
truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.
1. The Holy Scriptures
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given
by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge
necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.
They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer
of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s actin in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2
Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)
2. The Trinity
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.
God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is
infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation.
He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.
(Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)
3. The Father
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all
creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and
the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28;
John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)
4. The Son
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were
created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished,
and the world is judge. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the
Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived
and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the
righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and
was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the
cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to
minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the
894 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual 2010:156-166
204
final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col.
1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11;
Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:13.)
5. The Holy Spirit
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation,
incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s
life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He
renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be
always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to
bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth.
(Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts
1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)
6. Creation
God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of
His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all
living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus
He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work.
The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of
Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for
it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.
(Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)
7. The Nature of Man
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and
freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity
of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else.
When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and
fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and
they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its
consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in
Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals
the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him
and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts
17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20;
Gen. 2:15.)
8. The Great Controversy
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan
regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This
conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of
choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a
portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he
led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of
205
God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation
at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world
became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will
ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the
Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of
salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-
22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)
9. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ
In Christ’s life of perfect obedience to God’s will, His suffering, death, and
resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that
those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole
creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This
perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of
His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The
death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The
resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those
who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares
the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will
bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21;
Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2;6-11.)
10. The Experience of Salvation
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so
that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we
sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and
exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith
which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift
of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and
daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born
again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our
hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become
partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the
judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13,
14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26;
Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb.8:7-12;
Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)
11. Growing in Christ
By His death on the cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil. He who
subjugated the demonic spirits during His earthly ministry has broken their power
and made certain their ultimate doom. Jesus’ victory gives us victory over the evil
forces that still seek to control us, as we walk with Him in peace, joy, and assurance
of His love. Now the Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us. Continually
committed to Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, we are set free from the burden of our
206
past deeds. No longer do we live in the darkness, fear of evil powers, ignorance, and
meaninglessness of our former way of life. In this new freedom in Jesus, we are
called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in
prayer, feeding on His Word, meditating on it and on His providence, singing His
praises, gathering together for worship, and participating in the mission of the
Church. As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing
to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit transforms every
moment and every task into a spiritual experience. (Ps. 1:1, 2; 23:4; 77:11, 12; Col.
1;13, 14; 2:6, 14, 15; Luke 10:17-20; Eph. 5:19, 20; 6:12-18; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Peter 2:9;
3:18; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Phil. 3:7-14; 1 Thess. 5:16-18; Matt. 20:25-28; John 20:21; Gal. 5:22-
25; Rom. 8:38, 39; 1 John 4:4; Heb. 10:25.)
12. The Church
The church is the community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and
Saviour. In continuity with the people of God in Old Testament times, we are called
out from the world; and we join together for worship, for fellowship, for instruction
in the Word, for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, for service to all mankind, and
for the worldwide proclamation of the gospel. The church derives its authority from
Christ, who is the incarnate Word, and from the Scriptures, which are the written
Word. The church is God’s family; adopted by Him as children, its members live on
the basis of the new covenant. The church is the body of Christ, a community of
faith of which Christ Himself is the Head. The church is the bride for whom Christ
died that He might sanctify and cleanse her. At His return in triumph, He will
present her to Himself a glorious church, the faithful of all the ages, the purchase of
His blood, not having spot or wrinkle, but holy and without blemish. (Gen. 12:3;
Acts 7:38; Eph. 4:11-15; 3:8-11; Matt. 28:19, 20; 16:13-20; 18:18; Eph. 2:19-22; 1:22, 23;
5:23-27; Col. 1:17, 18.)
13. The Remnant and Its Mission
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, 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. This remnant announces the arrival of
the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of
His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of
Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a
work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal
part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1
Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)
14. Unity in the Body of Christ
The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred,
tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture,
learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male
and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one
Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to
207
serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of
Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one
witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has
adopted us as His children. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps. 133:1; 2
Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27, 29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-
23.)
15. Baptism
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and
testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we
acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as
members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the
forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in
water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of
repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of
their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)
16. The Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus
as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour. In this experience of
communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we
joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again. Preparation for the Supper
includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The Master ordained the
service of foot-washing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to
serve one another in Christlike humility, and to unite our hearts in love. The
communion service is open to all believing Christians. (1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23-30;
Matt. 26:17-30; Rev. 3:20; John 6:48-63; 13:1-17.)
17. Spiritual Gifts and Ministries
God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each
member is to employ in loving ministry for the common good of the church and of
humanity. Given by the agency of the Holy Spirit, who apportions to each member
as He wills, the gifts provide all abilities and ministries needed by the church to fulfil
its divinely ordained functions. According to the Scriptures, these gifts include such
ministries as faith, healing, prophecy, proclamation, teaching, administration,
reconciliation, compassion, and self-sacrificing service and charity for the help and
encouragement of people. Some members are called of God and endowed by the
Spirit for functions recognized by the church in pastoral, evangelistic, apostolic, and
teaching ministries particularly needed to equip the members for service, to build up
the church to spiritual maturity, and to foster unity of the faith and knowledge of
God. When members employ these spiritual gifts as faithful stewards of God’s
grace, the church it protected from the destructive influence of false doctrine, grows
with a growth that is from God, and is built up in faith and love. (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor.
12:9-11, 27, 28; Eph. 4:8, 11-16; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 1 Peter 4:10, 11.)
208
18. The Gift of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the
remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s
messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which
provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also
make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must
be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)
19. The Law of God
The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and
exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will, and purposes
concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in
every age. These precepts are the basis of God’s covenant with His people and the
standard in God’s judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out
sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of
works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops
Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love
for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith
demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens
Christian witness. (Ex. 20:1-17; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20;
Heb. 8:8-10; John 15:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14.)
20. The Sabbath
The beneficent Creator, after six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and
instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth
commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-
day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching
and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful
communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a
sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal
future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal
covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from
evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and
redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:1-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-
12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)
21. Stewardship
We are God’s stewards, entrusted by Him with time and opportunities, abilities and
possessions, and the blessings of the earth and its resources. We are responsible to
Him for their proper use. We acknowledge God’s ownership by faithful service to
Him and our fellow men, and by returning tithes and giving offerings for the
proclamation of His gospel and the support and growth of His church. Stewardship
is a privilege given to us by God for nurture in love and the victory over selfishness
and covetousness. The steward rejoices in the blessings that come to others as a
209
result of his faithfulness. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; 1 Chron. 29:14; Haggai 1:3-11; Mal. 3:8-
12; 1 Cor. 9:9-14; Matt. 23:23; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; Rom. 15:26, 27.)
22. Christian Behaviour
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the
principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we
involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health,
and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet
the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural
differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true
beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a
gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the
Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and
rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean
foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the
irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain
from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and
bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and
goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter
3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)
23. Marriage and the Family
Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong

union between a man and a woman in loving companionship. For the Christian a
marriage commitment is to God as well as to the spouse, and should be entered into
only between partners who share a common faith. Mutual love, honor, respect, and
responsibility are the fabric of this relationship, which is to reflect the love, sanctity,
closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church.
Regarding divorce, Jesus taught that the person who divorces a spouse, except for
fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Although some family
relationships may fall short of the ideal, marriage partners who fully commit
themselves to each other in Christ may achieve loving unity through the guidance of
the Spirit and the nurture of the church. God blesses the family and intends that its
members shall assist each other toward complete maturity. Parents are to bring up
their children to love and obey the Lord. By their example and their words they are
to teach them that Christ is a loving disciplinarian, ever tender and caring, who
wants them to become members of His body, the family of God. Increasing family
closeness is one of the earmarks of the final gospel message. (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt.
19:3-9; John 2:1-11; 2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:21-33; Matt. 5:31, 32; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke
16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11; Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1-4; Deut. 6:5-9; Prov. 22:6; Mal. 4:5, 6.)
24. Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not
man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits
of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our
210
High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In
1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last
phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of
the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew
sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was
cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifice, but the heavenly things are purified with
the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to
heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in
Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes
manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of
God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His
everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those
who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall
receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of
human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22;
1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7;
20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)
25. The Second Coming of Christ
The Second coming of Christ is the blessed hope of the church, the grand climax of
the gospel. The Saviour’s coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide.
When He returns, righteous dead will be resurrected, and together with the
righteous living will be glorified and taken to heaven, but the unrighteous will die.
The almost complete fulfilment of most lines of prophecy, together with the present
condition of the world, indicates that Christ’s coming is imminent. The time of that
event has not been revealed, and we are therefore exhorted to be ready at all times.
(Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Matt. 24:14; Rev. 1:7; Matt. 24:43, 44; 1
Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8; Rev. 14:14-20; 19:11-21; Matt. 24;
Mark 13; Luke 21; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 Thess. 5:1-6.)
26. Death and Resurrection
The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to
His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When
Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous
will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the
resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later. (Rom. 6:23; 1
Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess.
4:13-17; John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10.)
27. The Millennium and the End of Sin
The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ and His saints in heaven
between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be
judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but
occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy
City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be
211
resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God
will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and
sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18,
19.)
28. The New Earth
On the new earth, in which righteousness dwells, God will provide 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. Amen. (2 Peter 3:13; Isa. 35; 65:17-25; Matt. 5:5; Rev.
21:1-7; 22:1-5; 11:15.)
212
APPENDIX II
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE ECUMENICAL

MOVEMENT895
The General Conference Executive Committee has never voted an official statement
regarding the Seventh-day Adventist relationship to the ecumenical movement as
such. A book has been written dealing at length with the subject (B. B.
Beach, Ecumenism-Boon or Bane? [Review and Herald, 1974]) and a number of articles
have appeared over the years in Adventist publications, including the Adventist
Review. Thus, while there is not exactly an official position, there are plenty of clear
indications regarding the Seventh-day Adventist viewpoint.
Generally, it can be said that while the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not
completely condemn the ecumenical movement and its main organizational
manifestation, the World Council of Churches, she has been critical of various
aspects and activities. Few would wish to deny that ecumenism has had laudable
aims and some positive influences. Its great goal is visible Christian unity. No
Adventist can be opposed to the unity Christ Himself prayed for. The ecumenical
movement has promoted kinder interchurch relations with more dialogue and less
diatribe and helped remove unfounded prejudices.
Through its various organizations and activities, the ecumenical movement has
provided more accurate and updated information on churches, spoken for religious
liberty and human rights, combated against the evils of racism, and drawn attention
to socioeconomic implications of the gospel. In all this the intentions have been good
and some of the fruit palatable. However, in the total picture, the banes tend to
outweigh the boons. We shall examine some of these.
Adventism a Prophetic Movement
The Seventh-day Adventist Church stepped upon the stage of history-so Adventists
firmly believe-in response to God's call. Adventists believe, it is hoped without pride
or arrogance, that the Advent Movement represents the divinely appointed
instrument for the organized proclamation of the "eternal gospel," God's last
message, discerned from the prophetic vantage point of Revelation 14 and 18. In the
focalized light of its prophetic understanding, the Seventh-day Adventist Church
sees herself as the eschatologically oriented "ecumenical" movement of the
Apocalypse. She begins by "calling out" God's children from "fallen" ecclesial bodies
that will increasingly form organized religious opposition to the purposes of God.
Together with the "calling out" there is a positive "calling in" to a united, worldwide-
895 This unofficial document has been retrieved from the official SDA website -
http://adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/other-doc3.html, accessed on the 27th of December
2012 – and the following is written on the address as a footnote: “This study document, intended for
internal church use, first appeared in Pattern for Progress, The Role and Function of Church Organization by
Walter Raymond Beach and Bert Beverly Beach, was authored by Bert B. Beach, and was released in connection
with the General Conference Session New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1985. It is available from the office of Public
Affairs and Religious Liberty of the General Conference”.
213
that is, ecumenical-movement characterized by "faith of Jesus" and keeping "the
commandments of God" (Rev. 14:12). In the World Council of Churches the
emphasis is first of all on "coming in" to a fellowship of churches and then hopefully
and gradually "coming out" of corporate disunity. In the Advent Movement the
accent is first on "coming out" of Babylonian disunity and confusion and then
immediately "coming in" to a fellowship of unity, truth, and love within the globe-
encircling Advent family.
In understanding the Adventist attitude toward ecumenism and other mainline

churches, it is helpful to remember that the early-Advent movement (characterized
by the Millerites) had ecumenical aspects: it arose in many churches. Thus,
Adventists came from many denominations. However, the churches generally
rejected the Advent message. Adventists were not infrequently disfellowshipped.
Sometimes Adventists took with them portions of congregations. Relations became
embittered. False stories were circulated, some of which unfortunately still persist
today. The pioneers had strong views, and their opponents were no less dogmatic.
They tended to look more for what separates than what unites. That was an
understandable development. Today, of course, the interchurch climate tends to be
more irenic and benign.
What are some of the problems Adventists have with ecumenism? Before we
endeavor to give a summary answer to this question, it needs to be pointed out that
the ecumenical movement is not monolithic in its thinking, and one can find all
kinds of views represented in its ranks (that in itself, of course, is a problem!). We
will try to make reference to what can be considered mainstream thinking within the
World Council of Churches (WCC), an organization now representing more than
three hundred different churches and denominations.
Ecumenical Understanding of Unity
The New Testament presents a qualified church unity in truth, characterized

by holiness, joy, faithfulness, and obedience (see John 17:6, 13, 17, 19, 23, 26).
"Ecumenthusiasts" (to coin a word) seem to take for granted the eventual organic
unity and communion of the great majority of the churches. They emphasize the
"scandal of division," as if this were really the unpardonable sin. Heresy and
apostasy are largely ignored. However, the New Testament shows the threat of anti-
Christian penetration within "the temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:3, 4). The eschatological
picture of God's church prior to the Second Coming is not one of a megachurch
gathering all humankind together, but of a "remnant" of Christendom, those keeping
the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus (see Rev. 12:17).
There is clearly a point at which unorthodoxy and un-Christian lifestyle justify

separation. The WCC misses this point. Separation and division in order to protect
and uphold that purity and integrity of the church and her message are more
desirable than unity in worldliness and error.
Furthermore, Adventists are uncomfortable with the fact that the WCC leaders seem
to give little emphasis to personal sanctification and revival. There are indications
214
that some may view such emphasis as a quaint pietistic hangover, not a vital
ingredient of a dynamic Christian life. They prefer to soft-pedal personal piety in
favor of social morality. However, in Adventist understanding, personal holiness of
life is such stuff as the morality of society is made (with apologies to Shakespeare).
Without genuinely converted Christians, any formal organizational unity is really of
a plastic nature and of little relevance.
Ecumenical Understanding of Belief
In many church circles broad-mindedness is seen as an ecumenical virtue. The ideal

ecumenist, it is suggested, is not dogmatic in belief and is somewhat fluid in
doctrinal views. He greatly respects the beliefs of others, but is less than rigid about
his own belief. He appears humble and not assertive about doctrinal beliefs-except
those regarding ecumenical unity. He has a sense of partial knowing. To show
religious doctrinal arrogance is, ecumenically, especially sinful.
All this has a laudable side. Humility and meekness are Christian virtues. Indeed,
Peter tells us to always be ready to answer and give a reason for our faith, but this
must be done with humility, respect, and a good conscience (1 Peter 3:15, 16).
However, there is in ecumenical ranks an almost inbuilt danger of softness and
relativization of belief. The whole concept of heresy is questioned. Lately, questions
are even raised regarding the idea of "paganism."
Typical of some ecumenical presuppositions is the idea that all denominational

formulations of truth are time-conditioned and relative, and therefore partial and
inadequate. Some ecumenists would even go so far as to advocate the need of
doctrinal synthesis, bringing together various Christian beliefs in a kind of cocktail
approach. We are told that each church is imbalanced and it is the task of ecumenism
to restore balance and harmony. Within the reconciled diversity of the ecumenical
movement, presumably everyone, in the words of Frederick the Great, "will be saved
in his own way."
Adventists believe that without strong convictions, a church has little spiritual
power. There is the danger that ecumenical quicksands of doctrinal softness will
suck churches into denominational death. Of course, this is precisely what
ecumenical enthusiasts hope for. However, Adventists feel that such doctrinal
irresolutions must be vigorously resisted, otherwise spiritual self-disarmament will
be the result and a truly post-Christian age would be upon us.
Ecumenical Understanding of Scripture
Adventists see the Bible as the infallible revelation of God's will, the authoritative
revealer of doctrinal truth, and the trustworthy record of the mighty acts of God in
salvation history (see Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists: 1. The Holy
Scriptures). Adventists see the Bible as a unity. For many WCC leaders the Bible is
not normative and authoritative in itself. The emphasis is on Biblical diversity,
including at times demythologization of the Gospels. For a large number of
ecumenists, as is the case for liberal Christianity in general, inspiration lies not in the
215
Biblical text but in the experience of the reader. Propositional revelation is out;
experience is in.
Apocalyptic prophecy is given practically no time-of-the-end role. Pro forma

references to the Parousia are made, but have no implications for urgency and make
little measurable impact on the ecumenical concept of evangelistic mission. There is
here the danger of eschatological blindness.
Seventh-day Adventists see the Biblical picture of sin and redemption within the
framework of the "great controversy" between good and evil, between Christ and
Satan, between God's Word and the lies of the impostor, between the faithful
remnant and Babylon, between the "seal of God" and the "mark of the beast."
Adventists are, first and foremost, people of the Word. While believing in the
unconditional authority of the Scriptures, Adventists recognize that the Bible was
"written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is
that of humanity. God, as a writer, it not represented. . . . The writers of the Bible
were God's penmen, not His pen. Selected Messages, book 1, p. 21. Many ecumenists
would say that the Biblical text is not the word of God but contains this word
as men respond and accept it. In contrast, Adventists would say that the utterances of
the Bible writers "are the word of God" (ibid.). God is not on trial; neither is His
Word, form criticism notwithstanding. It is man vis-à-vis the Bible who is on trial.
Ecumenical Understanding of Mission and Evangelism
The traditional understanding of mission highlights evangelism, that is, the verbal
proclamation of the gospel. The ecumenical approach sees mission as involving the
establishment of shalom, a kind of social peace and harmony. Adventists have
problems with any tendency to downplay the primary importance of announcing
the good news of redemption from the stranglehold of sin. In fact, the traditional,
including Adventist, view of salvation has always been the saving of individuals
from sin and for eternity. Ecumenical evangelism sees salvation as primarily saving
society from oppressive regimes, from the ravages of hunger, from the curse of
racism, and from the exploitation of injustice.
The Adventist understanding of conversion means for a person to experience radical

changes through spiritual rebirth. The majority emphasis in WCC circles appears to
be on changing-converting-the unjust structures of society.
As we see it, in the area of evangelism and foreign missionary work the fruits (or
maybe we should say lack of fruits) of ecumenism have often been less evangelism
(as we understand it-from Paul to Billy Graham), less growth and more membership
decline, fewer missionaries sent out, proportionally less financial support coming in.
In fact, the missionary outreach has shifted away from mainline "ecumenical"
churches to conservative evangelicals. It is sad to see such a large evangelistic
potential lost to the missionary movement, especially at a time of increasingly active
and militant Islamic outreach and the awakening of Eastern and indigenous
religions.
216
The recent and successful Seventh-day Adventist One Thousand Days of Reaping
campaign ran counter to the ecumenical low-key "joint mission" approach. The latter
may sound good in an ecumenical study paper, but soul-winning results are really
not there. The paraphrase of an old saying has some relevance here: "The proof of
the ecumenical pudding lies in the evangelistic eating."
Ecumenical Understanding of Sociopolitical Responsibility
Admittedly, the whole question of Christian social and political responsibility is a

complicated one. The WCC and other councils of churches (such as the National
Council of Churches in the United States) are heavily involved in what are usually
seen as political questions. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is very much more
circumspect in this area (in comparison to evangelism, where the tables are turned!).
Much ecumenical thinking in the area of political responsibility includes or involves:

(1) a secularization of salvation; (2) a postmillennial view advocating the gradual
political improvement and social betterment of humankind and the establishment
through human effort, as divine agents, of God's kingdom on earth; (3) adaptation of
Christianity to the modern world; (4) evolutionary utopian faith in progress; and (5)
socialistic collectivism, favoring some form of egalitarianism and the welfare state,
but not Communist materialism.
Presumably, ecumenical social activists consider Adventism as a utopian vision of

pie in the apocalyptic sky by and by; this is wrong. Faced with the many problems of
society, Adventists cannot be, and generally are not, apathetic or indifferent. Witness
this: extensive hospital-clinic-health institutions serving millions of people every
year; a large educational system circling the globe with nearly five thousand schools;
Adventist Development and Relief Agency-a rapidly expanding worldwide service
of the church in areas of acute and chronic need. Several other service activities
could be referred to.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes it is necessary to distinguish between

sociopolitical activity of individual Christians as citizens and involvement on the
corporate church level. It is the church's task to deal with moral principles and to
point in a Biblical direction, not to advocate political directives. The WCC has at times
been involved in political power plays. While Adventism will sow seeds that will
inevitably influence society and politics, it does not wish to be entangled in political
controversies. The church's Lord did state: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John
18:36), and like her Lord the church wishes to go "about doing good" (Acts 10:38).
She does not wish to run the government, either directly or indirectly.
Ecumenical Understanding of Religious Liberty
In the early years of the WCC, beginning with its first assembly at Amsterdam in
1948, religious liberty was placed on the ecumenical agenda. Religious liberty was
seen as a vital prerequisite for ecumenical unity. In 1968 a religious liberty secretariat
was set up at WCC headquarters. However, in more recent years, the WCC religious
liberty stance has been somewhat ambiguous. In 1978 the secretariat was closed
down, mainly for what was seen as a lack of funds. This, of course, in itself speaks
217
regarding the priority given to religious liberty in the organized ecumenical
movement.
Today the ecumenical tendency is to view religious liberty as simply one of the
human rights instead of the fundamental right that undergirds all other human
rights. This is, of course, the approach used by the secular mind. Secularists or
humanists refuse to recognize religious belief as something apart or above other
human activities. There is here the danger that religious liberty will lose its unique
character that makes it the guardian of all true freedoms.
It must not be forgotten that historically it has been the balance of power and
denominationalism that have neutralized religious intolerance and worked for
religious liberty. Formal religious unity has existed only with force. There is thus in
society an inbuilt tension between unity and religious liberty. In fact, the
eschatological picture of the final events is a dramatic tableau of religious
persecution, as the massive forces of apocalyptic Babylon try to squeeze the church
of the remnant into the mold of united apostasy.
Finally, the religious liberty outlook becomes increasingly clouded when it is

realized that certain ecumenical activists accept fairly easily religious liberty
restrictions affecting believers of a different religiopolitical stamp, who are exerting
what is perceived to be a negative social stance. Furthermore, some ecumenical
leaders are quite willing, in revolutionary situations, to see religious liberty
interfered with and "temporarily shut down," in order to promote unity, nation
building, and the "good" of society as a whole.
The Influence of Prophetic Understanding
What we have written so far highlights some of the reservations Adventists have
regarding involvement in the organized ecumenical movement. The general attitude
of the Seventh-day Adventist Church toward other churches and the ecumenical
movement is decisively influenced by the above considerations and determined by
prophetic understanding. Looking back, Adventists see centuries of persecution and
anti-Christian manifestations of the papal power. They see discrimination and much
intolerance by state or established churches. Looking forward, they see the danger of
Catholicism and Protestantism linking hands and exerting religiopolitical power in a
domineering and potentially persecuting way. They see the faithful church of God
not as a jumbo church, but as a remnant. They see themselves as the nucleus of that
remnant and as not willing to be linked with the expanding Christian apostasy of the
last days.
Looking to the present, Adventists see their task as preaching the everlasting gospel to
all men, calling for worship of the Creator, obedient adherence to the faith of Jesus,
and proclaiming that the hour of God's judgment has come. Some aspects of this
message are not popular. How can Adventists best succeed in fulfilling the prophetic
mandate? It is our view that the Seventh-day Adventist Church can best accomplish
her divine mandate by keeping her own identity, her own motivation, her own
feeling of urgency, her own working methods.
218
Ecumenical Cooperation?
Should Adventists cooperate ecumenically? Adventists should cooperate insofar as

the authentic gospel is proclaimed and crying human needs are being met. The
Seventh-day Adventist Church wants no entangling memberships and refuses any
compromising relationships that might tend to water down her distinct witness.
However, Adventists wish to be "conscientious cooperators." The ecumenical
movement as an agency of cooperation has acceptable aspects; as an agency for
organic unity of churches, it is much more suspect.
Relationships With Other Religious Bodies
Back in 1926, long before ecumenism was in vogue, the General Conference
Executive Committee adopted an important statement that is now a part of
the General Conference Working Policy (O 75). This declaration has significant
ecumenical implications. The concern of the statement was for the mission field and
relationships with other "missionary societies." However, the statement has now
been broadened to deal with other "religious organizations" in general. It affirms that
Seventh-day Adventists "recognize every agency that lifts up Christ before men as a
part of the divine plan for the evangelization of the world, and . . . hold in high
esteem the Christian men and women in other communions who are engaged in
winning souls to Christ." In the church's dealings with other churches, "Christian
courtesy, friendliness, and fairness" are to prevail. Some practical suggestions are
made in order to avoid misunderstandings and occasion for friction. The statement
makes it very clear, however, that the "Seventh-day Adventist people" have received
the special "burden" to emphasize the Second Coming as an event "even at the door,"
preparing "the way of the Lord as revealed in Holy Scripture." This divine
"commission" makes it, therefore, impossible for Adventists to restrict their witness
"to any limited area" and impels them to call the gospel "to the attention of all
peoples everywhere."
In 1980 the General Conference set up a Council on Interchurch Relations in order to

give overall guidance and supervision to the church's relations with other religious
bodies. This council has from time to time authorized conversations with other
religious organizations where it was felt this could prove helpful.
Adventist leaders should be known as bridge builders. This is not an easy task. It is
much simpler to blow up ecclesiastical bridges and serve as irresponsible "Christian
commandos." Ellen White has said: "It requires much wisdom to reach ministers and
men of influence. Evangelism, p. 562. Adventists have not been called to live in a
walled-in ghetto, talking only to themselves, publishing mainly for themselves,
showing a sectarian spirit of isolationism. It is, of course, more comfortable and
secure to live in a Seventh-day Adventist fortress, with the communication
drawbridges all drawn up. In this setting one ventures from time to time into the
neighborhood for a quick evangelistic campaign, capturing as many "prisoners" as
possible, and then disappearing with them back into the fortress. Ellen White did not
believe in the isolationist mentality: "Our ministers should seek to come near to the
ministers of other denominations. Pray for and with these men, for whom Christ is
219
interceding. A solemn responsibility is theirs. As Christ's messengers we should
manifest a deep, earnest interest in these shepherds of the flock. Testimonies, vol. 6, p.
78.
Usefulness of Observer Relationships
Experience has taught that the best relationship to the various councils of churches
(national, regional, world) is that of observer-consultant status. This helps the church
to keep informed and to understand trends and developments. It helps to know
Christian thinkers and leaders. Adventists are provided the opportunity to exert a
presence and make the church's viewpoint known. Membership is not advisable.
Those ecumenical organizations are usually not "neutral." They often have quite
specific goals and policies and play sociopolitical advocacy roles. There would be
little point in being halfhearted members (at best) or pro forma members (as many
member churches are) or often in opposition (as inevitably would be the case).
On local levels, dealing with more practical and less theological issues, one could
envision some forms of Seventh-day Adventist membership, with caution, however.
We are thinking of such organized relationships as ministerial
associations/fraternals, local church organizations, Bible study groups, specific
groups or networks to study community needs and help solve local problems.
Adventists must not be perceived as simply opting out of any Christian
responsibility for the local community.
In recent years, Adventist leaders and theologians have had opportunities for
dialogue with other church representatives. These experiences have been beneficial.
Mutual respect has been engendered. Worn-out stereotypes and inaccurate and
untrue doctrinal perceptions have been removed. Prejudices have been
unceremoniously laid to rest. Theological tools and understandings have been
sharpened. New dimensions have been recognized and new vistas of outreach
opened up. First of all, however, their faith in the Advent message has been
enhanced. There is no reason for Adventists to have an inferiority complex. It is a
wonderful privilege to be a Seventh-day Adventist and to know that the theological
and organizational foundation of the church are sure and secure.
Heralds of the True Oikoumene
Adventists are heralds of the only true and lasting oikoumene. In Hebrews reference
is made to "the world [Greek: oikoumene] to come" (chap. 2:5, N.E.B.), the coming
universal kingdom of God. In the final analysis, it is this "ecumenism" Adventists are
working for. Every other ecumenical movement is ephemeral. In the meantime, it is
a Christian duty to "concentrate on being completely devoted to Christ" in one's
heart. "Be ready at any time to give a quiet and reverent answer to any man who
wants a reason for the hope that you have within you. Make sure that your
conscience is perfectly clear" (1 Peter 3:15, 16, Phillips).
220
APPENDIX III
PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SANCTUARY896
Picture A
The sanctuary and its courtyard built by Moses in the wilderness, surrounded by the
temporary houses of the Israelites organized according to tribes
Picture B
The inside of the sanctuary with its 2 apartments
896 Retrieved from Google Images on www.google.co.za, accessed on the 5 th of January 2013
221
APPENDIX IV
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL ANTITYPICAL DAY OF ATONEMENT:

THE TIME OF THIS JUDGMENT897
Adventists determine the beginning time of the pre-advent judgment based on the
books of Revelation, Daniel and the typology of the Day of Atonement.
The Time According to the Book of Revelation
Although no exact date can be derived from Revelation, the text that is most used to
locate the time or period of the pre-advent judgment is Revelation 14:7. In keeping
with the historicist understanding of apocalyptic, this text is understood to be part of
the “sequential flow of recapitulated events”, particularly between chapters 12
through 14.
The three angels (representing the church with the evangelistic commission) of
Revelation 14:6-12 fly in the midst of heaven preaching to all nations of the world the
“eternal gospel”. Therefore Adventists reason that the cross of Christ (righteousness
by faith) is the centre of these messages. However, these provide a situational
context in time when the gospel is to be especially applied against the specified
(second and third messages) evils in society and the church – “the present truth”,
and in that way preparing the world for the Second Advent.
In keeping with the sequential flow of events, and the fact that Revelation 14:14
refers to the “hour of reaping” (the Second Coming), Adventists interpret “the hour
of his judgment” (verse 7) as a time period after Calvary but prior to the resurrection
of the righteous. Gerhard F Hasel argues: “The judgment, which according to
Revelation 14:7 has arrived, can be located neither at Christ’s return nor after
Christ’s return during the millennium. Neither can it be located at Christ’s death on
the cross…. The arrival of the judgment time is part of the arrival of the time of the
end”. Roy Gane confirms this observation: "We know that this time of judgment is
before Christ’s Second Coming…. So in Revelation 14 the appeal during the time of
the judgment is God’s answer to the threat posed by the beast”.
The Time According to the Book of Daniel
From the book of Daniel, the text that presents the timing of the pre-advent
judgment is found in chapters 7 through 9.
Chapter 7 is understood to present the sequential flow of events from the time of
Daniel right up to the time of the established eschatological kingdom of God (in
keeping with the historicist approach); the four beasts (applied to the empires of
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome), including the little horn, are chronological-
sequential.
897 Appendix IV is adapted (references removed) from the researcher’s Master’s thesis: A
Theological Examination of the Adventist Investigative Judgment (2010, South African Theological
Seminary)
222
The judgment scene (verses 9-10) is presented parallel to the little horn of the fourth
beast, after the little horn persecutes God’s people, but prior to its ultimate
destruction. There are two important “time markers” noted in the text that
distinguish three different phases during the time of the fourth beast. These “time
markers” are the words “until” and “and the time came” (verses 21 and 22).
Gerhard F writes: “These two time markers separate the three phases of activity
indicated in Daniel 7:21, 22”.
The first phase consists of the horns war against the saints; the second phase
(separated by the word “until” and indicating change) constitutes the heavenly
judgment “in behalf of” the saints of the Most High; the third phase (separated by
the words “and the time came”) is the reception of the kingdom by the saints, in
consequence to the preceding judgment. Gerhard F Hasel advances the conclusion:
“These three chronological sequences with their specific time markers, demonstrate
that the divine heavenly judgment of the Ancient of days takes place after the war of
the little horn against the saints of the Most High and before the saints of the Most
high receive the eternal kingdom”.
The period of time allocated to the persecution of God’s people by the little horn is
given in verse 25: “for a time, two times, and half a time”. A similar time period is
found in the parallel prophecy of Revelation 12:14 “a time, and times, and half a
time”; this is interpreted earlier in verse 6 as “one thousand two hundred and sixty
days”; even earlier in Revelation 11:2 it is given as “forty-two months” (30-day
months). The three and a half symbolic times are interpreted through the word
“time” taken to mean a year (360 days) as seen in the LXX version on Daniel 4:16, 23,
25 and 32. In that way it adds up to 1260 days as paralleled by Revelation 12:6.
Using the “year-day thinking” principle, this comes to a period of 1260 specified years
of persecution of God’s people by the “little horn”.
Using the historicist approach and the “year-day equivalency”, Adventist theology
applies the little horn to the papacy of Rome. The beginning period of papal
supremacy was in 538 AD when the Ostrogoths abandoned their siege of Rome, and
the Bishop of Rome was then capable of increasing his power in the Roman Empire.
It was exactly 1260 years later (1798) that the papal supremacy declined in power
when general LA Berthier, under Napoleon of France, arrested and exiled the pope.
Therefore, Adventists see the fulfillment of prophecy since the pre-advent judgment
also begins after 1798, in 1844, as shall be seen later (Gane 2007:11; Nichol 1976:833-
838). Gerhard F Hasel says: “According to this evidence the heavenly pre-Advent
investigative judgment of the saints takes place between 1798 and the Second
Advent. It is located in the time of the end”.
However, it is in Daniel 8 and 9 where Adventists have more precision with their
calculations of predicted time (2300 evening[s]-morning[s], and the 70 weeks), as
these visions are seen as an enlargement of Daniel.
In line with the principle of “recapitulation” that was mentioned in the preceding
chapter of this research, Daniel 8 is understood as the third “historical apocalyptic”
prophecy in the book of Daniel. Gerhard F Hasel states: “Here we find the third
223
sequential prophetic outline vision in the book of Daniel, enlarging and
complementing the visions of Daniel 2 and 7”.
Daniel 8 presents three powers (since Babylon was at the brink of dethronement –
see Daniel 5) represented by the ram (Medo-Persia – “silver” in Daniel 2 and “bear”
in Daniel 7), the he-goat with its four horns (Greece/Macedonia and its four
Hellenistic kingdoms – “bronze” or “brass” in Daniel 2 and “leopard” with four
heads in Daniel 7), and the “little horn” (Pagan and Papal Rome - the fourth “beast”
and “little horn” in Daniel 7). Daniel 8:13, 14, ends the vision with an auditory
revelation of the angels conversing with each other with regard to the time element
of the activities of the “little horn”. Therefore, verses 3-12 provide the background to
verses 13 and 14.
An angel in verse 13 raises the question, “how long” or “until when” will be the
“vision”? The favoured translation is “until when”, and this focuses the question to
the end point or termination of the time period. However, the more important issue
to be understood is whether the angel includes the whole vision and begins where it
starts or whether it starts at a later point during this historical period.
Gerhard F Hasel sees the importance of the Hebrew word for “vision” which first
appears in verses 1 and 2, and argues that as the basis for concluding that the whole
vision is included in the mind of the angel: “The word ‘vision’ is of essential
importance for the question; this term is employed for the first time in Daniel 8:1, 2.
The word thus includes the entire ‘vision’ from the ram period forward…to the ‘time
of the end’ (verses 17, 19).” He (ibid.) further argues: “The ‘vision’…began in the
ram period, of ‘the kings of Media and Persia’ (verse 20). This would be at some
point after Babylon had come to an end in 539 B.C.”.
The period covered by the angel begins during the time of the “ram” (Medo-Persia)
and continues throughout history, including the period of the “he-goat” (Greece)
which finished around 168 BC, and right through the period of Pagan Rome (ending
in 476 AD, “when the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus
Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer and his barbarian Germanic mercenaries) and
the “little horn” (Papal Rome); it continues until “the time of the end” (verses 17, 19).
Daniel 8 is seen to give us “internally and contextually that an evening-morning, or a

day of prophetic time, equals a year of historical time”. The answer to the question
“until when…?” is that till 2300 days (evening[s]-morning[s]) and after that the
sanctuary will be cleansed. This cleansing of the sanctuary is predicted to occur at
the “time of the end” (verses 17, 19), having begun counting during the time of the
empire of Medo-Persia, and therefore “this means that the symbolic evening[s]-
morning[s] cannot refer to anything but years in historical time” – teaching the
“year-day thinking” principle.
The precise year for the beginning of the cleansing of the sanctuary is not derived
from Daniel 7, but from chapters 8 and 9. Therefore, there needs to be a link made
between chapters 8 and 9.
224
Daniel 8 and 9 are recognized as a “prophetic unit” in Adventist interpretation. This
conclusion is based on at least 5 factors or “major linkages”: (1) “common
terminology”, (2) “cultic perspective”, (3) “same angel-interpreter”, (4) “auditory-
revelation” and (5) “conceptual link”.
(1) Common terminology: The use and key positioning of the word “understand” (in
Daniel 8:15-17, 23, 27 again in Daniel 9:2, 22, 23) in the interpretation of the vision is
seen as very significant. The “time” element of the vision in Daniel 8 is not
explained in that chapter, but it is in chapter 9. Gerhard F Hasel argues this:
“Understanding is not complete until all elements, including the time element, is
understood. The vision of Daniel 8 is not understood until further explanations are
provided in Daniel 9:24-27”.
(2) Cultic Perspective: Daniel 8 and 9 seem to complement each other from a cultic
perspective. This can be derived from the use of cultic words like “sanctuary”,
“cleansed”, and “transgression” (Daniel 8:11-14); “transgression”, “atone”, “anoint”,
and “sacrifice and offering” (Daniel 9:24-27).
(3) Same Angel-Interpreter: Gabriel is seen for the first time in Daniel 8:16, and
reappears in Daniel 9:21-23 where the writer says in the King James Version
“Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning”.
(4) Auditory-Revelation: Chapters Daniel 8:13, 14 and 9:24-27 are both auditory
revelations with timetables, the former being part of a larger vision. Considering the
fact that the timetable auditory revelation of Daniel 8 is not explained in that
chapter, and that Gabriel arrives with a mission of explaining a timetable, it appears
logical and conclusive to Adventists that the only “vision” referred to in Daniel 9 is
that of Daniel 8. Further William H Shea argues that in Daniel the “time” is usually
stated last, whereas it is stated first in Daniel 9: “The time elements in Daniel’s
visions are usually stated near their close. However, the vision in chapter 9 is so
presented that its time element (70 weeks) is placed first”.
(5) Conceptual Link: Daniel 9:24 is interpreted to include the prediction of Christ’s
“anointing” or “inauguration” of the heavenly sanctuary at his ascension into
heaven, whereas Daniel 8:14 is understood to predict the “cleansing” of the heavenly
sanctuary. These are both seen as climactic events in the heavenly “cultus”.
To the 5 points above, William H Shea adds 3 more: (6) both the time-periods (70
weeks and 2300 “days”) begin in the Persian period of dominion; (7) both time
elements are connected by the angel’s use of the term ‫“ מַ ְראֶ ה‬vision”; the term
originally used for the whole vision in Daniel 8 is ‫“ חִ זֹון‬vision”, but the angel used
‫“ מַ ְראֶ ה‬vision” for the time element, and used the same word in Daniel 9; (8) the root
meaning of the word ‫תְך‬ ַ ְ‫( נֶח‬translated “decreed” or “determined”) is “cut off” and
should thus be thought of here – 70 weeks being “cut off” from 2300 “days”.
Now that it is seen how Adventists recognize Daniel 8 and 9 as a “prophetic unit” or
a “unitary vision”, I need to analyze Adventist interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 with
which it is calculated (together with Daniel 8) that 1844 begins the PAIJ.
225
Daniel 9:24-27 is viewed as a revelation of Israel’s probationary time period which
was to extend for 70 weeks, or 490 years. This prophecy is seen to consist of “an
uninterrupted, sequential, three-part chronology based on sequences of weeks”: 7-
weeks/49-years, 62-weeks/434-years, and 1-week/7-years.
Presupposing, as already mentioned above, that the vision of chapter 8 is further

explained in chapter 9, the time-periods of both chapters are understood to begin at
the same time (2300 “days” and 70 “weeks”). Furthermore, it is argued that the
Hebrew word ‫תְך‬ ַ ְ‫“ נֶח‬decreed” (in Daniel 9:24) may just as well be translated “cut
off”. As such, it means the 70-weeks/490-years are “cut off” or subtracted from 2300
days/years, leaving 1810 years.
Little can be done with the above time-periods unless the beginning point is
established. In the process of establishing the exact year for the beginning of these
time-periods, it is noted by Adventists that Daniel 9:25 (King James Version) says the
490 “years” begin “from the going forth of the word [decree] to restore and build
Jerusalem”. The “restoration” and the “rebuilding” of Jerusalem are understood as
two separate but related aspects; “restoration” refers to its religio-political autonomy
and self-governance, whereas “rebuilding” refers to the physical rebuilding of
Jerusalem. Therefore, it is expected that the decree referred to in Daniel 9:25 should
have both these aspects.
There are four major decrees that Adventists derive from Scripture, the first two and
the fourth are seen to disqualify. The first decree in 538/537 BC (by Cyrus in Ezra
1:2-4) and the second in about 520 BC (by Darius I in Ezra 6:1-12) both refer to the
rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; they do not meet the requirements set by
Daniel 9:25. The fourth one by Artexerxes I in 445/444 BC (Nehemiah 1, 2, 3, 6) is
that which gave Nehemiah permission to repair Jerusalem’s walls and gates
damaged by the Samaritan outrages. However, the third decree by Artaxerxes I in
457 BC (Ezra 7:12-26) “qualifies as the fulfillment of the one mentioned in Daniel
9:25, because it speaks of both the rebuilding and the restoration of Jerusalem”.
Gerhard F Hasel argues that this is the only one that qualifies, and therefore dating
457 BC/BCE as the commencement date for the time-periods of Daniel 8 and 9: “The
‘decree’ given by Artexerxes is the only one which meets the two qualifications of
Daniel 9:25…. Based on classical historical sources, an Egyptian astronomical source,
a Babylonian astronomical source, Egypto-Jewish historical sources, and Babylonian
historical sources, the decree and the return are dated to 457 BC... The year 457 BC is
the beginning of the 490 years of Daniel 9 and likewise the beginning of the 2300
years of Daniel 8, from which the 490 years are ‘cut off’”.
Understanding the phrase 2300 “evening[s]-[morning[s]” (from Daniel 8:14) as

meant to mean literal “years” in historical time, and 457 BC as the commencement
date for both the 2300-years and the 70-weeks prophecies, the ending date arrived at
is 1844 AD/CE – “the year in which the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary begins”.
In conclusion, it has been observed (by Adventist interpretation) that Daniel 7 places
the cosmic and heavenly judgment sometime during the “time of the end”, after 1798
and prior to Christ’s return to earth. Based on Daniel 8 and 9, a precise year can be
226
determined as 1844, referred to as the time for the restoration/cleansing of the
heavenly sanctuary. This is understood as the heavenly pre-Advent judgment in
harmony with the “hour of his judgment” in Revelation 14:7.
The Time According to the Typology of the Earthly Sanctuary Services
In addition to the foregoing reasoning in support of the year 1844 as the beginning
date of a pre-Advent judgment in heaven, the “ancient Israelite sanctuary service” is
viewed as a typological contributor.
The link between Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16 (and the sanctuary) is based on at least 4
observations: (1) Daniel 8 uses two sacrificial animals (a ram and he-goat) that are
“found as a pair in only one ancient Israelite ritual context – the Day of Atonement –
as the two sacrifices of the Israelite non-priestly community”; (2) in Daniel 8:11, the
“little horn” removes the ‫“ הַ תׇמִ יד‬regular”/”daily”, noting that this word
elsewhere in Scripture qualifies a “cluster of regular worship activities” done for
God by his people at the sanctuary; (3) the “sanctuary” is thrown down in verse 11;
(4) in Daniel 8:12 rebellion/transgression against “the regular worship of God” is
referred to, with the Hebrew word ‫“ פֶ שַ ע‬transgression”, which “appears in
pentateuchal ritual law only in the context of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16, 21)”.
The linkage between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16 is made based on Daniel’s concept
of “cleansing” of the sanctuary and the term “sanctuary” itself.
No exact date can be determined from the sanctuary typology, except to indicate the
order of the phases leading to this pre-Advent judgment. As already noted in the
preceding chapter of this research and earlier in this chapter, Adventist theology
views a “correspondential” parallel between the earthly sanctuary (with its priestly
ministry) and the heavenly sanctuary (with its priestly ministry – Christ being the
sole priest). Based on this conviction, and understanding a distinction between the
“daily” and the “yearly” (Day of Atonement) ministries of the earthly priest,
Adventists interpret this to mean that Christ as the true High Priest ministers in two
phases in the heavenly sanctuary, after offering himself as the sacrifice at the cross.
Gerhard F Hasel (2000:840; cf. Shea 1986:325, 326, 329, 330) reasons about the second
phase of the priestly ministry of Christ: “The timing of this grand ritual day at the
end of the ritual year is analogous to the timing of the heavenly antitypical day of
atonement in ‘the time of the end.’ Thus the pre-Advent judgment corresponds
antitypically to the Day of Atonement of the earthly sanctuary services”.
227
Appendix V
HEAVENLY BOOKS OF RECORD898

One of the foundation stones to Adventist PAIJ [Investigative Judgment] is the
existence and purpose of a heavenly recording system referred to as the “book of
life” and the “book(s) of deeds”. Based on texts like Daniel 7:9-14 and Revelation
20:11, 12 Adventists believe that these records have a central role in the Judgment.
These “heavenly books” are not understood as actual books. The Biblical references
to them are understood as metaphoric of the “reality” of records in heaven. The
symbolic language is believed to be rooted in Israelite cultural and social practices of
record keeping – names of citizens according to cities and genealogies, the recording
of which implied certain rights and privileges; included are the practices of record
keeping of the experiences and deeds of kings of Israel (for example, these records
were also used as sources for the books of Chronicles). Rodriguez argues: “The
biblical writers are clearly using human language and images to allude to a heavenly
reality that cannot be fully contained in the language or in the social practices they
employed to communicate their message”.
After clarifying that the heavenly process and practice of record keeping is not
perfectly identical to the earthly, but that the symbols are limited, Rodriguez further
argues against using that as evidence against the heavenly ‘reality’: “Therefore, one
should not press the discontinuity between the earthly and the heavenly or the
heavenly and the earthly to the point of denying the reality of the heavenly. The
specific nature of the heavenly is not accessible to us, but inaccessibility should not
be equated with nonexistence”.
The Book of Life
Just briefly, the “book of life” represents the recording system in which only the
names of the righteous are recorded for “eternal life”. Names are included based on
the event of the cross, but they are entered when an individual surrenders himself or
herself to the Lord. Names can also be removed based on rebellious sin or un-
confessed known sin. The removal of a name is an act of judgment.
Rodriguez suggests four points of significance about the “book of life”: (1)
“Something happens at the administrative center of the universal government of
God when a person becomes a citizen of His kingdom.... [It is] not only celebrated in
heaven but recorded in the book of life”; (2) “The certainty of their [believers]
heavenly citizenship is so unquestionable that Jesus encourages them to rejoice
because their names are already in the book of life”; (3) “the decision to record the
names of believers in the book of life is not arbitrary or accidental”; (4) “it is possible
for the name of a person to be removed.... What makes possible the inclusion of their
name in that book is at the same time what makes it possible to retain it there,
898 Appendix V is adapted (references removed) from the researcher’s Master’s thesis: A
Seminary)
228
namely, the forgiving grace of God”; therefore, the application of God’s grace for a
sinner includes and retains his/her name in the book of life; however, the person’s
name is removed if God’s forgiving grace is later rejected by the sinner.
The Book(s) of Deeds
The “book(s) of deeds”, in Malachi 3:16 referred to as “book of remembrance”, is/are

representative of the recording system in which all experiences and deeds (inward
and outward) are recorded. These books are predominantly judiciary, and include
all those who have ever lived on earth, not just the righteous. Rodriguez argues:
“they preserve evidence that will be used in the divine tribunal to determine the
nature of the commitment of the individual to the Lord.... This is judgment by
works.... It is explicitly stated that the final and immutable verdict is based on what
has been written in the books. All are judged according to their deeds, as recorded
in the heavenly books”.
The deeds, good or bad, can be “blotted out” or “not remembered” depending on
the nature of the individual relationship with Christ - forgiven or not.
Rodriguez suggests three points of significance about the “book(s) of deeds”: (1)
“those records indicate that God is interested in every one of us as individuals.... We
are all equally important before the Lord”, (2) “the record is not only about our
actions, but about God’s involvement in the lives of humans”, (3) “the fact that
human deeds are recorded in heaven in some form implies that they are accessible to
others for objective analysis”. Paulsen adds another point of significance showing
God’s objectivity in basing his decision upon recorded fact: “John [the Revelator]
seeks to make [a point] here...that...the verdict in the heavenly court is not arrived at
arbitrarily, but is based on data”. Paulsen’s point seems to be implying the fairness
of God, which Gulley stresses as an objective of this judgment: “God is more
interested in the question of His justice”.
229
APPENDIX VI
THE FOUNDERS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH899

I perceive a necessity for an identification and life-outline of the founders of the SDA
church since their experiences and ministries are logically foundational to the
Adventist church.
The founders of the SDA church have been largely identified as (1) Joseph Bates, (2)
James and (3) Ellen G White. These three would probably not entitle themselves in
this fashion, but their co-workers and succeeding generations have done so of them.
(1) Joseph Bates was born on July 8 1792 in Rochester, Massachussetts. His family
moved to New Bedford the following year. From school-boy age he desired to
become a sailor, and he experienced sea travelling at the age of 15, travelling to
Europe. After returning home on June 1815, he continued life as a merchant seaman,
married in 1818 to Prudence Nye, a childhood friend, and became a captain in 1820.
They had five children, a son who died while an infant, another who died while at
sea at the age of thirty-five and three daughters who survived to maturity. He gave
up drinking ardent spirits in 1821, and the following year he stopped drinking wine
and soon after gave up smoking and chewing tobacco.
Bates converted into Christianity in the middle 1820’s around 1824. His conversion
was prompted by a New Testament placed by his wife into his trunk. He was also
sobered by the death of a fellow crew member and gave himself to Christ. He
became baptized and joined the Fairhaven Christian Church in 1827. He accepted
William Miller’s views about the Second Coming in 1839 and eventually committed
himself to the movement as a minister. He did not lose his faith by the
disappointment.
He is the one who apparently introduced the Sabbath teaching to James and Ellen G
White. He played a leading part in the general Sabbath-keeping conferences that
began in 1848. He was also called upon to chair conferences of church leaders when
the Adventist church moved toward formal organization which came in May 1863.
His wife died in 1871 and he died in 1872, and was buried next to his wife.
(2) James White was born in Palmyra, Maine on August 4th, 1821. He was born very
feeble and had a condition that doctors called “worm fever”. He did not enjoy the
advantages of school till he was 19 years old due to health difficulties and the
inability to read without resting his eyes. However, as he thirsted for knowledge, he
entered the Academy at St. Albans at the age of 19. Knowing nothing of English
grammar or arithmetic, his friends discouraged him from studying and
recommended farming. That advice fell on deaf ears. At the close of a term of 12
weeks, he received a certificate to teach the common branches. He again applied
himself for 17 weeks, and this constituted his whole formal education.
899 Appendix VI is adapted (references removed) from the researcher’s Master’s thesis: A
Seminary)
230
He was baptized into the Christian Connection at age 15. After his second year of
teaching he learned of the Millerite teachings from his mother, and he heard William
Miller preach for the first time in 1842. He soon after devoted himself to the ministry
and the Millerite message and was ordained to the ministry of the Christian
Connection in 1843. He met Ellen Gould Harmon (later White) before the
disappointment, but their relationship developed after they had worked together
combating fanaticism in eastern Maine in 1845. They were married on August 30,
1846 and shortly after began to observe the Sabbath.
James began to publish a paper The Present Truth in July 1849, focusing on the
Sabbath teaching and their view of the Sanctuary. James White became the editor of
a second paper Advent Review in 1850, and that year saw the combination of both
papers into one Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, the precursor to today’s
Adventist Review. James White was president of the General Conference from 1865 to
1867, from 1869 to 1871, and again from 1874 to 1880. He also began the journal
Signs of the Times in Oakland, California. He was attacked by malaria in August of
1881 and died on the 6th.
(3) Ellen G White was born on November 26, 1827, in a farm home in Maine, west of
the city of Portland. Her parents, Robert Harmon and Eunice Gould Harmon had
British ancestry. Ellen had a non-identical twin sister named Elizabeth. At the age
of nine, while returning from school, running home apparently to evade trouble, a
classmate threw a stone on her which broke her nose. She eventually lost
consciousness for three weeks and woke up to realize her facial-disfigurement and
physical weakness that afterward affected her whole life. Wishing to die, in the
Lord, she would pray for God to prepare her, and this experience proved beneficial
to her in her walk with God.
She could not breathe through her nose for two years, could not attend school
consistently and could not hold her hand steadily enough to write. She could and
would never again engage in formal education, therefore her education may be said
to have closed at the age of nine. Her parents taught her practical education like hat-
making, and her later education was gained through reading and contact with
others.
Her family belonged to the Methodist Christian tradition, and her father was a
deacon at Pine Street Methodist church. She and her family heard William Miller for
the first time in 1839, when he visited Portland. Miller’s preaching affected her
profoundly; at twelve years of age, she decided to be baptized by immersion
although the Methodist minister sprinkled other baptismal candidates. She listened
to William Miller again in 1841 when he arrived the second time to lecture in
Portland. Her whole family was ousted from the Methodist church because of their
commitment to the Millerite message.
Ellen G White neither lost her faith in God nor Scripture, although the time of
Christ’s coming passed. However, her health did deteriorate, having some kind of
lung sickness that led to great discomfort; she was not able to breathe well while
lying down, so she had to sleep much of the time sitting up.
231
It was around this time that she, at this time 17 years old, visited a fellow Millerite.
There were about five females engaged in a season of prayer, when, reportedly, she
was suddenly overpowered by the Spirit of God and immediately realized the first
of hundreds of visions that she would experience in her lifetime. The first vision
was of encouragement to the Millerite believers. When she related her vision, many
believed it to be of God.
232
APPENDIX VII
DEVELOPING TRENDS900
Adventist church historian George R Knight in his book “A Search for Identity” (2000)
discerns four general trends that he considers as obstacles to progress for the early
church (particularly between the 1850s and the 1880s); these trends would also back-
fire against the church during perilous times ahead (till today). He identifies them
as the following: (1) “a temptation towards legalism”, (2) “the abrasive manner in
which…ministers often did evangelism”, (3) “to preserve and protect their
theological insights rather than to continue to progress in understanding”, and the
(4) “[giving] a larger role to Ellen White’s writings in explaining issues”.
The noted inclinations tended to stifle theological and constructive change for the
church, but the resultant challenges would tend to inspire change and some
development.
Dissenters and Church Responses
The SDA church, in its history, has not had a theological challenge-free experience
from within itself. There have been at various time-periods influential leaders who
debated and rejected the Adventist view of the PAIJ. Examples are DM Canright,
Albion Fox Ballenger, WW Fletcher, Louis Richard Conradi, EB Jones and Desmond
Ford.
This research does not have sufficient space to run a detailed account on all of these
and their views. Therefore, I shall herein limit myself to a very brief outline of their
experiences and views.
Dudley Marvin Canright (1840-1919)
DM Canright was an ordained minister of the SDA church from the age of 25. He
rose up in recognition up to the level of membership into the General Conference
Committee for a while. He left and rejoined the church more than once, but
ultimately severed his connection with it in 1887 and joined the Baptist ministry.
Canright is most known for his book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (1889), in
which he, among other issues, argued against the Adventist theology of the PAIJ.
He argued that there is absolutely no Biblical support for the theory of pre-advent
judgment of the saints, and saw Adventist theology in general as a broken system
centered on an idea with “absurdity” (Canright 1889:117, 127). DM Canright
(1889:119) used the fact that ORL Crosier, the first publisher of Hiram Edson’s
concept of sanctuary cleansing, had also renounced it during early Adventism: “It
looks bad for a theory when its very authors renounce it”.
900 Appendix VII is adapted (references removed) from the researcher’s Master’s thesis: A
Seminary)
233
Norman F Douty (1964:108), a non-Adventist scholar who has been known for his
anti-Adventism criticism and even against Walter R Martin’s evaluation of it, in his
book The Case of DM Canright, suggested that the book of DM Canright was the one
that caused the most damage to Adventism, up to that time: “It has perhaps done
greater injury to the Adventist cause than any other book ever published”.
Albion Fox Ballenger (1861-1921)
Ballenger first worked as a school teacher and then a minister for the SDA church,
serving successfully in both the United States and in Britain.
He did not reject the whole idea of pre-advent judgment, but rather formulated his
own version of it, and was given a chance to present his views at the 1905 General
Conference, in a committee of 25, after which his ministerial credentials were
withdrawn, at least temporarily to give the committee time to study the issue. Four
years later, after seeing no response about his views, he published the book Cast Out
for the Cross of Christ (1909).
In that book Ballenger argued that there was a two-apartment sanctuary in heaven.
But the variance with the Adventist position was primarily the following: he argued
that this heavenly sanctuary, the first apartment, was in use prior to the Cross-event;
the angels ministered in the first apartment under an immortal Melchizedek as high
priest; Jesus became man’s substitute immediately after the Fall of man, and was
therefore barred from the Father’s presence then; Jesus gained access to the Father
after the Cross-event to present his own shed blood; Ballenger saw the prayer of
John 17:5 where Jesus requests the access to the glory of his presence as a fulfillment
of Christ resuming the experience of God’s presence, a position “which He did not
occupy after sin entered”; Christ therefore entered the Most Holy place after the
cross where he then made atonement at the mercy seat and, 1800 years later, in 1844,
began a work of judgment and cleansing.
In response to this book, EE Andross (1868-1950), who was at that time an

administrator in California, authored A More Excellent Ministry (1912), to which
Ballenger again responded with another book An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors
Regarding the Atonement. In this book he amplified some of the points argued in his
first book.
William Warde Fletcher (1879-1947)
He served the church as evangelist and administrator in Australia and Southern

Asia. From his studies of the sanctuary, Fletcher received new convictions about the
work of Christ as our High Priest. After presenting his views to leading Australian
brethren in December 1929, he was asked to elaborate and expand himself more
fully, which he did in February 1930.
Fletcher was convinced that the SDA church has erred about the pre-advent
judgment teaching. He found no Biblical foundation for the doctrine and that it is
also incompatible with the gospel of the New Testament. In his book The Reason for
My Faith WW Fletcher (1932:106) argues against the PAIJ theology and combats the
234
concept of transferred sin, by the sacrificial blood sprinkled on the veil in the
sanctuary, and says, “there is no prophecy that can be shown to be in conflict with
the teaching that sin is expiated by the blood of Christ, and that Christ entered the
Holy of Holies in heaven at the time of His ascension. It is only our [the Seventh-day
Adventist] interpretation of some of the prophecies and types that is in conflict with
those truths”.
The Australian leaders met with him in April 1930 and discussed his views with
him. After that he was invited to go to the United States with the purpose of further
study into the matter with certain leaders. He was granted a hearing of some 13
General Conference Committee members, but his view was however found wrong
after several discussions. He consequently severed his relationship with the SDA
Church.
Louis Richard Conradi
Conradi was German born and later migrated to the United States at the age of 17.
He joined the SDA church in 1878 and pursued studies for the ministry at Battle
Creek College, today known as Andrews University, an Adventist institution. After
working enthusiastically for the German speakers in the Midwest, in 1886 the
General Conference sent him to labour in Europe, where he travelled and worked in
both Germany and Russia. He became the first chairperson of the General European
Conference, and in 1903 became the vice president of the General Conference. He
was positioned as head, president, of the European Division until 1922.
It appears that Conradi’s doubts about the Pre-Advent Judgment teaching rested
largely on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14. He was the one who
introduced the currently held Adventist view that the “daily” signifies Christ’s
continuous ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, although that was possibly suggested
by ORL Crosier in his article of Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846. However, he
believed that the 2300 days of Daniel 8 have no relationship to the cleansing of the
heavenly sanctuary, but rather referred to Islam, and that the Adventist teaching of
PAIJ was mere fiction. Conradi argued that “The Lord avenged Himself on Islam
because it suppressed God’s people in the East, elevated Mohammed as the false
prophet above Christ, and defiled the temple rite until today. He did this at the end
of the 2300 year-days, in that He compelled the Turk, in 1844, to exercise tolerance
toward all who would be Christians”.
He had nurtured his views for decades, but after publishing, as editor, an article of
his views, he was eventually invited for a hearing on October 13-16, 1931. The
committee consisted of 27 members (including all General Conference officers), at
Omaha, Nebraska, Autumn Council. The interviewing committee found his views
unacceptable, and as a result there was mutual agreement that he should resign from
every church office he held. He was further informed not to air his views among
church members, as a condition to the retention of his credentials. However, after
presenting his views by voice and pen and unsettling members, a recommendation
was sent to the General Conference (GC) for the withdrawal of his credentials. This
235
recommendation was received at the GC on August 13, 1932. He was in this way
separated from the Adventist church.
EB Jones
Unlike the preceding examples of ex-Adventist, EB Jones, a former Adventist

missionary publishing house manager in India, did not separate himself with the
church based on doctrinal convictions but rather with the church in general. He
however raised his objections with the sanctuary doctrine after having left in
September 1943. He joined the First Baptist Church in Minneapolis, and was
ordained to the Baptist ministry two years later.
Jones argued against the division of the heavenly sanctuary into two apartments:
“the veil of the sanctuary represented the flesh of Christ (see Heb 10:20). It follows
inevitably that, since the veil represents the flesh of Christ, the two apartments on earth
did not represent two apartments in heaven. The incarnate Christ stands between God
and man today just as the veil intervened between God and man in the tabernacle of
old”.
He also combated the idea that Daniel 8:13-14 had any connection with the
beginning of the heavenly pre-advent judgment and cleansing of a heavenly
sanctuary in 1844.
Jones also rejected the Adventist theology of a pre-advent judgment based on his
understanding of the gospel: “One who believes the ‘investigative judgment’
doctrine of Adventism cannot have a true conception of the gospel…. The two are as
opposite to each other as sin to righteousness…. Everyone who really knows and
believes the gospel…knows that he has been saved. How can one enjoy the Good News
of salvation if he must wait until God examines the books to see whether he is
worthy?” It appears therefore that Jones saw the PAIJ as some kind of waiting
period for the believer, with uncertainty of the judgment results.
Desmond Ford
Perhaps the most prominent and most controversial of opponents of the teaching of
PAIJ is Dr Desmond Ford. Ford was born in Townsville, Queensland, Australia,
1929. He was introduced to Adventism at age nine, and baptized at age 16.
Desmond Ford grew up to be a very eloquent theologian and Bible scholar within
the Adventist church. He earned a Master’s Degree at Andrews University
(Systematic Theology), two doctoral degrees, in 1961 at Michigan State University
(Rhetoric), in 1977 at University of Manchester (New Testament Theology – The
Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology) under Professor FF Bruce. His
prominence appears to have begun around the 60s and 70s. Ford was also one of the
members, in both Australia and the United States, of the Biblical Research
Committee, the official theological advisory of the world-wide Adventist church.
Desmond Ford first experienced doubt about the Adventist position of the PAIJ
when he was 15 years old. This doubt was created by his reading of the book of
Hebrews 9 from which he understood that the Day of Atonement applied to the
236
crucifixion of Christ. The more widely he read, the more questions he had about this
teaching. In his recent book, with his wife Gillian, For The Sake of the Gospel: Throw
out the Baby Water but Keep the Baby, Ford notes the same thing: “Hebrews 9 is the one
chapter in the New Testament that deals at length with the Day of Atonement. It is
the one chapter that refers to the cleansing of the sanctuary over and over.
Furthermore, it is the one chapter that explains the meaning of the two apartments.”
Ford explains: “the first apartment pointed to the Jewish age, and the second to the
Christian age”.
At around the age of 16, Ford also read various scholarly works like An Introduction
to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, by Thomas Hartwell Horne.
In this work he encountered for the first time the “apotelesmatic” hermeneutic
principle which he felt was valid for certain passages like Matthew 24. This
principle Ford understood as meaning that many prophecies had multiple
fulfillments, early and later: “I learned about what has often been called the
apotelesmatic principle, whereby it is seem that many prophecies had both an early
and a later focus and sometimes more than one later application where the same
principles apply, but with fulfillment on a wider scale”.
As a result of his hermeneutic, Desmond Ford interpretes Daniel 8 “the little horn”
and 11 “wilful king” as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Syrian king. This
interpretation is contrary to the Adventist historicist one which applies the same
prophecies directly to the papacy.
Ford believes in a pre-advent judgment and in the last day significance of Daniel
8:14, but his understanding is different and he separates the cleansing of the
sanctuary from an investigative judgment: “Never confuse the cleansing of the
sanctuary with the Investigative Judgment…. I do believe in a pre-advent judgment.
If there are to be two resurrections, there has to be a decision as to who will be in the
first. But it’s an instantaneous thing…. I firmly believe in a pre-advent judgment….
Two-thirds of my book on Daniel was trying to support a latter-day significance for
Daniel 8:14, which I believe”.
In view of the amount of time that had passed from 1844 to his time, he also feels
that is an evidence of the inaccuracy of the Adventist position which gave the
impression of a short judgment.
Due to the pressure on the leaders of the General Conference, by some Adventist
brethren who opposed Ford’s theology, and a sent recording of Ford’s presentation
which was accompanied with a request for his dismissal, Ford was called in
November 1979 to the church Headquarters. He was then requested to write up his
views (the document was entitled “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the
Investigative Judgment”, also called the Glacier View Manuscript), and was given
housing and 6-month leave for that purpose.
On the 11 of August 1980, the six-day discussion session began in Glacier View,
Colorado. Although it was stated by the presiding president of the church, Neal
Wilson, that the meetings were not Ford’s trial, Ford states that before the end of the
237
week “it was”. The session had 111 participants, consisting of administrators and
scholars. After the various small group discussions and session reports on various
topics based on the Glacier View Manuscript, and Ford’s answers to questions, Dr
Desmond Ford’s variant aspects of his theology were voted against, although some
points of agreement were found. He eventually lost his church employment and
credentials without the annulment of his ordination. He decided to retain his church
membership, at least initially. Ford states: “In 1980, Desmond Ford had his
employment as an SDA minister terminated because he was at variance with the
historicist views of traditional SDAism”.
Following his terminated employment by the church, Ford established his own
interdenominational ministry, Good News Unlimited, which still exists. He still
considers himself an SDA, keeping the Saturday-sabbath, with hope in the Second
Coming.
A common thread running through all the “dissenters” of the PAIJ may be seem to
be one or both of these: (1) a failure to find sufficient or any Biblical ground for the
doctrine, and (2) a perception that the concept of an investigative judgment is not
compatible with the pure gospel of justification or righteousness by faith alone.
The list of ex-Adventists based on their rejection of the Adventist theology of the
PAIJ, amongst other issues, is ongoing with the passing of time. Recent publications
of these include Exposing Seventh-day Adventism (2005) by Russell Earl Kelly, and It is
Ok not to be a Seventh-day Adventist (2008) by Teresa Beem. These books have more or
less the same arguments as those already mentioned by their predecessors.
238
APPENDIX VIII
“RULES OF INTERPRETATION” BY WILLIAM MILLER 901

1. No word should be ever overlooked in Scripture, but all should have their
proper effect on the subject presented in the Bible. His foundation text for
this notion was Matthew 5:18;
2. No part of Scripture is unnecessary, and Scripture may be understood
through diligent application and study. The basis text was 2 Timothy 3:15-17;
3. There is nothing that God has revealed in Scripture that can or will be hidden
from those who ask for divine assistance by faith. The proof texts were
Deuteronomy 29:29; Matthew 10:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 2:10; Philippians 3:15;
Isaiah 45:11; Matthew 21:22; John 14:13, 14; 15:7; James 1:5,6; 1 John 5:13-15;
4. To correctly comprehend biblical teaching, one must bring together all the
scriptures relevant to the topic, and then let every word have its proper
influence; if you succeed in forming a theory without any contradiction, you
will not be in error. He used the following texts in support of this idea: Isaiah
28:7-29; 35:8; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; Romans 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.
5. Since Scripture is its own rule, it must be allowed and used as its own
interpreter and expositor. The proof texts were: Psalm 19:7-11; 119:97-105;
Matthew 23:8-10; 1Corinthians 2:12-16; Ezekiel 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Matthew
2:7, 8.
6. Scripture contains predictive prophecies through visions, figures and

parables; these are often repetitive in different forms. An understanding of
them requires that one combines all in one. These were supported by: Psalm
89:19; Hosea 12:10; Habakkuk 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Hebrews 9:9,
24; Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:13, 34; Genesis 41:1-32; Daniel 2, 7, 8; Acts 10:9-16.
7. Visions are always mentioned as such. Example: 2 Corinthians 12:1.
8. Figures in Scripture are consistently figurative in meaning, and as such are

used in prophecy to predict future things, events and times. The examples
Miller used were mountains, meaning governments, Daniel 2:35, 44; beasts,
meaning kingdoms, Daniel 7:8,17; waters, meaning people, Revelation 17:1,
15; day, meaning year, cf. Ezekiel 4:6.
9. The parables of Scripture are used as illustrations of subjects, and must be

explained in the same way as figures, by the subject and the Bible. Mark 4:13
was somehow significant to him for this rule.
10. The significance of figures is sometimes twofold or more, as “day” is used in

three different ways: a) an indefinite period, example in Ecclesiastes 7:14; b) a
definite period, a day for a year, example in Ezekiel 4:6; c) a thousand years,
901 Bliss S 1853. Memoirs of William Miller. Boston: Joshua V Himes
239
with 2 Peter 3:8 as an example. The correct construction will harmonize with
Scripture.
11. If a word makes sense on its own, and does not violate laws of nature, it is
then to be understood literally, otherwise it is figurative. Example: Revelation
12:1, 2; 17:3-7.
12. In order to ascertain the meaning of a figure, one should trace the word
through the Bible, and when one finds it explained, one can then substitute
that explanation for the word used; if it makes sense, look no further, or else
look again.
13. In order to know whether the correct historical event has been identified as
fulfilling prophecy, one needs to consistently connect every word in the
prophecy to its literal fulfillment; this should be done until every word is
satisfied. These texts are cited: Psalm 22:5; Isaiah 45:17-19; 1 Peter 2:6;
Revelation 17:17; Acts 3:18.
14. The towering rule above all is that the student of Scripture should have faith
in Christ and His word – a faith that holds on to heavenly things supremely
above all else.
240

PHD Thesis PL Majola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Thesis PL Majola

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PHD Thesis PL Majola

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN

MISSION IN THE THEOLOGY OF JURGEN MOLTMANN AND ITS

Phumlani Lucky Majola

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

THE SCHOOL OF RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY AND CLASSICS, OF THE

Phumlani Lucky Majola

This research has the primary objective of developing Seventh-day Adventist

The dialogue between Seventh-day Adventist theology and Moltmann is designed to

 Background and Outline of Research Problem…………………………………...1

THE MAJOR THEORIES IN ESCHATOLOGY AND IN CHRISTIAN MISSION…..10

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE AND CHRISTIAN

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ESCHATOLOGICAL

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY OF THE

A PROPOSAL OF CONSTRUCTIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY

A PROPOSAL OF PAST AND PRESENT TRANSFORMATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

CONCLUSION – Bringing Seventh-day Adventist Theology Down to Earth: Pipe

 The Primary Objective of this Research……………………………………..….182

APPENDIX I “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists”…………………...204

APPENDIX II “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement”…………213

APPENDIX III “Pictorial Representations of the Old Testament Sanctuary”………221

APPENDIX IV “The Eschatological Antitypical Day of Atonement: The Time of this

APPENDIX V “Heavenly Books of Record”…………………………………………...228

APPENDIX VI “The Founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church”…………….230

APPENDIX VII “Developing Trends”………………………………………………….233

APPENDIX VIII “Rules of Interpretation” By William Miller………………………….239

Background and Outline of Research Problem

Eschatology is a study of hope for that which is beyond or that which is

Research Problems and Objectives: Key Questions to be Asked

Jurgen Moltmann is a Christian that seems to represent a blend of evangelical and

SDA theology is in need of this dialogue with Moltmann. In light of Moltmann,

6 Moltmann 1996:256; cf. 1994:143; 1996:248-249.

Maxwell 1989:132; Rodriguez 2000:405; White [James] 1868:141

The remedial or relief approach to Christian mission is probably due to the

36 Wallenkampf 1989:214, 215

Research Problems and Objectives: Broader Issues to be Investigated

Principal Theories upon which the Research Project will be Constructed

Research Methodology and Methods

41 Nichol [vol. 7] 1980:827-832

Chapter 2: The major theories in eschatology and in Christian mission - this is an

Chapter 3: The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in

Chapter 4: The relationship between eschatological hope and Christian mission in

Chapter 5: The implications of the relationship between eschatological hope and

Chapter 6: An analysis of the Seventh-day Adventist theology of the Investigative

Chapter 7: A proposal of constructive42 implications for the Seventh-day Adventist

within Christian eschatological thought.

Chapter 8: A proposal of past and present transformative responsibilities of the

THE MAJOR THEORIES IN ESCHATOLOGY AND IN CHRISTIAN MISSION

An Overview of the Major Theories of Eschatology

In contrast to Moltmann, this research indicates that Seventh-day Adventist (SDA)

According to Schweitzer, Jesus preached a cosmic kingdom that failed to materialize.

Whereas Schweitzer wrote of an apocalyptist Jesus, with a cosmic kingdom or “end

The person who popularized “realized eschatology” was Charles H Dodd58. He

54 Schweitzer 1954:ix; cf. 1954:356-359; cf. Erickson 1998:1164

Bultmann’s view of eschatology within Scripture is that it changes and is frequently

Bultmann’s theory of existential eschatology is actually suggested as a solution to

68 www.wiktionary.org under “existentialism”, accessed on the 31 st of October 2013

Oscar Cullman, the one credited with the rediscovery of “salvation-historical”

It is amazing to see with what naïve unconcern this or that feature of