The Eschatological Hermeneutic of Biblic PDF

TheoRhēma 6.
2 (2011)
CUPRINS
CUPRINS ................................................................................1
FOREWORD TO THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL
Barna Magyarosi........................................................................................ 3
CUVÂNT ÎNAINTE LA NUMĂRUL CURENT AL REVISTEI

TheoRhēma
Barna Magyarosi........................................................................................ 4
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC OF BIBLICAL

TYPOLOGY
Richard M. Davidson................................................................................. 5
GOSPEL CENTERED HERMENEUTICS: PROSPECTS AND

CHALLENGES FOR ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Frank M. Hasel ........................................................................................ 49
UNITY, BUT AT WHAT COST?
Gerhard Pfandl ........................................................................................ 89
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE COSMIC CONFLICT

VISION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Laszlo Gallusz ........................................................................................ 103

2
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011)
DIDACTICAL-IDEALIST HERMENEUTIC OF
APOCALYPTIC/SANCTUARY VISIONARY ACCOUNTS
Zoltán Szalos-Farkas ............................................................................. 123
RECENZIE BIBLIOGRAFICĂ
Dybdahl, Jon L. Hunger: Satisfying the Longing of Your Soul

(Foame: Satisfacerea dorului sufletului tău) (Ekkehardt Mueller) ........... 154
FOREWORD
TO THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL
Dr. Barna Magyarosi
Education Director, Euro-Africa Division, Bern, Switzerland
It has now become a tradition for the theology teachers of the

three divisions of the Adventist Church covering Europe to meet
biennially on one of the campuses of our theology schools. This
time the European Theology Teachers Convention (ETTC) took
place in Cernica, Romania, at the Adventist Theological Institute
(ATI), from April 27 to May 1, 2011.
The topic that has been chosen and dealt with during the
meeting was Eschatological Expectations and Adventist
Hermeneutic(s). It was a composite topic, wide enough to allow
one to focus on a particular aspect of its constituent elements, or,
alternatively, to make a synthesis between certain aspects of
eschatology (e.g., The Blessed Hope) and hermeneutic (The Text), with
a view on current developments in Adventist theology and
interpretative praxis.
The convention gathered more than 70 theologians, with
expertise in most of the areas of biblical and theological studies,
who interacted with each other in the context created by four
plenary presentations and numerous papers. ATI, in its capacity of
host institution, has decided to dedicate the autumn issue of its
theology journal, TheoRhēma, to publishing, with authorial consent,
some of the papers that had been presented at the convention.
My hope is that by the publication of these papers deeper
research will be encouraged and further dialog enhanced on these
topics that appear to be crucial to our self-understanding as
Seventh-day Adventists and also to our passing on a biblically
sound sense of ecclesiastical identity to new generations of SDA
students enrolled in our denominational institutions of higher
education.
CUVÂNT ÎNAINTE
LA NUMĂRUL CURENT AL REVISTEI TheoRhēma
Dr. Barna Magyarosi
Director Educaţie, Diviziunea Euro-Africa, Berna, Elveţia
A devenit deja o tradiţie ca o dată la doi ani profesorii de

teologie adventistă din toată Europa să se întâlnească într-unul din
centrele de educaţie ale bisericii noastre. De data aceasta, întâlnirea
a avut loc în campusul Institutului Teologic Adventist de la Cernica,
în perioada 27 aprilie – 1 mai, 2011.
Subiectul ales pentru pentru dezbatere a constituit Aşteptări
eschatologice şi hermeneutica adventistă, o tematică complexă
care a oferit suficient spaţie atât pentru analiza unor aspecte
particulare ale elementelor sale constitutive, cât şi pentru o sinteză
între eschatologie (Speranţa binecuvântată) şi heremeneutică (Textul),
cu o privire asupra ultimelor dezvoltări în teologia adventistă şi
practica interpretativă.
Convenţia a adunat peste 70 de teologi din cele mai multe
domenii ale cercetării biblice şi teologice care au schimbat idei şi
viziuni în contextul creat de cele cinci prezentări în plen şi un
număr frumos de lucrări de cercetare. Conform deciziei luate în
comitetul de organizare, dreptul de a publica lucrările prezentate îi
aparţine organizaţiei gazdă, bineînţeles cu acordul autorilor.
Sper că prin publicarea acestor lucrări de cercetare vom încuraja
cititorii noştri la studiu şi mai profund şi la dialog continuu pe
marginea acestor teme care au o importanţă crucială în înţelegerea
noastră de sine în calitate de creştini adventişti de ziua a şaptea.
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 5-48
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC

OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY
Dr. Richard M. Davidson
Andrews University, Michigan, USA
Abstract
The current discussion of the hermeneutics of Biblical typology is by no
means an exhaustive treatment of OT types used in the NT, but the
author has surveyed major strands of NT typological interpretation in an
attempt to lay bare the nature and modality of NT typological fulfillments
within the NT eschatological substructure employed consistently and
coherently by Jesus and the NT writers. The paper argues that the
prophetic-eschatological substructure of Biblical typology provides crucial
inner-biblical hermeneutical controls for the nature and modality of
typological fulfillments. Although the conclusions and implications from
the prophetic-eschatological substructure of NT typology are tentatively
affirmed by the author, the present study has broken new grounds as to
eschatological hermeneutic of biblical typology.
I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF

BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY
When I mention the subject of biblical typology, at least in more
popular circles, there is usually one of three kinds of responses.
Some ask (either verbally or in their facial expressions),
“Typology—what’s that?” They have no idea what is meant by the
expression. Others respond, “Typology—oh no!” They do not
believe that Old Testament types really point forward to Christ, or
else they have confused typology with the allegorical approach of
arbitrarily reading back into Scripture a meaning foreign to the text.
Still others exclaim, “Typology—wow and amen!” They are elated,
even, ecstatic, about the Gospel in the types of Scripture.
I recognize these three responses because I have personally
experienced all three reactions. As a student in college, I had a
religion teacher who sought to systematically discredit the types as
genuine foreshadowings of Christ and the Gospel; and I accepted
6
his skeptical attitude for several years. Then the beauty of the
Gospel dawned upon my consciousness in a new way, and as I
studied the Old Testament once more, I became convinced that the
Gospel is beautifully presented in the Old Testament and largely
through its typology. I read everything I could get my hands on that
dealt with typology.
But at this point a new problem arose, a problem of proper
interpretation. Every author that dealt with typology seemed to
come up with his own list of biblical types, and her own
conclusions regarding the meaning of the symbols and types. Many
of the interpretations seemed to be based largely upon the
imagination of the interpreter without any solid hermeneutical
controls from Scripture. Was all of typological interpretation based
upon a tenuous and speculative foundation, or were there sound
principles and controls set forth in Scripture? This weighty question
eventually drove me back to graduate school for doctoral studies,
and emerged as the topic of my dissertation.
Contemporary Christian interpreters generally agree that one of
the basic, if not the basic interpretive key of NT writers, in
unlocking the meaning of the Old Testament, is that of typology.
For example, NT theologian Leonard Goppelt affirmed that
typology “is the central and distinctive NT way of understanding
the Gospel. . . it is the decisive interpretation of Jesus, the Gospel,
and the Church. . . . According to its NT core, typology is
theologically constitutive for an understanding of the Gospel.”1
Another NT theologian, E. Earle Ellis stated, “typological
interpretation expresses most clearly ‘the basic attitude of primitive
Christianity toward the Old Testament.’ ”2 Again, church historian
1 Leonard Goppelt, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964–1976), 8:255–

256.
2 E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1978), 165, citing Werner G. Kümmel, “Schiftauslegung,”

7
The Eschatological Hermeneutic Of Biblical Typology
Robert M. Grant wrote, “the New Testament method of

interpreting the OT is generally that of typology.”3
More recently, evangelical scholars in particular continue to
emphasize the importance, if not the centrality, of the typological
approach to the OT by NT writers. For example, such books as the
one edited by Gregory Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?
Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New,4 includes several
contributors who focus upon biblical typology. An insightful article
by W. Edward Glenny, and published dissertations by Friedbert
Ninow and Paul Hoskins, summarize recent trends in the ongoing
evangelical discussion on typology.5
II. THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY

A number of evangelical scholars have called for more careful
attention to the nature of biblical typology as central to the current
hermeneutical task. For example, Mark W. Karlberg suggests that
“resolution of lingering differences of interpretation among
evangelicals depends, to a large extent, on a proper assessment of
Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (7 vols.; 3d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr

[Paul Siebeck], 1957–1965), 5:1519.
3 Robert M. Grant, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (rev. ed,; New York:
Macmillan, 1963), 54–55.

4 Gregory K. Beale, ed., The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the
Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
5 W. Edward Glenny, “Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical
Discussion,” JETS 40, no. 4 (Dec 1997): 627–638; Friedbert Ninow, Indicators of
Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif (Frankfort am Main; New York:
P. Lang, 2001), 66–84; and Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in
the Gospel of John (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf &Stock,
2006), 18–36. Cf. idem, That Scripture Might Be Fulfilled: Typology and the Death of
Christ (Longwood, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2009), 17–36.
8
the nature and function of Old Testament typology.”6 D. A. Carson

insists that one of the crucial solutions to the debate over authorial
intent and a text having a fuller meaning would be an agreement on
what typology is.7 These calls for further study on typology point
up the situation documented by Glenny and others, that evangelical
scholars widely disagree on the nature, function, and purpose of the
typological approach.
In the Biblical Theology Movement of the 1950's and 1960's
there was a revival of interest in typology even among liberal-
critical scholarship where it had been almost totally rejected just a
few decades earlier. Yet upon closer examination, what these
critical scholars were calling “biblical typology” was far different
than the traditional understanding of typology in the history of the
Christian church. Chart 1 illustrates the major areas of difference
between the traditional view and the post-critical view (which view
has to some degree been accepted by many evangelical writers, as
well, in recent decades):
6 Mark W. Karlberg, “Legitimate Discontinuities Between the Testaments,” JETS

28 (1985): 19.
7 D. A. Carson, “Two Turning Points in Contemporary Hermeneutical Debate”
(paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 46th Annual Meeting,

Lisle, Ill., November 1994).
9
CHART 1. THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY:

TWO MAJOR MODERN VIEWS
The Traditional View Post-critical Neo-Typology

1. Rooted in historical realities— 1. Historicity of types not essential
historicity of the types is essential
2. Divinely designed prefigurations 2. Analogies/correspondences within
God’s similar modes of activity
3. Prospective/prophetic/ predictive 3. Retrospective–little or no
predictive element; based upon the
common human way of analogical
thinking
4. Prefigurations extend to specific 4. Involves only general parallel
details situations
5. Includes vertical (earth/heaven) 5. Accepts only horizontal
as well as horizontal (historical) correspondences, and rejects
typology vertical typology as mythological
vestiges of ANE thought alien to
basic biblical perspective
6. Involves consistent principles of 6. No system or order; based upon
interpretation the interpreter’s freedom in the
Spirit;
7. Limited number of types 7. The number of potential types is
unlimited
As I began my dissertation work, I wrestled with how to decide

on the nature of typology. Who was right in their definition? Both
traditional and postcritical views claimed to represent true “biblical
typology.” For months I agonized to find a key that would unlock
this conundrum from within Scripture. I read all I could find on the
subject, but the various discussions basically assumed their
definition of the nature of typology without letting its constituent
elements emerge from Scripture. The question was perplexing: how
do you determine what typology is without deciding in advance
before going to Scripture? If you determine not to decide in
advance what typology is, how will you recognize it when you see it
10
in Scripture? But if you define it before going to Scripture, then you

are reading your own preconceived understanding into Scripture.
At last, through much prayer and anguish, the light began to
dawn through the hermeneutical maze. I saw that the word typos or
“type” was the key! This word, of course, is found in Greek as well
as English, and several times is used in Scripture in a technical
sense to describe the New Testament writer’s interpretation of the
Old Testament. Here is a terminological control. Where the biblical
writer employs the word “type” (typos) or “antitype” (antitypos) or
“typological” (typikos) to describe what he is interpreting, there for
sure is typology. By a careful analysis of these passages, the basic
elements of typology should emerge from within Scripture without
imposing a definition from outside.
There are six passages in the New Testament which are clearly
typological because they use the word “type” (Greek typos) or
“antitype” (Greek antitypos) as a technical term to describe the
author’s interpretation of the Old Testament: Rom 5:14; 1 Cor
10:6, 11; 1 Pet 3:21; Heb 8:5 and Heb 9:24. Based upon a detailed
study of these verses in their larger contexts, I found a consistent
picture of typology emerging. The biblical portrayal of typology is
basically that of the traditional understanding, and not that of the
“post-critical” view, but with some new emphases that I had not
expected. We may summarize the five conceptual elements of
typology that emerged from the study in Chart 2 below:
11
CHART 2. THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY8

1. The historical element underscores the fact that typology is rooted
in history. Three crucial aspects are involved: (1) both type and
antitype are historical realities (persons, events, institutions) whose
historicity is assumed and essential to the typological argument; (2)
there is an historical correspondence between type and antitype which
moves beyond general parallel situations to specific corresponding
details; (3) there is an escalation or intensification from the type to
antitype.
2. The eschatological (“end-time”) element of typology further
clarifies the nature of the historical correspondence and
intensification between type and antitype. The Old Testament realities
are not just linked to any similar realities, but to their eschatological
fulfillment. Three possible aspects of the eschatological fulfillment
may be in view: (1) “inaugurated,” connected with the first Advent of
Christ; (2) “appropriated,” focusing on the time of the Church living in
tension between the “already” and the “not yet”; and (3)
“consummated,” linked to the Apocalyptic Second Coming of Christ.
3. The Christological (Christ-centered)-soteriological (salvation-
centered) element of biblical typology points out its essential focus
and thrust. The Old Testament types are not merely “bare” realities,
but salvific realities, and find their fulfillment in the person and work of
Christ and/or gospel realities brought about by Christ. Christ is thus
the ultimate orientation point of Old Testament types and their New
Testament fulfillments.
4. The ecclesiological (church-related) element of biblical typology
points to three possible aspects of the Church that may be involved in
the typological fulfillment: the individual worshipers, the corporate
community, and/or the sacraments (baptism and Lord’s Supper).
5. The prophetic element of biblical typology involves three essential
points. First, the Old Testament type is an advance-presentation or
8 These characteristic elements of biblical typology have emerged from detailed

exegesis of the NT passages using typos or antitypos to identify their hermeneutical
approach to the OT: Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 10:1–13; 1 Pet 3:18–22; Heb 8:5 and
Heb 9:24. For this exegesis, see Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A
Study of Hermeneutical τύπος Structures (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral
Dissertation Series 2; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1981).
12
prefiguration of the corresponding New Testament antitype. Second,

the type is divinely designed to prefigure the New Testament antitype.
And third, there is a “must-needs-be” quality about the Old Testament
type, giving it the force of a prophetic/predictive foreshadowing of
the New Testament fulfillment.
Putting this all together, typology as a hermeneutical endeavor on the
part of the New Testament writers may be defined as a study of the
Old Testament salvation historical realities or “types” (persons,
events, institutions) which God has specifically designed to
correspond to, and predictively prefigure, their intensified antitypical
fulfillment aspects (inaugurated, appropriated, consummated) in New
Testament salvation history. In sum, the traditional view of typology
and not the post-critical is affirmed by the data of Scripture.
III. IDENTIFYING THE TYPES IN THE OT: THE

PROPHETIC CONTROL
Since the publication of my dissertation, I have been exploring
the hermeneutical implications of these characteristics of biblical
typology in light of the biblical data, in an attempt to grapple with
possible internal textual controls for the identification and
interpretation of biblical typoi. I have found that the various
elements of biblical typology point to crucial hermeneutical
controls within Scripture. In what follows I present a sketch of
tentative conclusions regarding perhaps the two most controversial
of these elements—the prophetic and eschatological elements of
biblical typology. I begin with the prophetic control.
Many studies of biblical typology begin with the NT witness,
and assume that the NT is the final norm for indicating which
persons, events or institutions are typological. This was the
approach of Bishop Herbert Marsh (1757–1839) and the Marshian
school of typology in the early nineteenth century: it was argued
13
that the only legitimate types are those identified as such in the
New Testament.9
But the prophetic element of biblical typology points us to a
larger picture. As we have already seen above, this prophetic
characteristic of typology that has consistently emerged from the
exegesis of NT typological (hermeneutical typos) passages
underscores the divinely-designed, prospective/predictive “must-
needs-be” nature of biblical typology. Types point forward
predictively/prophetically to their antitypes.
One of the most personally rewarding results of my study of
biblical typology has been the increased realization that Jesus and
the NT writers do not arbitrarily read a typological meaning back
into the OT, as has often been claimed. If they did this, typology
would, in my estimation, be an illegitimate “eisegesis”—reading
into Scripture what is not already there. But the NT writers insist
that certain persons, events, and institutions were divinely designed
from the outset to serve as prophetic/predictive prefigurations.
In a summary of contemporary evangelical discussion on
typology which appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society in 1997, W. Edward Glenny generously credited me with
providing an “innovative” new view of typology by emphasizing
the predictive/prophetic element. While I am flattered by Glenny’s
kind ascription of innovation to my approach to typology, I
personally make a much more modest claim that my study has
merely exegetically confirmed and drawn the logical consequences
of the classical or traditional understanding of the subject as already
set forth in previous centuries by Patrick Fairbairn,10 Milton
9 See Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 36–37.

10 Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (2 vols; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1963), passim.
14
Terry,11 Louis Berkhof,12 Leonhard Goppelt,13 and others who saw

typology as a species of prophecy and essentially predictive.
I am thankful that since the publication of my dissertation a
number of scholars have accepted the predictive element of
typology along the lines of the classical/traditional understanding,
consciously building upon my doctoral research. For example,
Walter Kaiser, in his chapter on typology in his book The Uses of the
Old Testament in the New, expands on the argumentation of my
dissertation, and concludes:
types cannot be “read into” or “read back” into the OT from the
NT in some sort of canonized eisegesis. . . . The linking, or
homology, has already begun in the [OT] text, and in that sense
belongs to the textual tradition and not to the interpreter’s skill
or imaginative powers. . . . Finally, types necessarily contain a
foreshadowing feature ‘of us’ in the Christian era. They are not
only written “for us” as warnings and instructive guides, but they
are “types of us” and in that sense are predictive.14
Again, Friedbert Ninow, in his examination of the Exodus
typology of Scripture, builds upon, and demonstrates the validity
of, the methodology set forth in my dissertation regarding the
predictive nature of typology (i.e., that there is a verbal prediction
which accompanies the typological Exodus motif).15
11 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the

Old and New Testaments (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 336.
12 Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation: Sacred Hermeneutics
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950),145.

13 Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the
New (trans. D. H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 199, 205.

14 Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1985), 121; cf. 103–121.

15 Ninow, Indicators of Typology, passim.
15
The recently-published dissertation of Paul Hoskins provides a

careful analysis of the major differences between the traditional and
the critical understanding of typology, and affirms that the evidence
of Scripture (as argued in my dissertation) supports the traditional
understanding of typology as that which was held by the biblical
writers.16 Hoskins points to other biblical scholars who recognize
that the NT writers upheld the predictive nature of typology.17 One
of these is G. K. Beale, who argues that the term “prophetic
fulfillment” should not only be limited to “direct verbal prophecies
in the Old Testament” but broadened to include typology. He
writes:
Typology therefore indicates fulfillment of the indirect prophetic
adumbration of events, people and institutions from the Old
Testament in Christ. . . . It is a too narrow hermeneutic which
concludes that New Testament writers are being non-contextual
when they understand passages from historical or overtly non-
prophetic genre as typologically prophetic. . . . If typology is
16 See Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple, 31–32: “The most helpful recent
detailed study of the typology characteristic of the New Testament authors is
that of Richard Davidson. Davidson seeks to buttress the first, traditional
conception of typology by giving careful attention to the hermeneutical
structures associated with typology as it was understood by the New Testament
authors. . . . Davidson provides a useful guide for further studies in biblical
typology. He is alert for the need for establishing guidelines that would result in a
controlled approach to typological interpretation. . . . His focus upon the use of
typology found in the New Testament itself allows him to interact with
proponents of both primary conceptions of typology based upon how their
conceptions of typology match up with that of the New Testament authors.”
Hoskins own research in the Gospel of John leads him to conclude in favor of
this traditional view of typology as predictive and not just retrospective (ibid.,
182–203).
17 E.g., E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1957), 127–128: “Divine intent is of the essence both in their occurrence and in
their inscripturation.” Cf. John H. Stek, “Biblical Typology Yesterday and
Today,” CTJ 5 (1970): 162.
16
classified as partially prophetic, then it can be viewed as an

exegetical method since the New Testament correspondence
would be drawing out retrospectively the fuller prophetic
meaning of the Old Testament type which was originally
included by the divine author.18
If indeed biblical types are divinely designed to serve as
prospective/predictive prefigurations, then in this study I am
merely suggesting the logical consequence of this position: some
indication of the existence and predictive quality of the various OT
types should occur already in the OT before their NT antitypical
fulfillment—otherwise there would be no predictive element. Thus
some inherent textual indicators identifying the OT types should be
apparent already in the OT.19
18 G. K. Beale, “Positive Answer to the Question ‘Did Jesus and His Followers
Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the
Presuppostions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Exegetical Method, “ in The Right
Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. G.
K. Beale; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 396, 401.
19 At the meeting of the Midwest Region of Evangelical Theological Society at
Northwestern College (St Paul, Minn., USA), in 1999, I was delighted to hear the
president of the Midwest ETS chapter, Ardel Caneday, elaborate on this same
logical implication far more eloquently than I in his response to Herman
Bateman’s paper “Psalm 45:6–7 and Hebrews 1:5–13: An Exercise in
Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology.” Caneday insisted that “there must be a
warrant in the psalm itself to read it as he [the author of Hebrews] does,” i.e.,
Messianically. If not, “how could the author have persuaded his first readers that
the promised Messiah and David’s son is truly Jesus. Without a warrant in the
psalm itself, the author of Hebrews could hardly hope to convince us that his
reading is correct. This, it seems to me, would leave the author of Hebrews in a
fideistic lurch.” Caneday went on to describe his view of typology, which
coincides with what I have been arguing. He stated, “[Bateman] claims that
Hebrews 1:5–13 makes ‘typological-prophetic application of Psalm 45:6–7’ (27).
I understand typology to work quite differently. First, the term ‘application’
seems much too weak. It does not appear that Hebrews is merely ‘applying’
Psalm 45:6–7 to a new context; it seems evident that Hebrews is ‘interpreting’
17
As noted above, the predictive/prophetic aspect of typology

was already recognized by classic nineteenth and early twentieth
century works on typology and has been receiving significant
attention in recent discussions. But the natural and logical
consequence of seeing typology as prophetic/predictive, as argued
in this paper, has not been widely recognized or explored, namely
that the OT types referred to by the NT writers have already been
identified as typological before the antitypical fulfillment, within the
OT context itself.
I have found increasing evidence that this logical conclusion is
in fact what we find in the typology of the Bible. In the OT
Scriptures I have found evidence that God has pointed out before
the time of fulfillment which persons, events or institutions are
typological, and Jesus and the NT writers simply announce what
has already been indicated in advance. This insight I believe
constitutes the heretofore “missing link” in much discussion of
biblical typology—that there is an OT control identifying the typoi,
and transforming biblical typology from “inspired eisegesis” into
solid exegesis of the OT texts.
the Psalm to refer to Christ as God’s Son. Second, it seems to me that the
designation ‘typological’ must be a term that properly fits the earlier text, Psalm
45, especially so if the adjective ‘prophetic’ is joined to it. In other words, a text
that has ‘typological’ significance is the earlier text, and that ‘typological’
significance must be recognizable in that text, without imposing it back upon
that text from the later text. This means that Psalm 45:6–7 must have a warrant
within the psalm itself that indicated that this psalm bears a typological-prophetic
function. The typological-prophetic function of Psalm 45 must derive from the
psalm itself, not from Hebrews 1:5–13. Furthermore, it seems that a psalm’s
‘typological’ significance has a prophetic or predictive function. It would appear
that Hebrews reads Psalm 45 as having a predictive quality now fulfilled in the
Son who is God’s last days spokesman.” Ardel Caneday, “Response to Herman
Bateman’s paper ‘Psalm 45:6–7 and Hebrews 1:5–13: An Exercise in
Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology’” (paper presented at the Midwest
Evangelical Theological Society Chapter Annual Meeting, Northwestern College,
1999), 3–5.
18
I suggest that the mutely prefigurative OT type (person, event,

institution) is accompanied (in its immediate context and/or in a
later pre-fulfillment prophecy) by an internal indicator—a
prophetical/eschatological warrant—showing its typological nature.
I have found that, at least with regard to the OT persons, events,
and institutions explicitly labeled typoi by the NT, and all other
examples I have examined thus far, that the verbal indicator is
found both in the immediate context of the historical type and
again in a later pre-fulfillment prophecy.
Such a pattern is the one pointed out, for example, by Peter and
Paul in their sermons recorded in the book of Acts dealing with the
resurrection of David—both apostles find evidence within the OT
passages itself pointing beyond the OT Davidic type to the
Messiah, and later prophetic evidence confirming that
interpretation. (See Acts 2:25–31; 13:31–37, citing Pss 16:8–11;
132:11; 2 Sam 7:12–14 and Isa 55:3. Examining these passages is a
topic for another study.)
Chart 3 illustrates this pattern, and summarizes the material
presented in the remainder of this section of the paper.
19
CHART 3. TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

PROPHETIC INDICATORS IDENTIFYING THE OLD TESTAMENT TYPES
Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

Type Indicator of Typology Announcement
(Person/Event/ of Antitype
Institution)
1. Adam New Adam Antitypical Adam

Genesis 1–5 Immediate context: Gen 1:26– Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor
27; 2:5–7, 18–23; 3:15, 17; 5:1– 15:21–22, 45–49; Heb
2 (corporate solidarity of 2:6–8; cf. Matt 24:30;
Adam with “humanity” and 26:64; etc.
with the Messianic seed)
Later OT indicators: Ps 8:4–8;
Dan 7:13–14
2. Flood New Cosmic Antitype

Judgment/Salvation of the Flood
Genesis 6–9
Immediate Context: Gen 6:13; 1 Pet 3:18–21; cf. Matt
7:23; 8:1 (See Warren Gage, 24:37–39; Luk e 17:26–
The Gospel in Genesis [Winona 27; 2 Pet 2:5, 9; 3:5–7
Lake: Carpenter, 1984], 7–16.)
Later OT indicators: Isa 24:18;
28:2; 43:2; 54:8–9; Nah 1:8;
Dan 9:26
20

Institution)
3. Exodus New Exodus Antitypical Exodus

Exodus – Immediate Context: Exod 1 Cor 10: 1–13; cf. Matt
Numbers 15:14–17; Numbers 23–24 1–5; Luke 9:31; etc. (See
(esp. 23:22; 24:8, 14–17; See Richard M. Davidson,
John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch Typology in Scripture: A
as Narrative [Grand Rapids: Study of Hermeneutical
Zondervan, 1992], 408.). τύπος Structures [Andrews
University Seminary
Later OT indicators: Hos Doctoral Dissertation
2:14–15; 12:9, 13; 13:4–5; Jer Series 2; Berrien Springs,
23:4–8; 16:14–15; 31:32; Isa Mich.: Andrews
11:15–16; 35; 40:3–5; 41:17– University Press, 1981],
20; 42:14–16; 43:1–3, 14–21; 193–297; George
48:20–21; 49:8–12; 51:9–11; Balentine, “The Concept
52:3–6, 11–12; 55:12–13 (See of the New Exodus in
C. H. Dodd, According to the the Gospels” [Th.D.
Scriptures [London: Nisbet, diss., Southern Baptist
1952],75–133; Friedbert Theological Seminary,
Ninow, Indicators of Typology 1961].)
within the Old Testament: the
Exodus Motif [Frankfort am
Main, New York: P. Lang,
2001], passim.)
21

Institution)
4. Earthly Earthly a Copy of the Antitypical Heavenly

Sanctuary Heavenly Sanctuary Sanctuary
Exodus 25–40 Immediate context: Exod 25:9, Heb 8:5; 9:24; cf. Rev
40; 8:1–5; 11:19; 16:1; etc.
Later OT indicators: Pss 11:4;
18:6, 60:8; 63:2; 68:35; 96:6;
102:19; 150:1; Isa 6; Jonah 2:7;
Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; etc. (See
Davidson, Typology in Scripture,
367–388; Elias Brasil de Souza,
The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple
Motif in the Hebrew Bible:
Function and Relationship to the
Earthly Counter Parts [Adventist
Theological Society
Dissertation Series 7; Berrien
Springs, Mich.: ATS
Publications, 2006], passim.)
5. Moses New Moses Antitypical Moses

Pentateuch Immediate context: Deut John 1:21; 6:14; 8:40;
18:15–19 etc.
Later OT indicator: Deut
34:10 (Added probably by
Ezra; see John H. Sailhamer,
The Pentateuch as Narrative: A
Biblical-Theological Commentary
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992] 456, 478–479.)
22

Institution)
6. Joshua New Joshua Antitypical Joshua

The Book of Immediate context: Exod Hebrews 4; cf. Matt
Joshua 23:23; Num 13:8, 16; 27:17, 11:28; Eph 1:11, 14, 18;
21; Deut 3:28; 18:15–17; 31:3, Col 2:15; 3:24; Heb 1:4;
23; 34:10–12; Josh 1:2–5; 3:7; 9:15; 12:22–24
4:14 (Joshua does the same
work as the Angel of the Lord,
and of Moses, but is clearly
not the New Moses)
Later OT indicator: Isa 49:8
(the Messiah does the same
work as Joshua in Deut 31:7;
Josh 1:6)
(See Richard M. Davidson, In
the Footsteps of Joshua
[Hagerstown, Md.: Review and
Herald, 1995], 24–35.)
7. David New David Antitypical David

The Psalms Immediate Context: Ps 2 (esp. Matt 1:1–18 (14 is the
v. 12); 16:8–11; 22; 40:6–8; etc. gematria number of
(language goes beyond David); John 19:24; Acts
historical David) 2:29–33; 13:31–37; Heb
1:5; 5:5; 10:5–9; etc.
Later OT indicators: Jer 23:5;
Ezek 34:23; 37:24; Dan 9:26
(echoing Ps 22:11); Isa 9:5, 6;
11:1–5; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11;
Zech 8:3; etc. (See Richard M.
Davidson, “New Testament
Use of the Old Testament,”
JATS 5 [1994]: 23–28.)
23

Institution)
8. Jonah New Jonah Antitypical Jonah

The Book Immediate context: Jonah Matt 12:39–41; 16:4;
of Jonah 1:17; 2:2, 6 (death-resurrection Luke 11:29–32;
language, 3 days/nights;
description goes beyond
historical Jonah)
Later OT indicators: Hos 6:1–
3 (= Israel’s death-resurrection
experience, third day); Hos
7:11 (Israel is like silly “Jonah”
[dove]); Isa 41–53 (Messiah
represents and recapitulates
experience of Israel, especially
in death-resurrection) Isa 41:8;
42:1; 44:1; 49:3–6; 52:13–
53:11; etc.)
(See Davidson, “NT Use of
OT,” 29–30.)
The middle column of Chart 3 points out the OT verbal

indicators of typology. In the present paper we will deal with the
first four items, which correspond to the four typological persons,
events and institutions emerging from the NT hermeneutical typos
passages, i.e., Adam, Flood, Exodus, and Sanctuary. Other
examples listed in Chart 3 call for further study in another venue.
A. Adam Typology
Already in the opening chapters of the Bible we have an
implication of Adam typology. Reading Gen 1–3 in Hebrew, one is
struck with the sustained wordplay involving the word ’adam (or
with the article ha’adam). In Gen 1:26–27 the word (once with the
article and once without) means “humankind.” In Gen 2:18–23
24
ha’adam (with the article) indicates an individual person, “the man.”

In the succeeding verses of Gen 2 and opening verses of Gen 3 it is
not clear whether to translate the term (with the article) as “the
man” or “Adam” (see the different practices of different modern
versions), but by Gen 3:17 (without the article) it clearly constitutes
the proper name, “Adam.” In Gen 5:1–2, the recap of human
creation at the beginning of the second major section of the book,
the same term ’adam (without the article) denotes both the name
“Adam” (v. 1a) and the name of the human race, including both
male and female, “Humankind” (v. 1b, 2). Significantly, throughout
the rest of Scripture, no one else is named “Adam.”
By the usage of the term ’adam in the opening chapters of
Genesis, it seems apparent that
Adam is presented as the representative head of the human race.
Adam bears the name which is also the name of Humankind. Only
Adam in OT salvation history is given this name. Adam the person
is in corporative solidarity with the ’adam which is humanity as a
whole.
This solidarity indicated by the singular-collective fluidity of the
term ’adam also seems underscored by its explicit etymological
linkage with the “ground.” In Gen 2:5, 7 the term [ha]’adam (once
with and once without the article) denotes the human being who is
at first not present to till, and then is formed from, the “ground”
(ha’adamah). The linkage between “human” [ha]’adam and “ground”
[ha]’adamah highlights corporative solidarity because in Gen 2:6–7
“ground” also refers to both localized “dust of the ground” from
which Adam was made (v. 7), and to the universalized “whole face
of the ground” (v. 6; cf. Gen 7:23).
It appears that Paul’s presentation of Adam as representative
man in corporative solidarity with the human race (Rom 5 and 1
25
Cor 15)20 is not only a NT concept, but already present in and

ultimately derived from the opening pages of Scripture.
If Gen 1–3 in general present Adam as the representative man
in corporative solidarity with the human race, Gen 3:15 in
particular presents One who is to come as the representative
“Seed” of the woman who is in corporate solidarity with the
corporate “seed” of the woman. I will not argue here in detail for
the Messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15, as this has been done
elsewhere.21 But it is important to notice the literary movement of
progressive parallelism in v. 15. This may be diagramed as follows:
V. 15a serpent “you” – Singular – woman
V. 15b seed of serpent – Collective (plural) – seed of woman
V. 15c serpent “you”/ – Singular – "He/ "His heel"

“your head”
It has been generally recognized that the seed of the serpent and
the seed of the woman mentioned in v. 15b denotes a collective
singular representing a plural idea. This enmity between the
spiritual descendants of Eve and the spiritual descendants of the
serpent is emphasized throughout the early chapters of Genesis—
the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth, those who
leave the presence of the Lord and those who call upon the Lord
20 The concept of corporate solidarity in these Pauline passages is widely

recognized. For a succinct and insightful summary of Paul’s usage, see e.g., C. H.
Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1954),
78–83; and Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 57–64.
21 See especially Afolarin Ojewole, “The Seed in Gen 3:15: An Exegetical and
Intertextual Study” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2002); and O. Palmer

Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 93–
103.
26
(Gen 4:16, 26), issuing in two sets of genealogies (Gen 4 and 5),
and finally in the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (Gen
6:1–3).
But what is crucial to note in Gen 3:15 is the movement from
the collective seed of the serpent in v. 15b, to the singular “you”
(the serpent) in v. 15c. As O. Palmer Robertson insightfully
observes, “To correspond to the narrowing from ‘seed’ to ‘Satan’
on one side of the enmity, it would appear quite appropriate to
expect a similar narrowing from a multiple ‘seed’ of woman to a
singular ‘he’ who would champion the cause of God’s enmity
against Satan.”22
The LXX translators of Gen 3:15 recognized this narrowing
from collective “seed” to individual Messianic “Seed.” Only here in
the whole book of Genesis do they break the fundamental rule of
Greek grammar regarding the agreement between pronoun and its
antecedent. Since sperma “seed” is neuter in Greek, the pronoun
that follows should be neuter, but the LXX translators translated as
autos, a masculine singular “he.” They apparently understood the
Messianic implication of the literary progression of parallelism in
the Hebrew.
Genesis 3:15 predicts that one day an individual “Seed”, in
solidarity with the corporative “seed” of Eve, will personally crush
the head of the Serpent. As the representative of the corporative
whole, He will bring a solution to the moral conflict between the
woman and her seed and the serpent and his seed. Genesis 3:15,
often called the Protoevangelium or “First Gospel Promise,” also
implies the means by which this victory over the serpent will take
place. The picture is one of a male individual, with bare foot,
stepping willingly and willfully upon the head of a venomous snake.
It is an intimation of voluntary, vicarious (substitutionary) sacrifice
22 Ibid., 99.
27
of one’s life on behalf of the many to destroy the serpent. This

intimation of substitutionary atonement is further strengthened and
illuminated in Gen 3:21 when God makes tunics of skins to clothe
Adam and Eve. Just as their “nakedness” was more than physical
nudity—even though they had on fig leaves they still told God they
were “naked,” v. 10; it was a spiritual nakedness of soul, guilt—so
the clothing was a spiritual as well as a physical covering. The
specific mention of skins implies the sacrifice of innocent animals,
especially in the context of a full-blown sacrificial system assumed
just a few verses later in the next chapter (Gen 4:3–5).23
Thus Paul’s recognition of the Messiah as the new
Representative Head of the seed of the woman, the Second Adam,
is not just a NT concept, but is ultimately rooted in Gen 3:15. The
Protoevangelium in connection with Gen 1–2 may be seen as the
foundational passage presenting Adam typology.
But this Adam typology is also more explicitly expounded in
later canonical OT materials. In Psalm 8, the inspired psalmist no
doubt refers historically to Adam as he writes (vv. 4–8): “What is
man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man [ben ’adam]
that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the
angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have
made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You
have put all things under his feet–all sheep and oxen–even the
beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that
pass through the paths of the sea.” This is clearly an allusion to
God’s giving dominion to Adam in Gen 1:28.
At the same time the expression used for Adam in this psalm,
“son of man,” is picked up especially by Daniel as a title for the
future eschatological Messiah, the Son of Man who will receive the
23 Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 56–57.
28
eschatological dominion over the kingdom of this world (Dan

7:13–14: “Behold, One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds
of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days . . . Then to Him [the
Son of Man] was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. . . and
His kingdom . . . shall not be destroyed.”). This title is in turn
picked up by Jesus in the NT as His messianic title par excellence.24
(See Matt 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; and
numerous other NT passages.) Hebrews further points out the NT
recognition of the Adam typology present in Ps 8. Hebrews 2:6–8
cites Ps 8:4–6 and points to its antitypical referent in the Messiah:
“For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing
that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put
under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor,
that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone” (vv.
8–9).
Jesus and the NT writers do not arbitrarily read Adam typology
back into the OT, but in light of what we have just seen, are simply
recognizing and announcing what was already implicit in the OT,
both in the original context of the creation narrative, and in later
pre-fulfillment OT passages. On the basis of these verbal indicators
already implicit in the OT, Paul can speak confidently in Rom 5 of
Adam as a typos of Christ, and in this passage as well as 1 Cor 15
draw the typological connections between the first and the last
Adams.
24 Reimar Vetne, “The Influence and Use of Daniel in the Synoptic Gospels
(Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2011), 96–151.
29
B. Flood Typology
Let us now move to the Flood typology. As was true with
Adam, there are verbal hints already in the Flood narrative that this
divine event is to be seen typologically.
We will first review the major theological contours of the Flood
narrative . When God said, “I have determined to make an end
[qets] of all flesh” (Gen. 6:13), he introduced the “eschatological”
term qets which in later Scripture became a technical term for the
eschaton. The divine judgment involved a period of probation
(Gen. 6:3), followed by a judicial investigation (“The Lord saw . . . “
Gen. 6:5; “I have determined,” Gen. 6:13 RSV), the sentence (Gen.
6:7) and its execution (the bringing of the Flood, Gen. 7:11–24).
The Flood narrative contains the first mention in the biblical
canon of the motif and terminology of remnant, Gen. 7:23: “Only
Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained [sha’ar].”
The remnant who survived the cosmic catastrophe of the Flood
were constituted thus because of their right relationship of faith
and obedience to God, not because of caprice or the favoritism of
the gods, as in the extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern flood stories.
God’s grace is revealed already before the Flood in the 120 years
of probation granted the antediluvian world (Gen 6:3) and in his
directions for the building of the ark to save those faithful to Him
(Gen 6:14–21); and again after the Flood in His covenant/promise
never again to destroy the earth with a Flood, even though human
nature remained evil (Gen 8:20–22; 9:8–17).
But the theological (and literary, chiastic) heart of the Flood
account is found in the phrase “God remembered Noah” (Gen
8:1).25 The memory theology of Scripture does not imply that God
25 Bernard W. Andersen, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Gen

1–11,” JBL 97 (1978): 38. Cf. William H. Shea, “The Structure of the Genesis
Flood Narrative and Its Implications,” Origins 6 (1979): 22–23.
30
has literally forgotten; for God to “remember” is to act in

deliverance (see Exod 6:5). The structural positioning of God’s
“remembering” at the center of the narrative indicates that the apex
of Flood theology is not punitive judgment but divine salvific grace.
Numerous thematic and verbal parallels between the accounts
of Noah’s salvation and Israel’s Exodus deliverance reveal the
author’s intent to emphasize their similarity.26 Various references in
the Psalms to God’s gracious deliverance of the righteous from the
“great waters” of tribulation, may contain allusions to the Genesis
Flood (Ps 18:16 [Heb. v. 17]; 32:6; 65:5–8 [Heb. vv. 6–9]; 69:2
[Heb. v. 3]; 89:9 [Heb. v. 10]; 93:3; and 124:4).
The typological nature of the Flood account is already implicit
in its immediate context in Genesis. Warren Gage, in his
penetrating book The Gospel in Genesis, has shown how Gen 1–7 is
presented by the author as a paradigm for the history of the
world.27 Gage points out how the reduplication of the motifs in
Genesis only carries through the first four narratives (creation,
man, sin, beginning of the renewed conflict of the seed). He
concludes: “The implication of the pattern of historical
presentation in Genesis requires the projection of general apostasy
and cosmic judgment into post-diluvian prophecy to satisfy the
pattern of parallel narratives.”28 In light of John Sailhamer’s study
of the eschatological framing of the entire Pentateuch,29 the lack of
26 John H. Sailhamer, Genesis–Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 2;

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 89.
27 Warren Gage, The Gospel in Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology
(Winona Lake: Carpenter, 1984), 7–16.

28 Ibid., 14.
29 John H. Sailhamer, “The Canonical Approach to the Old Testament: Its Effect
On Understanding Prophecy,” JETS 30, no. 3 (September 1987): 307–315. Cf.

Richard M. Davidson, “The Eschatological Literary Structure of the Old
Testament,” in Creation, Life, and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B. Doukhan (ed.
31
a parallel with the fifth narrative of protology (universal judgment)

strongly implies that this will be fulfilled “in the last days,” in the
eschatological cosmic judgment.
Isaiah provides an explicit verbal indicator that the Flood is a
type of covenantal eschatology (Isa. 54:9), along with several
probable allusions to Flood typology in his descriptions of the
eschatological salvation of Israel (the “flood of mighty waters
overflowing,” Isa. 28:2; “the waters . . . shall not overwhelm,” Isa.
43:2; God’s “overflowing wrath,” Isa. 54:8; and the “windows of
heaven,” Isa. 24:18). The prophets Nahum (1:8) and Daniel (9:26)
depict the eschatological judgment in language probably alluding to
the Genesis Flood.
The NT writers recognize the typological connection between
Flood and eschatology that has been pointed out already in the OT.
The salvation of Noah and his family in the ark through the waters
of the Flood finds its antitypical counterpart in NT eschatological
salvation connected with water baptism (1 Pet 3:18–22).30 The
universal divine judgment of the Genesis Flood is also recognized
by Jesus and NT writers as a type of the final universal
eschatological judgment at the end of the world, and the conditions
of pre-Flood morality are seen to provide signs of the end time
(Matt. 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27; 2 Pet 2:5, 9; 3:5–7).
As with the Adam and Exodus typology, the identification of
the Flood as a type is not arbitrarily read back in to the OT by the
NT writers, but already in the OT this event is presented as
prefiguring its eschatological antitype.
Jiří Moskala; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day

Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2000), 349–366.
30 See Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 316–336.
32
C. Exodus Typology
Let us now turn our attention to the Exodus typology,
highlighted by Paul especially in 1 Cor 10. Is this typological motif
already indicated in the OT? A whole dissertation has appeared by
Friedbert Ninow, entitled, Indicators of Typology within the Old
Testament: the Exodus Motif. Ninow’s study builds upon the brief but
penetrating analysis of John Sailhamer.31 Sailhamer examines the
four oracles of Balaam in Num 22–24, and shows how the first two
(Num 23) point back to Israel’s past while the last two (Num 24)
focus upon the eschatological future messianic king. The
distinction between the two sets of oracles is already apparent from
their introductions. The first two oracles are both introduced by a
simple statement: “Then Balaam uttered his oracle” (Num 23:7,
18); but the last two oracles are both introduced with an additional
elaborate reference to their visionary character: “Then he uttered
his oracle: The oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of one
whose eye sees clearly, the oracle of one who hears the words of
God, who sees a vision from the Almighty, who falls prostrate, and
whose eyes are opened.” (Num 24:3, 15) Balaam knows the history
of the past, but now has a vision of the future.
Sailhamer points to many parallels between the two sets of
oracles, but the most striking parallel deals with the great salvific
event of the Exodus. In Num 23:22, Balaam says of Israel’s past:
“God brought them [plural] out Egypt; He has strength like a wild
ox.” But in Num 24:8, Balaam repeats the exact same line in
Hebrew, except he utilizes the singular forms, applying it to the
future king he has introduced in v. 7: “God brings Him [singular,
not them] out of Egypt; He has strength like a wild ox . . .” The
identity of the “Him” as conquering king is further clarified in vv.
31 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological

Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 408.
33
8b–9 with the description of His conquering His enemies, the

nations (“He shall consume the nations, his enemies . . .”).
His eschatological messianic character is made certain in the
fourth oracle which immediately follows after an introductory
reference to “the last days” (v. 14). In the fourth oracle the “Him”
of the third oracle is now unmistakably the Messiah: “I see Him,
but not now; I behold Him, but not near; a Star shall come out of
Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel . . . and destroy all the sons
of tumult” (v. 17). As recognized by many evangelical scholars, this
is clearly a prediction of the eschatological royal reign of the
Messiah and his victory over the forces of evil.32
What emerges from this juxtapositioning of Balaamic oracles is
a portrayal of the Messianic King experiencing a new eschatological
Exodus, recapitulating in His life the events of historical Israel in
their Exodus from Egypt and conquest of their enemies.
We are now in a position to examine another poetic passage
found at one of the macro-structural junctures of the Pentateuch,
i.e., Exod 15. Sailhamer does not give this passage attention when
he examines the other Pentateuchal poetic seams, possibly because
it does not contain the same eschatological phrase “in the last days”
as the others. But Ninow shows how Exod 15 and Num 23–24
comprise a pair of poetic passages with a common motif. That
motif is the Exodus. Exodus 15 records the Song of Moses, which
celebrates Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and deliverance from their
enemies at the Red Sea. Already in Exod 15, as Norbert Lohfink
long ago,33 and Ninow34 more recently, demonstrated, the Exodus
is open-ended toward the future, with a description of a future safe
passage of Israel through the midst of their enemies (vv. 14–17)
32 Seediscussion and bibliography in Ninow, Indicators of Typology, 137–144.

33 Norbert Lohfink, “The Songs of Victory at the Red Sea,” in The Christian
Meaning of the Old Testament (trans. R. A. Wilson; Milwaukee: Bruce, 1968), 67–86.
34 Ninow, Indicators of Typology, 120–137.
34
instead of the expected portrayal of their past passage through the

Red Sea.
This forward-reaching movement in the Song of Moses finds its
counterpart in the Balaam oracles, where the Exodus of Israel from
Egypt is viewed as pre-figuring the Exodus of the Messianic king
and His conquest of His enemies. Thus, when viewed together, the
Song of Moses (Exod 15) and the Oracles of Balaam (Num 23–24)
form an eschatological pair highlighting the role of the Messiah in
the eschatological New Exodus.
Moving beyond the historical account of Israel’s Exodus from
Egypt in the Pentateuch, we find in the Prophets numerous verbal
prophetic indicators that the Messiah would come in the context of
a New Exodus, recapitulating in His life the experience of ancient
Israel in their Exodus, going over the same spiritual ground but
succeeding where they had failed. (See, for example, Isa 11:15–16;
35; 40:3–5; 41:17–20; 42:14–16; 43:1–3, 14–21; 48:20–21; 49:8–12;
51:9–11; 52:3–6, 11–12; 55:12–13; Jer 16:14–15; 23:4–8; Hos 2:14–
15; 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4–5.) These passages have been widely
recognized as pointing to a new eschatological Exodus in the
context of the Messiah. Ninow’s published dissertation carefully
examines these OT prophetic indicators of Exodus typology in
detail.35
Regarding the events of the Exodus, we can therefore conclude
as with the person of Adam, that the NT writers are not reading the
typology back into the OT arbitrarily, but recognizing what the OT
had indicated. Exodus typology is truly predictive, with the warrant
for typological interpretation already in the OT Exodus passages
themselves.
35 Ibid., 157–241.
35
D. Sanctuary Typology
Let us now move to sanctuary typology. Whereas the preceding
OT typological entities consisted of persons or events, here we
have an example of an OT institution–the cultus. With regard to
the existence of an OT indicator that the sanctuary is typological,
this is the most explicit of all NT hermeneutical typos passages. For
Heb 8:5 directly cites an OT text, Exod 25:40, as support for the
typological relationship between the earthly and the heavenly
sanctuary. Conveniently, the LXX even translates the Hebrew word
tabnit as typos or “type,” making the link with typology
unmistakeable.
It is significant that from the very first instructions for its
construction, the sanctuary is accompanied with the verbal
indicator that it is a typological copy of the heavenly original. In
Exod 25:8, God instructs Moses, “And let them make Me a
sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” In the very next verse, v.
9, God continues, “According to all that I show you, that is, the
tabnit [pattern] of the tabernacle and the tabnit [pattern] of all its
furnishings, just so you shall make it.”
In my dissertation I engage in a detailed exegesis of this passage,
and verse 40, where God repeats his instructions: “And see that
you make them according to the tabnit which was shown you on the
mountain.” I argue that the Hebrew term tabnit in this context
clearly points to a typological relationship between earthly and
heavenly sanctuary, as the author of Hebrews rightly recognizes.
The earthly sanctuary is ultimately the copy of the heavenly original.
This interpretation is supported by: the semantic contours of tabnit
(see esp. 2 Kgs 16:10, 11); the immediate theophanic, visionary
context of Exod 24; OT parallels; ancient Near Eastern parallels;
36
and the interpretations of late Judaism (Apocrypha,

Pseudepigrapha, Rabbinic sources, and Philo).36
In the same analysis I also point out the numerous later OT
passages that posit the typological connection between the earthly
sanctuary and the heavenly temple: Pss 11:4; 18:6; 60:6; 63:2; 68:35;
96:6; 102:19; 150:1; Isa 6; Jonah 2:7; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; etc.37
Thus it is abundantly clear that sanctuary typology is indeed
predictive. The NT writers merely announce the typological
linkages that had already been made manifest in the OT by means
of verbal indicators, both in the immediate context of the book of
Exodus, and in later prophetic passages.
IV. THE NATURE OF NT TYPOLOGICAL FULFILLMENT:

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL CONTROL
Whereas the prophetic control serves to identify which OT

persons, events and institutions are typological, the eschatological
control clarifies the nature of the antitypical fulfillment in the NT.
This control is built upon an understanding of the foundational
eschatological substructure of the NT that has been widely
recognized by contemporary NT scholars.
A. The Basic Eschatological Substructure of the NT

Chart 4 diagrams the eschatological substructure of NT
typology:
36 Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 367–388.

37 See also Elias Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew
Bible: Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counter Parts (Adventist Theological
Society Dissertation Series 7; Berrien Springs, Mich.: ATS Publications, 2006),
passim.
37
CHART 4
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL SUBSTRUCTURE OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY
Resolve Vertical
Overarching Vertical Dimension Tension
Irruption of Powers of Age to Come

Pentecost
Old Testament First Advent Second Advent
 Holy Spirit
This Age---------->-------------------------------------------------------->Age to Come----->
CLASSICAL PROPHECY
OT Kingdom Time of Christian Christ’s Second

Christ’s First Advent*
Prophecies Church Advent**
Theocratic Kingdom Kingdom of Grace Tension Between Kingdom of Glory

In Kingdom (Direct Rule by God (Matt 12:28; Heb 4:16) “Already” and (Matt 25:31)
Language or His Earthly “Not Yet”
Vicegerent) (Matt 16:19)
In Verbal Predictions of Inaugurated Appropriated Consummated

Eschatological End Time Eschatology Eschatology Eschatology
Language
Fulfillment National, Ethnic Literal, Local Spiritual, Universal, Glorious, Final

Mode Fulfillment Partial Fulfillment Literal Fulfillment
TYPOLOGY
Old Testament New Testament Antitypes

Types
Typological
Fulfillment Persons, Events, Christ Church Final Climax
Aspects Institutions (Christological) (Ecclesiological) (Apocalyptic)
Fulfillment National, Ethnic Literal, Local Spiritual, Universal, Glorious, Final

Mode Fulfillment Partial Fulfillment Literal Fulfillment
Examples (1) Adam Christ the Second Christians–New Christ as Last

Adam Humanity Adam
(Mark 1:13; Rom (Eph 4:24) (1 Cor 15:42–49;
5:12–21) Heb 2:6–9)
38
(2) Noahic Flood Christ’s Flood Believer’s Flood Apocalyptic

Experience– Death Experience— Flood—Global
and Resurrection Sacrament of Destruction of the
(1 Pet 3:18–21; Mark Baptism World
10:38–29) (1 Pet 3:18–21) (Matt 24:37–39; Luke
17:26–27; 2 Pet 2:5–
9; 3:5–7)
(3) Exodus Christ’s Exodus Spiritual Exodus Apocalyptic

(Matt 1–5; Luke 9:31) (Heb 4; 2 Cor 6:17) Exodus
(Rev 15:1–3)
(4) Sanctuary/Temple Christ as Temple Church as Heavenly

(John 1:14; 2:21; Matt Temple Temple/Ultimate
12:6) (1 Cor 3:16, 17; 2 Temple
Cor 6:16) (Rev 3:12; 7:15;
11:19; 21:3, 22)
* See 1 Cor 10:11 “end of ages”; Heb 1:2 “these last days”; 1 Pet 1:20 “end of times.”
** See 1 Cor 15:24 “end”; Heb 9:28 “second time”; 1 Pet 1:5 “last time.”
The OT faithful Israel of God was comprised of and

encompassed believers in Yahweh: both Jews and engrafted
Gentiles who joined the covenant community (Gen 12:3; 22:18; Isa
45:22; 55:4, 5; 56:1–8; 66:18–21; Ezek 47:21–23). In classical
prophecy God gave kingdom prophecies/promises that
represented His original plan for Israel. Israel’s history—especially
of the exodus from Egypt—was a type of the eschatological
fulfillment, especially in the New Exodus. These kingdom
prophecies and types began to reach their eschatological fulfillment
upon Israel’s return from Babylonian exile, and were to climax in
the advent of the Messiah. When the Messiah, Israel’s King came,
He brought about the fulfillment in principle of all these kingdom
promises and types in Himself (Matt 12:28; 2 Cor 1:20).
It was God’s intention that all these kingdom prophecies and
types also be literally fulfilled in national, theocratic Israel as they
extended the Messianic kingdom throughout the world with
Jerusalem as the capitol city, the missionary metropolis of that
kingdom enduring forever (Isa 2:2–3; Ezek 48:30–35). But when
national, theocratic Israel through its leaders rejected their King, as
39
a theocracy they divorced themselves from God (Matt 23:38). Yet a

faithful remnant of Israel accepted Jesus as the Messiah. The
Christian community (made up of believers, both Jews and
engrafted Gentiles as in OT Israel) is the continuation of the “Israel
of God” (Gal 6:16). There is no replacement theology here, but
continuity and expansion. There is only one, not two true olive
trees (Rom 9–11) in salvation history. God has not forsaken or
forgotten or rejected the Jewish people—the Gospel is always to go
“to the Jew first” (Rom 1:16), and the Jewish people have
preserved through history a witness to the perpetuity of the law.
Before the end many Jews will be grafted back into the olive tree
(which represents the true Israel of God through History,
embodied in Jesus Christ) as they accept Jesus the Messiah (Rom
11:23–24), and in this way (houtos) all the true Israel of God—Jews
and engrafted Gentiles of all ages, OT and NT, will be saved (Rom
11:26).38
The New Testament gives a consistent picture of how the Old
Testament kingdom prophecies and types are to be fulfilled in the
“last days” (Heb 1:1–2) of the New Testament era. The
eschatological substructure of the NT is incisively set forth by
George Eldon Ladd, and before him, by Oscar Cullmann.39 In the
38 For the elaboration of these principles, see Richard M. Davidson, “Interpreting

Old Testament Prophecy,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach (ed.
George W. Reid; Biblical Research Institute Studies 1; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical
Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005), 183–
204; and idem, “Israel and the Church”( unpublished paper presented at the
Biblical Research Institute Committee, Andrews University, October 19, 2010).
39 George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical
Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); cf. Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time:
The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (London: SCM Press,
1962); idem., Salvation in History (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). Cf.
Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 390–397; idem., “Sanctuary Typology,” in
Symposium on Revelation–Book I (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series 6; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute,
40
New Testament perspective, there is one end-time fulfillment, but

encompassing with three distinct phases or aspects: (1) Christ’s
First Advent, (2) the Church, and (3) the Second Advent and
beyond. Christ’s first advent brought a basic fulfillment of the OT
eschatological expectations of the Age to Come. The cross is the
midpoint of salvation history. In Christ the powers of the Coming
Age have irrupted into the Old Age (Mt 12:28). Secondly, for the
church living between the two advents of Christ, it is already true
that upon them “the end of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11). They
are living in the “last days” (Heb 1:2; Acts 2:16,17). The powers of
the Age to Come are already at work through the first-fruits of the
Holy Spirit poured out from the time of Christ’s enthronement in
heaven. The time between the two comings of Christ is thus a
period with an overlapping of the two Ages. It is the time of
tension between the “already” and the “not yet,” between “D” Day
and “VE Day” (to use Cullmann’s World War II analogy). Finally,
the full consummation of the OT expectations is still future, to be
experienced with the glorious, ultimate dawn of the Age to Come.
In short, we may say that the OT kingdom prophecies and types
have one eschatological fulfillment with three aspects: (1) the basic
fulfillment of the OT eschatological hopes centering in the earthly
life and work of Jesus Christ at His first advent; (2) the derived
spiritual fulfillment by the church, the body of Christ in the time of
the tension between the “already” and “not yet;” and (3) the
apocalyptic consummation and final ushering in of the age to come
at the second advent of Christ and beyond.
These three fulfillment aspects may be termed respectively
inaugurated, appropriated, and consummated eschatology. Or,
alternatively, they may be designated Christological, ecclesiological,
and apocalyptic.
1992), 106–111, 129.

41
B. The Three-fold Eschatological Substructure of Biblical

Typology
An important implication for biblical typology follows from the
eschatological perspective we have summarized. We would expect
the antitypical fulfillment of OT typology to correspond to one or
more of the three NT eschatological manifestations of the kingdom
of God—inaugurated, appropriated, or consummated. Inasmuch as
these “kingdom manifestations” are just different aspects of the
one eschatological kingdom, it would not be surprising if the
antitypical fulfillment of the OT typology should regularly
encompass all three aspects.
The examples at the bottom of Chart 4 show this to be the case
with the same historical entities as examined above, which are
identified as typoi already in the OT: Adam, Baptism, Exodus, and
Sanctuary typology. The basic literal fulfillment centers in Jesus at
His first advent; “all the promises of God [including the typological
predictions] in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen” (2 Cor 1:20). Jesus
is the antitypical Adam (Rom 5:12–21); His resurrection saves those
connected to Him by baptism, the antitype of the Flood (1 Pet
3:18–21); He is the New Exodus (Matt 1–5; Luke 9:31), and the
antitypical temple (Matt 12:6; John 1:14; 2:21).
The second aspect of antitypical fulfillment is in the Church,
both corporately and individually. As the spiritual body of Christ (1
Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22, 23; etc.) the Church partakes spiritually of the
fulfillment worked out by Christ. As examples, those who are in
Christ have become a “new humanity [Adam]” (Eph 4:24);
Christians plug into their eschatological deliverance through the
ordinance of baptism, which is an antitype [antitypos] of the Flood (1
Pet 3:18–22); the Church experiences the antitypical Exodus (1 Cor
10; Heb 4; 2 Cor 6:17), and becomes (both corporately and
individually) the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16, 17; 2 Cor 6:16).
Finally, the glorious consummated fulfillment of the types
occurs in connection with the Second Advent of Christ and beyond
when the kingdom of grace becomes the kingdom of glory (Matt
42
25:31) and the people of God are literally re-united with their King
(1 Cor 15:24; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5; Rev 21:3). To follow through on
the examples already utilized above, the resurrected saints at the
second advent will partake of the same glorified nature as Christ,
the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:42–49). The apocalyptic cataclysm that
brings an end to the present world will be the consummated
antitype of the world-wide flood in the days of Noah, and the signs
of the times just before this cataclysm will be a recapitulation of the
evil times in the days of Noah (Matt 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27; 2
Pet 2:5, 9; 3:5–7). Apocalyptic Israel (Rev 7:4; 14:1–5) will
experience the ultimate Exodus and sing the Song of Moses and
Lamb (Rev 15:1–3), and dwell in the ultimate tabernacle/temple of
God (Rev 3:12; 7:15; 21:3, 22).
Recent research has begun to recognize the need to see the
typological fulfillment of OT materials along the lines of this three-
fold structure of salvation history,40 but much more needs to be
done in researching this aspect of typological fulfillment.
C. The Modality of Eschatological Fulfillment

Once we have recognized the existence of the eschatological
substructure of NT antitypical fulfillments, it is important to realize
the three different modes of fulfillment in this substructure. The
eschatological kingdom of God is Christ-centered—centered on
40 For example, Christopher W. Mitchell, The Song of Songs (Concordia

Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia, 2003), builds his methodology on the
theoretical view of typology emerging from my dissertation on NT
hermeneutical structures. He writes (75): “In the author’s opinion, the most
careful recent attempt to define typology may be that by Davidson, Typology in
Scripture. . . . Whether or not the reader agrees entirely with Davidson’s
definitions and exegesis, the hermeneutical issues he raises are relevant for the
interpretation of the Song, and it is profitable to examine the Song in light of
each of the five features he identifies.”
43
Christ the King! Christ is not the center abstractly, but in saving
relation to his people. The eschatological kingdom on earth thus
shares the same modality as Christ’s saving connection with His
people. How Christ relates to His people—that is, the nature of His
kingdom—determines the nature of the language used in reference
to that kingdom. Thus the eschatological fulfillment of the types
shares the same character as the nature of Christ’s presence.
Chart 4 (middle) shows how there are three different modes of
fulfillment for the OT types that correspond to the three different
manifestations of the kingdom of God in NT eschatology.
At the first advent the kingdom or rule of God is literally
embodied in Jesus, His words and deeds (Matt 12:28), and thus the
types are fulfilled literally and locally in connection with Him. But it
was a kingdom of grace, and not glory, that His first advent ushered
in. This kingdom of grace, already experienced proleptically in OT
times by the promise of God, was established in actuality by the
death of Christ.
After Christ’s ascension and heavenly inauguration at the right
hand of the Father, Christ has continued his rule over all things.
But it is a hidden rule as far as man is concerned, for the kingdom
is essentially a heavenly one, and manifests itself on earth in a
spiritual way, i.e., effected by the Holy Spirit. Christ’s presence as
king is in heaven, and His subjects throughout the world relate to
Him only spiritually, by faith. Through His Spirit they receive only
the spiritual first-fruits, the partial fulfillment of the ultimate gifts
He has promised (Rom 8:23). Thus the nature of the typological
fulfillment in the church is spiritual, universal and partial.
At the final consummation the kingdom of grace becomes the
kingdom of glory; the powers of the present, evil age will be
annihilated. Christ is literally reunited with His people, and
ultimately God’s tabernacle will be with men—the tension between
the heavenly and earthly rule of Christ will be resolved by the
transference of the very throne of God and of the Lamb to this
earth. Since Christ is then literally present with his people, at the
44
consummation the types have a glorious, final, universal, and literal

fulfillment.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The preceding discussion of the hermeneutics of Biblical
typology is by no means an exhaustive treatment of OT types used
in the NT, but we have surveyed major strands of NT typological
interpretation in an attempt to lay bare the nature and modality of
NT typological fulfillments within the NT eschatological
substructure employed consistently and coherently by Jesus and the
NT writers.
The prophetic-eschatological substructure of Biblical typology
provides crucial inner-biblical hermeneutical controls for the nature
and modality of typological fulfillments. The following conclusions
and implications from the prophetic-eschatological substructure of
NT typology may be tentatively affirmed. Regarding the prophetic
control:
(1) The prophetic element of typology provides an inner-biblical
control on the identification of typology before type meets antitype;
the NT writers announce the typological linkages that had already
been made manifest in the OT by means of verbal indicators.
(2) A crucial implication of this control is that not necessarily
every person, event or institution in the OT has been divinely
designed to function as a typos. One can not argue like Gerhard von
Rad that the number of OT types is unlimited and wherever one
retrospectively finds a correspondence between OT and NT
historical realities, there is typology. The word typology should not
be equated with a general human analogy as von Rad and other
proponents of “post-critical neo-typology” have claimed. A type is
a specific historical reality which God has divinely ordained to
prefigure its antitype in salvation history, and the identity of each
typos is revealed by an accompanying verbal indicator.
45
(3) Another implication of this prophetic control is that there

may be OT types whose antitypical fulfillment has not been
indicated in the NT. The NT refers to numerous OT types, but
does not claim to exhaust the list of OT types. Exegesis of OT
verbal indicators may reveal additional OT typoi that find fulfillment
in Jesus Christ or the gospel realities brought about by Him. One
example that comes immediately to mind is Joseph, who is
indicated to be a type of the Messiah in Gen 49 and Deut 33, and
whose life parallels that of Jesus in numerous ways, yet is
apparently not explicitly referred to as a type by NT writers.
(4) A final implication that I will mention with regard to the
prophetic control is that what is true in the typology between OT
and NT may also be seen in inner-NT typology. For example, Matt
24 seems to indicate that the destruction of Jerusalem functions as
a typos of the final destruction of the world at the second advent of
Jesus. In this case the verbal indicator of both NT type and antitype
is found accompanying the typology in Matt 24.41 Other future-
pointing typology is found especially in the book of Revelation.42
Regarding the eschatological control:
(5) OT typoi—persons, events, and institutions—find their NT
eschatological fulfillment in one or more of three phases of the
eschatological kingdom of God: inaugurated at the first advent of
Christ; appropriated in the period of the church; and consummated
at the apocalyptic windup of salvation history.
(6) Jesus and the NT writers utilized the motifs of the OT types
in harmony with that phase of the eschatological fulfillment within
41 See Richard M. Davidson, “‘This Generation Shall Not Pass’ (Matt 24:34): Failed
Or Fulfilled Prophecy?” in The Cosmic Battle for Planet Earth: Essays in Honor of
Norman R. Gulley (ed. Ronald A. G. du Preez and Jiří Moskala, Berrien Springs,
Mich.: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological
Seminary, Andrews University, 2003), 307–319.
42 See Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology,” 99–130.
46
which the type was placed in NT salvation history—Christological,

ecclesiological, or apocalyptic.
(7) The OT typological material is often—in fact regularly—
seen to be fulfilled in all three of the phases of NT eschatology—
inaugurated, appropriated, and consummated.
(8) Importance for contemporary biblical hermeneutics. For
those who accept the validity of biblical typology, recognizing the
eschatological substructure undergirding typological fulfillment may
become a key principle for proper typological interpretation. I
suggest that among other purposes, it will guard against
“literalizing” when a spiritual fulfillment is involved, and vice versa.
It will serve toward “rightly dividing the Word of truth.
(9) If one acknowledges the existence of other OT types than
those mentioned explicitly in the NT, or the existence of other
fulfillment phases of a type where not all three phases are
mentioned by NT writers, then by grasping the three-phase
eschatological substructure of NT typological fulfillment one can
properly trace the full range of Christological-ecclesiological-
apocalyptic antitypical correspondences even when they are not
explicitly drawn out in Scripture.
The Christ-centered, salvation-centered nature of typology also
has another hermeneutical implication for “rightly dividing” the
typological fulfillment.
(10) No types are neutral; all have a moral charge in salvation
history either for or against Christ and His people. Some types
prefigure Christ and Gospel realities brought about by Him, while
some types prefigure Christ’s enemies. Some have features of both,
which features remain consistent in their “moral charge” in the
move from type to antitype. Each element of the type must be
identified with reference to its moral orientation, and the antitype
must be seen in that same orientation.
For example, note the complex typology in the sixth plague of
Rev 16:12, as it reveals the typological parallels between the fall of
historical Babylon and the fall of spiritual Babylon. Babylon was
47
opposed to God and His people Israel; the Euphrates River upon
which Babylon was situated was the life source for the city and
therefore against God. The drying up of this life source was
favorable for God’s cause, and likewise the kings from the east
(Cyrus and his armies) coming to conquer Babylon and deliver
God’s people had a positive moral charge. In interpreting the
antitypical fulfillments of these aspects of the fall of Babylon, one
must remain consistent with the moral orientation of the type.
Thus Cyrus is a type of the Messiah (as indicated already in Isa
45:1), the “waters” upon which Babylon sits (Euphrates River) are a
type of the peoples and multitudes that give their life support to
Babylon (Rev 17:15); and the drying up of the Euphrates is a type
of the removal of the popular support for Babylon just before
Babylon’s fall and the deliverance of God’s apocalyptic spiritual
Israel.
This implication underscores the moral purpose of typology.
Understanding biblical typology, especially in its ecclesiological
dimensions as the body of Christ appropriates what is fulfilled in
Him, should provide spiritual insight for practical Christian living.
Typology is not merely to satisfy curiosity about future events, but
also—and especially—to provide spiritual nourishment to the
student of the Word.
(11) A caution: With regard to future aspects of typology that
still remain to be fulfilled, we must be cautious and tentative as in
the fulfillment of verbal prediction. As with predictive prophecy,
predictive/prospective typology was given so that when it comes to
pass we may believe more fully (John 14:29); not every detail may
be clear before the apocalyptic aspect of fulfillment takes place.
(12) Finally, we must not get so caught up in the hermeneutical
theory of typological interpretation that we fail to see the intricate
beauty of the typology. Biblical typology is actually a species of
aesthetics, showing through artistic expression the amazing beauty
of what God has wrought in His work of redemption. How all the
many strands of OT typology ordained by God converge on the
Messiah, and how He fulfills each one perfectly—should cause us,
48
the interpreters and benefactors of that manifold fulfillment—to

stand in awe at the holy beauty of God’s saving work.
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 49-88
GOSPEL CENTERED HERMENEUTICS:

PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES FOR
ADVENTIST BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Dr. Frank M. Hasel
Bogenhofen Seminary, Austria
Abstract
Gospel centered hermeneutics has a long tradition within Protestant
Biblical Interpretation. It recently has received renewed attention from
various Evangelical and Adventist proponents. We will look at some
hermeneutical foundations and presuppositions of gospel centered
hermeneutics and will investigate the interrelationship between Gospel
centered hermeneutics and the hierarchy of truth. How does gospel
centered hermeneutics square with sola scriptura and tota scriptura? Does
Ellen G. White support a gospel centered hermeneutic? We will also look
at some implications and prospects of such a gospel centered approach for
Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics and Theology.
1. INTRODUCTION
From their very beginning Adventist believers considered
themselves to be people of the book, Bible-believing Christians in
the tradition of the Reformers of the sixteenth century.1 They
1 Adventist theologian Hans Heinz has stated that Seventh-day Adventists share
the Protestant heritage by respecting Scripture as dux (leader), magistra (teacher)
and as regina (queen); cf. Hans Heinz, Dogmatik (Bern: Europäisches Institut für
Fernstudium, 1978), 25. See also Frank M. Hasel, “Presuppositions in the
Interpretation of Scripture” in George W. Reid, ed. Understanding Scripture: An
Adventist Approach, Biblical Research Institute Studies, vol. 1 (Silver Springs, MD:
Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,
2005), 36-43. For a helpful overview of the Seventh-day Adventist position on
the Bible as sole rule of faith and practice, see LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of
Destiny (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1972), 91-
96.
50
affirm the Scripture principle that is summarized in the reformation

slogan: sola scriptura – by Scripture alone.2 Sola scriptura is often
described as the “formal principle” of the Reformation,3 identifying
the authoritative source of Christian theology.4 In contrast to the
formal principle, theologians also refer to the so called material
principle which denotes a central teaching of a religious text, such as
sola fide, sola gratia, Jesus Christ or the gospel.5 The material principle is
often employed to criticize the content of Scripture.
In 1847, several years before the Seventh-day Adventist church
was formally organized in 1863, James White felt it necessary to
publicly state his allegiance to the historic Protestant principle on
religious authority when he wrote: “The Bible is a perfect and
2 Chillingworth, one of the English Reformers, has pinpointed the pivotal role of
Scripture for Protestants when he said: “The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the
religion of the Protestants” (W. Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way
of Salvation (1687; repr. London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 460ff. Gerhard Ebeling
has called the “sola scriptura principle” the “battle-cry” of the Protestant
Reformation (“’Sola Scriptura’ and Tradition,” 102). For a more detailed
discussion of the emergence of the sola scriptura principle, see Frank M. Hasel,
Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch: An Investigation and
Assessment of its Origin, Nature and Use, European University Studies, Series XXIII
Theology, Vol. 555 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996), 35ff, reprinted Frank
M. Hasel, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch: An
Investigation and Assessment of its Origin, Nature and Use (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2004).
3 Cf. Anthony N. S. Lane, „Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation
Slogan“ in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. Philip E. Satterthwaite und David
F. Wright, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 298.
4 “Formal and Material Principles of Theology” in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_principle#cite_note-0 , accessed April 19,
2011.
5 Ibid.; Paul Tillich believes that the identification and application of these two
categories have originated in the 19th century (Paul Tillich, A History of Christian
Thought, from its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism [New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1972], 280.
51
Gospel Centered Hermeneutics: Prospects and Challenges for
Adventist Biblical Interpretation
complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice”6 In

similar fashion Ellen G. White has stated that “in our time . . . there
is need of a return to the great Protestant principle – the Bible, and
the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty”.7 For Ellen White it is
Scripture alone that is the key which unlocks Scripture.8 In other
words, sola scriptura already entails a whole hermeneutical approach:
the self-interpretation of Scripture. It is not tradition, not human
reason, nor religious experience, neither culture, nor the verdict of
scholars and church leaders that is the source and norm for
interpreting Scripture.9
The Adventist pioneers were united in insisting that it is by
Scripture alone that God and His will may be safely known.10 Only
6 James White, A Word to the Little Flock (Bruswick, ME: n.p. 1847), 13.
7 Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing
Association, 1950), 204-205.
8 Ellen G. White, Messages to Young People (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing
Association, 1930), 259.

9 The self-interpretation of Scripture is expressed in such formulas as “scriptura
sacra sui ipsius interpres” (holy scripture is its own interpreter), “Scripturam ex
Scriptura explicandam esse” (scripture is explained through scripture), “Scriptura
Scripturam interpretatur” (scripture interprets scripture), cf. Richard A. Muller,
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant
Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,, 1985), 277. In 1522
Luther says: “Also ist die schrifft jr selbs ain aigen liecht. Das ist dann fein, wenn
sich die schrifft selbs außlegt. . .“ (WA 10, III, 238, 10f).
10 Already William Miller stated that “Scripture must be its own expositor, since it
is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound it to me, and he should

guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or
to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom, is my rule, not the
Bible” (William Miller, Rules of Interpretation, No. 5, 69, as quoted in George R.
Knight, ed., 1844 and the Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism (Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1994), 69. According to Ellen G. White
“those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching
the Scriptures upon the same plane that Father Miller adopted” (RH, Nov. 25,
52
if Scripture is the sole source of its own exposition can it function

as supreme authority. Otherwise some other authority gains final
control. Scripture alone is the ruling norm (norma normans) of
theology. Other putative authorities such as religious experience,
human reason,11 and tradition12 are ruled by Scripture (they are
ruled norms, norma normata).13 In fact, the sola scriptura principle was
1884).
11 Prof. Nigel M. de S. Cameron has aptly pointed out that in matters of religion
the judgement of man cannot be other than subjective if it does not lie under the
authority of revelation. “The competence of the human reason to understand
and to judge is not in dispute. The problem arises when man attempts to use his
‘reason’ to understand God and makes decisions about religious questions.
Whereas if his reason works on the data provided by revelation it is able to make
rational decisions, if it endeavours between different elements in the revelation, it
is not being yet more rational: it is being thoroughly irrational. God is no more the
object of our experience such that he may be examined and evaluated by our
(unaided) reason than is a distant view within the experience of an unaided blind
man. If he discourses on the view unaided, he does not reason, he speculates
subjectively and largely meaninglessly. If on the other hand he reads, in a
language accommodated to him in his weakness (i.e. in Braille) a full description
of the view, he may then on the basis of what he has read discourse on the
subject. That would not be unreasonable; it would be the only rational course
open to him other than to give up hope of being able to discuss the view” (Nigel
M. de S. Cameron, The Evangelical - Liberal Debate [Leicester: Religious and
Theological Studies Fellowship, 1984], 46, footnote 7.
12 When Luther maintained the principle of “sola scriptura” he was not suggesting
that the tradition of the church was without value. Rather, he was arguing a case
of relative clarity and weight. In other words, if a conflict arises in the
interpretation of faith, then Scripture has an authority that transcends and judges
any of the church’s traditions. The decisive question is: what is the final norm
and highest authority in deciding biblical truth?
13 Cf. Frank M. Hasel, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch, 21-
22, 31ff. To understand sola scriptura in this sense does not exclude the reality of
cultural influences or the reality of religious experience. To maintain that
Scripture interprets Scripture does not negate the insight from other fields of
study, such as for instance (biblical) archeology, anthropology, or history which
may illumine some biblical aspects and the background of scriptural passages and
53
intended to safeguard the divine authority of Scripture from its

dependence upon other sources, such as the church, tradition,
human reason or experience and precluded the possibility that the
standard of its interpretation could come from outside Scripture.
This should be common knowledge. The challenge that is
before us is that we do no longer reflect and think through what all
this really means. Because the phrase “sola scriptura” is so familiar
to us Seventh-day Adventists, we sometimes seem to use it more as
a legalistic slogan rather than understanding its revolutionary power
for our theology. If it is a legalistic slogan, however, the Bible can
become a dead and lifeless formalistic principle of our theology
rather than being the living Word of God. The challenging question
we face is: shouldn’t our foremost task as theologians be to lead
others to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Shouldn’t Jesus
be the center of our theology, rather than a book? For these very
reasons some have proposed a gospel-centered hermeneutic in our
approach to the interpretation of the Bible. There is much more at
stake with a gospel centered hermeneutic than these legitimate
concerns, as we shall see in a moment.
Recently some have suggested a Christological approach in
biblical hermeneutics, where Jesus Christ, the gospel, the message
of justification by faith, or some other central theme of Scripture
(i.e. a material principle) becomes a unifying center and key for the
hermeneutical task. This has significant implications for our
interpretation of the Bible.14 Before we turn to some crucial aspects
thus contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of the biblical text.

Neither does it exclude the help of other resources in the task of interpretation,
such as biblical lexicons, dictionaries, concordances and other books and
commentaries. Cf. “Methods of Bible Study”, General Conference Committee,
Annual Council, 1986, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, (4. j. k). This carefully worded
document was published in the Adventist Review (January 22, 1987), 18-20.
14 See Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-
54
of such a Christological approach it is important to briefly recall a

few important aspects of the sola scriptura principle that should be
kept in mind.
2. THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE

To speak of Scripture as being its own interpreter implies the
corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. Holy Scripture is sufficient
to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15). The Bible is the
polestar for our belief and conduct. It is the sole standard by which
all doctrine and experience must be tested (Isa. 8:20; John 17:17;
Heb. 4:12).15 To know God and His will we need no other source
Theological Era (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000); Graeme

Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of
Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
2007); Siegfried Zimmer, Schadet die Bibelwissenschaft dem Glauben? Klärung
eines Konflikts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). From a Seventh-
day Adventist perspective, see the articles by Norman R. Gulley, „Toward a
Christ-Centered Expression of Faith” Ministry vol. 70/3 (1997): 24–27, Rolf J.
Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip:
Christologische Schriftauslegung und adventistischeTheologie“, Spes Christiana
vol. 11 (2000): 46–60 and Rolf J. Pöhler, „Does Adventist Theology Have, nor
Need, a Unifying Center?“ in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in
Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle, eds. Daniel Heinz, Jirí Moskala and Peter M. van
Bemmelen, (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University, 2009), 205–220. See also
Frank M. Hasel, „Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture“ in
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, ed. George W. Reid, Biblical
Research Institute Studies (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2005), 27–46, esp. 40-43, for some
critical interaction with such a position.
15 “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible
only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of
learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical
councils, as numerous and discordant as the churches which they represent, the
55
save Scripture alone. Scripture is sufficient as the unerring guide to

divine truth. The intrinsic authority of Scripture as sole source of its
own exposition rests in its character as inspired Word of God.
However, this divine authority is recognized for what it is only
when the Holy Spirit illumines the mind. Calvin has aptly pointed
out this fact when he speaks about the self-authentication of
Scripture.16 It is God Himself, through the authenticating witness
voice of the majority – not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence
for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or
precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support” (Ellen G.
White, Great Controversy, 595; cf. Ibid., vii, 204).
16 “Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly
taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated;
hence it is not right to subject it to proofs and reasoning. And the certainty it
deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins
reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is
sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we
believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from
God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as we were
saying upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very
mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of
genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment
and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork! This we do, not as persons
accustomed to seize upon some unknown thing, which, under closer scrutiny,
displeases them, but fully conscious that we hold the unassailable truth! Nor do
we do this as those miserable men who habitually bind over their minds to the
thraldom of superstition; but we feel that the undoubted power of his divine
majesty lives and breathes there. By this power we are drawn and inflamed,
knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively
than by mere human willing or knowing” (J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], I.vii.5). Similarly:
“Unless this certainty, higher and stronger than any human judgement, be
present, it will be vain to fortify the authority of Scripture by arguments, to
establish it by common agreement of the church, or to confirm it with other
helps. For unless this foundation is laid, its authority will always remain in doubt.
Conversely, once we have embraced it devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have
56
of His Holy Spirit, who guarantees the divine authority of Scripture

and frees Scripture from being dependent upon the church or any
other external authority. According to Seventh-day Adventist
scholar Richard Davidson “all additional knowledge, experience, or
revelation must build upon and remain faithful to the all-sufficient
foundation of Scripture.”17 Scripture interpreting Scripture leads to
another corollary aspect: the unity of Scripture. The question of the
unity of the Bible is foundational to biblical theology and vital to
biblical interpretation.18
3. THE UNITY OF SCRIPTURE

Having God as its ultimate author (2 Peter 1:20, 21), and being
inspired by the divine Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16) we can assume a
fundamental unity and harmony among its various parts. Only on
the basis of its unity can Scripture function as its own interpreter.
Only then is it possible to come up with a harmony in doctrine and
teaching. If there is no overarching unity in Scripture, as is
postulated by the historical-critical method and critical scholarship,
recognized it to be above the common sort of things, those arguments – not

strong enough before to engraft and fix the certainty of Scripture in our minds –
become very useful aids” (ibid., I.viii,1). The self-evident character of the divinity
of Scripture is expressed in the following words: “As to their question – How
can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the
degree of the church? – it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to
distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed,
Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black
things do of their colour, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste” (ibid.,
I,vii.2).
17 Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation“ in Raoul Dederen, ed. Handbook
of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12

(Hagerstown, MD : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000), 61.
18 Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 234.
57
one looks in vain for a normative teaching of Scripture on any

given issue. Without the unity of Scripture there will be only
disparate and dissonant voices that reflect a conflicting pluralism
within Scripture.19 Without the unity of Scripture the church has no
means to distinguish truth from error and to repudiate heresy.
Scripture would have lost its convincing power and liberating force.
The New Testament writers, however, testify to a high view of
Scripture and assume its unity. This becomes obvious when they
are supporting their point by quoting several Old Testament
sources as of equal and harmonious weight.20 They treat the various
parts of Scripture as consistent with each other. This indicates that
different Bible writers provide different emphases on the same
event or topic, thus contributing to a rich and multifaceted
expression of divine truth where all the doctrines of the Bible will
cohere with each other. The unity of Scripture also implies that
Scripture will not be set against Scripture. 21 In the words of Ellen
G. White: “God never contradicts Himself.”22
19 For a critical engagement with some premises of religious pluralism, see Frank
M. Hasel, “The Challenge of Religious Pluralism” in David J. B. Trim and Daniel
Heinz, eds., Parochialism, Pluralism, and Contextualization: Challenges to Adventist
Mission in Europe (19th – 21st Centuries), Adventistica: Schriftenreihe des
Historischen Archivs der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten in Europa, vol. 9
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2010), 187-197.
20 Davidson has pointed out that, “for example, in Romans 3:10-18 we have
scriptural citations from Ecclesiastes (7:20), Psalms (14:2, 3; 5:10; 10:7), and
Isaiah (59:7, 8). Scripture is regarded as an inseparable, coherent whole”
(Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 64). See also the excellent discussion in
Wayne A. Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating
a Doctrine of Scripture” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, eds., Scripture
and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 19-59.
21 Davidson, „Biblical Interpretation,“ 65.
22 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1958), 1:162, hereinafter quoted as 1SM); “He who has a
58
3.1. Tota Scriptura – All of Scripture

The unity of Scripture includes the concept of tota Scriptura (“all
of Scripture”). In order to learn what Scripture has to say on any
given subject we have to consider all that is written in Scripture. To
gain a comprehensive and complete understanding of what God
wants to state in the Bible it is not enough to just pick out one
statement to the neglect of other statements on the same question.
This means that “the two Testaments have a reciprocal relationship
in which they mutually illuminate each other. . . . Neither
Testament is superseded by the other, although the later revelation
is tested by the former.”23 Since the Scriptures “ultimately have a
single divine Author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a
particular topic in order to be able to consider all the contours of
the topic,”24 taking into consideration the literary as well as the
historical context of a passage. The best example for this trust in
Scripture are the Berean Christians, who “were of more noble character
than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts
17:11 NIV).25
knowledge of God and His word has a settled faith in the divinity of the Holy
Scriptures. He does not test the Bible by man's ideas of science. He brings these
ideas to the test of the unerring standard. He knows that God's word is truth,
and truth can never contradict itself; whatever in the teaching of so-called science
contradicts the truth of God's revelation is mere human guesswork” (Ellen G.
White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1946), 8:325
(hereinafter quoted as 8T etc.); cf. idem., Ministry of Healing, (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 1942),462).
23 Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 64.
24 Davidson, “Biblical Interpretation,” 65.
25 From passages such as 1 Timothy 5:18, where Paul juxtaposes a statement of
Jesus with a quotation from the OT or 2 Peter 3:15-16, where Peter appears to
recognize Paul’s letters as Scripture it is clear that already in New Testament
times the apostolic writings were accepted as being part of Holy Scripture,
59
4. THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

Finally we have to remember that the appeal to Scripture alone
makes little sense if Scripture is unclear as to its meaning. It has
been pointed out that “biblical writings seem to be among the
literature that in practice interpreters find intelligible.”26 Indeed, the
message of the Bible is sufficiently clear to be understood – by
children and by adults alike. And yet the content of Scripture gives
even the most learned person ample opportunity to grow in
knowledge and to deepen one’s understanding of God and His
revealed will. In order to understand the biblical message one does
not need any external source, such as an ecclesiological magisterium,
to clarify and determine its meaning.27 The truth of the clarity of
Scripture has been recognized by many Christians in the
Reformation tradition.28 The Bible repeatedly reminds us of its own
clarity. The biblical testimony encourages readers to study the Bible
together with the OT. Cf. Peter M. van Bemmelen, “Revelation and Inspiration,”
in Raoul Dederen, ed. Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Commentary
Reference Series, vol. 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing
26 John Goldingay, Models for Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1995), 248.
27 On the clarity of Scripture, see the excellent work by Bernhard Rothen, Die
Klarheit der Schrift. Martin Luther: Die wiederentdeckten Grundlagen (Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 58 and passim.
28 In the words of Ellen G. White: “The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the
most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to
understand it” (5T, 663; cf. Idem., The Great Controversy, vii). William Miller, who’s
hermeneutical principles are foundational for Seventh-day Adventists, stated:
“All scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and
study. . . . Nothing revealed in the scripture can or will be hid from those who
ask in faith, not wavering” (William Miller, Rules of Interpretation, No. 2 and 3, 69,
in George R. Knight, 1844 and Sabbatarian Adventism, 69).
60
for themselves because they are able to understand God’s message

to them (cf. Deut. 6:6-7; 30:11-14; Ps. 19:7; 119:130; Luke 1:3-4;
John 20:30-31; Acts 17:11; Rom. 10:17; Rev. 1:3).29 The consistent
example of the Bible writers shows that the Scriptures are to be
taken in their plain, normal, literal sense, unless a clear and obvious
figure is intended or a symbolic passage is employed.30 The clarity
of Scripture assumes the priesthood of all believers, rather than
restricting the interpretation of Scripture to a select few, the clerical
priesthood, or the “priesthood” of the trained scholars (of higher
criticism). This means that in the study of Scripture, itself all of
Scripture is the key to unlock the meaning of Scripture. While even
unbelievers can read and intellectually understand the literal and
historical sense of Scripture (the sensus literae), the illuminating Holy
Spirit must be present that the message will be received as true and
embraced in obedience.31 And even the regenerate interpreter of
Scripture needs the continual aid and enlightenment of the Spirit
because we are called to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to
Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5 NIV). Thus, the true significance of the
message of Scripture can only be understood by those whose minds
are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.32 Only in accepting the biblical
29 Davidson, „Biblical Interpretation,“ 65.

30 Davidson, „Biblical Interpretation,“ 65. This also applies to parables. They are
stories that illustrate spiritual truths. Even though the details regarding people,
events, times, and places in the parables may not be actually historical, the
spiritual truths they convey are literal and real.
31 Cf. William J. Larkin, Jr., Culture and biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying
the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1988), 303. The apostle Paul has stated it in the following words: “I keep asking
that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom
and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be
enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his
glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe” (Eph.
1:17-19 NIV).
32 “A true knowledge of the Bible can be gained only through the aid of that Spirit
61
message as true and following it obediently does deeper

understanding take place. With these brief preliminary remarks let
us now turn our attention to the Christological principle of Bible
interpretation. We will begin our investigation of a gospel centered
hermeneutic with Martin Luther, who has left us a lasting legacy
with this approach, which is alive in theology even today.
5. LUTHER’S CHRISTOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLE

INTERPRETATION
It was Martin Luther, who, while affirming the authority of
Scripture and heralding the sola scriptura principle,33 also proposed
another hermeneutical principle that can be termed the
“Christological principle”.34 This Christological principle has been
instrumental in bringing about a subtle, yet significant shift in the
understanding of theological authority and the hermeneutics of the
Bible. While affirming the divine authority of Scripture and
Scripture’s priority over church tradition, Luther’s theological
authority was closely connected to his understanding of the gospel.
by whom the Word was given” (Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, CA:
1952), 189; cf. Idem., 5T, 704; Idem., Christ’s Object Lesson (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1941), 408.
33 It is Luther’s courage to emphasise Scripture alone as the authoritative norm by
which every doctrine of the church is to be tested that seems to be what Ellen G.
White praised especially about the great Protestant reformer. Ellen G. White
thereby did not approve everything Martin Luther said or taught (cf. The Great
Controversy, chapters 7 and 8, 120-170, esp. 148-149, 139.
34 According to Goldsworthy Christ and the apostles used a Christological
hermeneutic that soon was eclipsed in later church history (Gospel Centered
Hermeneutics, 91ff). While Luther may not have been the first to propose a
Christological hermeneutic, his approach certainly made a lasting impact in
modern theology that is still with us.
62
For Luther, it was Christ and the gospel of justification by faith

alone, to which Scripture attests, that constituted the center of
Scripture and thus ultimately its final authority. Here Luther’s
famous preface to the epistle of James comes to mind where he
claims that whatever does not point to Christ or draws out Christ
(in German: “was Christum treibet”) is not apostolic, even though
Peter or Paul would teach it. On the other hand, whatever “drives
home” Christ is apostolic, even though it would come from Judas,
Annas, Pilate, and Herod.35 Thus, for Luther the content of Scripture
(or: the material principle) is Christ, and from this fact, he seems to
repeatedly assign its authority. All Scripture revolves around Him as
its authentic center. This “Christological concentration” can be
seen as the decisive element in Luther’s interpretation and use of
Scripture.36 Thus, Luther actually contended not “for the primacy
of Scripture in the strict sense, but for the primacy of the gospel to
which Scripture attests and, hence, for the primacy of Scripture as
the attestation to the gospel.”37 Luther valued the Bible “because it
is the cradle that holds Christ. For this reason, the gospel of
justification by grace through faith served as Luther’s hermeneutical
key to Scripture.”38 According to Luther, Scripture must be
understood in favor of Christ, not against Him. One consequence
of this Christological hermeneutic was that if Scripture does not
refer to Christ it must not be held to be true Scripture.39 Christ is at
once the center of Scripture and the Lord over Scripture. Thus,
Luther’s understanding of the gospel became the basis for
determining the relative authority of the various canonical
35 LW 35, 396; WADB 7, 385.

36 Cf. Frank M. Hasel, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G.
Bloesch, 44-46.
37 Grenz, Renewing the Center, 57-58.
38 Grenz, Renewing the Center, 58.
39 Cf. WA 18, 607; LW 34:112 (Theses Concerning Faith and Law).

63
writings.40 If Scripture is queen, Christ is King – even over

Scripture!41 This means, as has been pointed out, that if a passage
of Scripture seems to be in conflict with Luther’s Christ-centered
interpretation, his interpretation becomes “gospel-centered
criticism of Scripture.”42 Christ and Scripture can be set over
against each other because Luther ultimately ranked the personal
Word (Christ), the spoken Word (Gospel), and the written Word
(Scripture).43 According to renowned theologian Gerhard Ebeling,
40 It is a well known fact, that Luther called the book of James “an epistle of
straw” meaning it is an empty, useless, worthless epistle, because he could not
find Christ and the gospel of justification by faith alone in the book of James
with his emphasis on the importance of works. Cf. Martin Luther, “Preface to
the New Testament” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. Timothy Lull
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 117.
41 In his 1535 Lectures on Galatians, while replying to opponents who adduce biblical
passages stressing works and merits, Luther stresses the following point: “You
are stressing the servant, that is Scripture – and not all of it at that or even its
most powerful part, but only a few passages concerning works. I leave this
servant to you. I for my part stress the Lord, who is the King of Scripture” (LW
26, 295; WA 40, I, 459, 14-16). In the same year Luther again underscored
Scripture’s servant status relative to Christ when he wrote: “Briefly, Christ is
Lord, not the servant, the Lord of the Sabbath, of law, and of all things. The
Scriptures must be understood in favour of Christ, not against him. For that
reason they must either refer to him or must not be held to be true Scriptures. . .
.Therefore, if the adversaries press the Scriptures against Christ, we urge Christ
against the Scriptures. We have the Lord, they have the servants; we have the
Head, they the feet or members, over which the head necessarily dominates and
takes precedence. If one of them had to be parted with, Christ or the law, the law
would have to be let go, not Christ. For if we have Christ, we can easily establish
laws and we shall judge all things rightly. Indeed, we would make new
decalogues, as Paul does in all the epistles, and Peter, but above all Christ in the
gospel” (LW 34, 112, 40-53).
42 Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1966), 81.

43 This idea of a hierarchy of truths is an element that will surface in more recent
proposals as well. For a Seventh-day Adventist proponent of such a view, see

64
this distinction and ranking leads to a canon within the canon,44

where Christ becomes the hermeneutical key to the proper
understanding of Scripture. This, however, compromises the
strength of the Scripture principle, where Scripture is the sole
source of its own exposition. For “if Scripture is interpreted either
by a doctrinal center or by a tradition it is no longer Scripture that
is interpreting itself – rather it is we who are interpreting Scripture
by means of a doctrine or tradition, to which Scripture is in
practice, being subjected.”45 Thus, it is not surprising that Luther’s
Christological method “sharpened into a tool of theological
criticism”46 where ultimately the interpreter becomes the judge and
Rolf J. Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben als hermenutisches

Prinzip: Christologische Schriftauslegung und adventistischeTheologie“. It also
plays an important role in recent ecumenical dialogue. According to Wolfgang
Beinert “at present, the participants in the ecumenical dialogue – including the
Catholic Church . . . have recognized that the principle of the hierarchy of truths
points out a way toward reconciliation and understanding” (Wolfgang Beinert,
“Hierarchy of Truths” in Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, eds.,
Handbook of Catholic Theology [New York: Crossroad, 1995], 335-336). In similar
vein, W. Henn has stated that the hierarchy of truths “promises to be a useful
tool in the dialogue between Christianity and world religions and in the task of
credibly addressing the Christian message to a secularized society. Furthermore,
it can serve as a hermeneutical framework for the perennial task of studying and
expressing anew the Christian tradition. Emphasizing, as it does, the ordered
nature of revelation, the hierarchy of truths could prove very useful for a more
profound understanding of doctrinal development. It remains a conciliar
teaching that is full of promise” (W. Henn, “Hierarchy of Truths” in René
Latourelle and Rino Fisichella, eds., Dictionary of Fundamental Theology [New York:
Crossroad, 1995], 427). See also the influential proposal by Heinrich Fries and
Karl Rahner, Einigung der Kirchen – reale Möglichkeit (Freiburg: Herder, 31987).
44 Gerhard Ebeling, “’Sola Scriptura’ and Tradition,” in Gerhard Ebeling, The Word
of God and Tradition: Historical Studies Interpreting the Divisions of Christianity, trans. S.
H. Hooke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 118.
45 Brian Gaybba, TheTradition: An Ecumenical Breakthrough? (Rome: Herder, 1971),
221.
46 Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its
65
stands above Scripture. The irony of this theological criticism is

that it is done in the name of Jesus Christ and the gospel.
6. THE ARGUMENTS FOR A CHRISTOLOGICAL

APPROACH
When we look at more recent proposals for a Christological
approach we find several reasons that are mentioned for its
attractiveness. While not all of the following reasons and arguments
are employed by all proponents, it is instructive to learn what
arguments have been brought forth in support of adopting a
Christological approach. The following presentation does not claim
to be exhaustive, but it provides a helpful overview of different
arguments.
6.1. The Christological Approach Is Scriptural

Perhaps the greatest attractiveness for adopting a Christological
approach among recent Evangelical and Seventh-day Adventist
theologians is the claim that the hermeneutical method of Jesus and
the apostles was Christological and Christ-centered, i.e. it is
Scriptural.47 It is claimed that the gospels present Jesus as the
definite interpretation of the Old Testament (cf. Luke 24: 27, 44-
45).48 Pöhler lists the following texts in support of the fact that
Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville, TN:

Abingdon, 1972), 24.
47 Cf. Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 91.; Zimmer, Schadet die
Bibelwissenschaft dem Glauben?, 63, 85-90; Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den
Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip: Christologische Schriftauslegung und
adventistischeTheologie“, 55-57.
48 Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 81.
66
Jesus is the hermeneutical key for a proper understanding of

Scripture49: Lk 24:27; John 5:39f; Rom 10:4; 2Cor 1:20; 2Cor 3:14-
16; Gal 3:24; Col 1:25-2:3. According to Pöhler these passages
make clear that Jesus Christ is the central message, i.e. the content
and center of Holy Scripture and is an indispensable hermeneutical
key for the understanding of Holy Scripture.50 According to Pöhler,
this Christological Principle of interpretation is not superimposed
on the Bible from outside, but is commanded by Scripture itself
and practiced in the NT. Hence, Pöhler claims that to accept and
practice such a Christocentric hermeneutic is an expression of
reverence for the revelatory word of the Bible.51 In similar manner
Siegfried Zimmer maintains that a hermeneutic that honors Jesus
Christ as interpretative key of Scripture is built on the Bible.52 Such
an approach, Zimmer claims, does not diminish the Bible. Rather it
means to elevate Jesus Christ and to give him the honor that is due
to him.53
The implication of such a position is clear: anyone who does
not practice a Christ-centered hermeneutic does not really honor
the Bible. In fact, whoever places the Bible on the same
authoritative level as Christ thinks too little about Christ and robs
him the first place that is due to him.54 Any hermeneutic that does
not have Christ as its center and him as hermeneutical key is not
faithful to Scripture.55 According to Zimmer, once we adopt a
gospel centered approach in our biblical hermeneutic we can no
49 Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip:

Christologische Schriftauslegung und adventistischeTheologie“, 55-56.
50 Ibid., 56.
51 Ibid., 56.
52 Zimmer, Schadet die Bibelwissenschaft dem Glauben?, 55.
53 Ibid., 63.
54 Ibid., 63.
55 Cf. Ibid., 78, 86, 88-90.

67
longer say that we are faithful to Scripture, we can only say that we
are faithful to Jesus Christ.56 To be faithful to Jesus is more
important than being faithful to Scripture.57 This first reason in
support of a gospel-centered hermeneutic already indicates, that we
are confronted with an approach that is significantly different from
our historic Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic. It substantially
changes the role and authority of the Bible for theology. Hence, we
can also better understand, why the controversy about the correct
biblical hermeneutic often is fought so fiercely: at stake is our
proper allegiance and the correct use of Scripture. We will turn to
the important relationship between Jesus and the Bible later. First
we will present some other reasons in support of a gospel centered
hermeneutic.
6.2. Jesus Functions as a Key for Theological Unity between

the Testaments
Another reason that is given in support of a gospel-centered
hermeneutic is that “Jesus says that the whole Old Testament, not
56 Ibid., 88. Along similar lines Pöhler maintains – building on the distinction that
the Bible is not the word of God, but rather contains the Word of God – that it
is not enough to affirm our faithfulness to the Bible, by upholding it as
inscripturated word of God. More than that, it is important to testify, that our
loyalty and devotion in reality is not given to the Bible but to the living Christ,
who is proclaimed and testified in it. From this perspective Holy Scripture is
God’s word to us, inasmuch as it contains the Word of God in the form of Jesus
Christ. Without this hermeneutical premise a written testimony would be at the
center of faith rather than a person. A messenger (the Bible) would occupy the
place of the message (Christ) (see Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den
Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip: Christologische Schriftauslegung und
adventistische Theologie“, 59).
68
merely a few selected texts, is about him.”58 Thus, Jesus functions

as a theological center that provides unity in Scripture. Rather than
seeing the unity of the biblical message coming from the divine
inspiration of all Scripture, Goldsworthy claims that Christ “defines
the unity of the biblical message. The unity of the canon is a
dogmatic construct stemming from Christology. Unity is a
theological presupposition, not an empirically based construct.”59
The implication of course is that aside from Christ, Scripture is a
disparate and conflicting book. Indeed, Gerhard Maier has aptly
pointed out that the so called “center of Scripture” for all practical
purposes became the substitute for a lost unity of Scripture.60
Interestingly, this is precisely the approach Goldsworthy is taking,
when he writes that “all other hermeneutic criteria must bow to the
centrality of Christ the fulfiller. Only thus can we deal with the
interpretative tensions that Jesus creates over key Israelite themes
such as the law, prophetic fulfillment and the temple.”61
58 Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 252, 251, 82. It is claimed that “Jesus

and the apostles regarded the whole of the Old Testament as testimony to the
Christ; it is all [emphasis in the original] about Jesus. . . . there is no dimension of
the Old Testament message that does not in some way foreshadow Christ” (Ibid.,
251).
59 Ibid.
60 Gerhard Maier, Biblische Hermeneutik (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 21991),
174. Maier continues his penetrating analysis of the implications of a „center of

Scripture“ for theology by pointing out that it is impossible to replace the unity
of Scripture through a center or to use one against the other (175). Biblical
revelation does not know the term “center of Scripture”. This fact alone should
caution us to use it as a slogan or a catch phrase and buss word (176).
61 Goldsworthy, 82.
69
6.3. Jesus Christ Is THE Decisive Revelation of God

Siegfried Zimmer in his book Schadet die Bibelwissenschaft dem
Glauben? forcefully argues for the priority of Jesus Christ over
against the Bible because of a certain understanding of revelation.
In contrast to Jewish Religion, where God’s acting in history and
his revelatory words led to a tradition where these Words were
preserved in Holy Scripture and Scripture was seen as the decisive
source of God’s revelation62, Zimmer sees Jesus Christ as the
revelation of God. Building his case on the gospel of John he
comes to the conclusion that the word “revealing” does not once
refer to the Old Testament or a piece of literature in early
Christianity. Instead the “I am” words of Jesus focus the revelatory
event in his person.63 Zimmer maintains that the other gospels, in
similar manner, present the person of Jesus Christ as the light of
revelation (Luke 2:29-32).64 According to Zimmer, for Paul the
encounter with the risen Christ is the decisive revelation of God.
Thus he concludes that revelation for Paul is the personal
encounter with the resurrected Christ, rather than the Old
Testament or any of his writings.65 Nevertheless, he has to admit
that the apocalyptic book of Revelation is a special case, because
here the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ is closely connected
with the written text.66 But Zimmer argues that this is the only
apocalyptic book in the New Testament and therefore its future
62 From a Seventh-day Adventist perspective on this point, see Raoul Dederen,

„The Revelation-Inspiration Phenomenon According to the Bible Writers” in
Frank Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson, eds., Issues in Revelation and Inspiration
(Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1992), 9-29.
64 Ibid., 71.
65 Ibid., 71–73.
66 Ibid., 73–74.
70
perspective does not hold the same foundational meaning as the

self-revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. For Zimmer,
the book of Revelation is but an additional revelation on the basis
of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ.67 A selective use of biblical
material limits divine revelation to the self-revelation of God in
Jesus Christ and gives the latter his preeminent role – even for
biblical hermeneutics.
6.4. Jesus Is the Only Hermeneutic Principle for every Word

from God
In a slightly different line of argument Goldsworthy maintains
that “the fact that Jesus is the one mediator between God and
people has enormous hermeneutical implications (1 Tim. 2:5).”68
For Goldsworthy “the communicator (God), the message (God’s
word) and the receiver (humanity) are all united in the God/Man
who is himself the message.”69 Goldsworthy concludes that
therefore “Jesus Christ is the mediator of the meaning of
everything that exists. In other words, the gospel is the hermeneutical
norm for the whole reality.”70 For Goldsworthy, “Jesus is the reason for
the creation and therefore interprets the ultimate significance of
every datum of reality.”71 Because Jesus “has merited entrance into
his Fathers kingdom” and “we enter that kingdom by being in
67 Ibid., 74.
68 Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 62. Goldsworthy states: “Jesus is the
one mediator between God and man. He is thus the hermeneutical principle for
every word from God” (Ibid., 252). That Jesus is the only mediator between God
and man is biblically correct. To jump from soteriology to epistemology,
however, is inappropriate and confuses different categories.
69 Ibid., 62.
70 Ibid., 63, 252. Again Goldsworthy inappropriately confuses and intermingles
ontology with epistemology.

71 Ibid., 252.
71
union, through faith, with Jesus,”72 Goldsworthy claims that Jesus

has priority over the Bible.
6.5. Jesus Has Priority over the Bible

The priority of Jesus Christ over the Bible is also argued on the
following grounds: a person is a different category than a book.
Information consists of sentences. Sentences can be put in written
words that can be collected in a book. A person, however, cannot
be inscripturated. A person consists of more than mere sentences.
A person is more than the sum of all sentences. A book can tell
about a person. It can give testimony to that person. But a book
can never substitute a person.73 Because God has revealed himself
in the person of Jesus Christ – and not only in his message – Jesus
is not just a prophet, but our redeemer and savoir.74 Zimmer claims
that this elevates Jesus over the Bible.75 According to Zimmer, this
also distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam, both of
whom are book-religions in the truest sense of the word.76
Christianity in contrast has a person, Jesus Christ, standing over
and above Holy Scripture. This is unique and without parallel.77
The foundation of Christianity is first of all a person and only in
72 Ibid.
74 Ibid., 59.
75 Zimmer points out that we are not baptized in the name of the Bible but in the
name of Jesus Christ and the triune God (Ibid., 61, footnote 75).
76 Ibid., 56.
77 According to Zimmer, in Islam the Koran is higher than Mohamed and in
Judaism the Thora is higher than Moses. In fact both religions affirm that the
divine revelation that was given is more important than the person who received
it. Furthermore, in Jewish and Islamic thinking the Koran and the Thora existed
already in heaven (Ibid.).
72
subsequent manner a book.78 The reason why Jesus – in contrast to

Mohamed and Moses – stands over and above Scripture is seen in
the fact that God has revealed himself in the person Jesus Christ.
This goes far beyond revelations that were given to prophets.79 We
will address the important relationship between Jesus and the Bible
in section 1.6, under the heading: “The Relationship Between
Christ and Scripture – A Critical Assessment and Response”.
6.6. A Christological Approach Allows Confessional Unity by

Establishing a Hierarchy of Truths
Rather than focusing on articles of faith that distinguish
different denominations and believers from each other, a
Christological focus is believed to foster unity among churches and
within denominations. This is achieved through a hierarchy of
truths, where Jesus Christ is the most important article of faith
upon which everyone can agree without problems. Of course,
whenever something or someone is put into the center, other
things move to the periphery and are marginalized. For Stanley
Grenz, who writes from a Neo-Evangelical perspective, the balance
between center and margin is of vital importance for the vitality of
the church.80 According to Grenz, this center has to be a theological
center81 that needs renewal. Grenz follows the lead of Hans Frei,
who suggested this approach to overcome the split into different
78 According to Zimmer this is evident in Jesus’ preexistence. According to the

New Testament Jesus has a divine origin, not the Bible. Jesus was in everything
like God (Phil 2:6), not the Bible. Jesus rested in the bosom of the father (John
1:18), not the Bible. Jesus is the A and O, the first and the last, the beginning and
the end, not the Bible (Rev. 22:13) (Ibid., 56–57).
79 Ibid., 57.
80 Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era,
336.
81 Ibid., 333.
73
schools of thought. According to Yale theologian Frei, what is

needed is “a kind of generous orthodoxy which would have in it an
element of liberalism . . . and an element of evangelicalism.”82
Grenz takes up the idea of a “generous orthodoxy” from Frei and
states that “the situation in which the church is increasingly
ministering requires a “genereous orthodoxy” characteristic of a
renewed ‘center’ that lies beyond the polarizations of the past. . .”83
But what does such a renewed center of generous orthodoxy look
like? Grenz gives his answer: “A renewed center that is truly
evangelical must be characterized above all by a focus on the
gospel.”84 Grenz points out that “for Luther and others the gospel
served as the linchpin connecting ecclesiology and Christology. . . .
A renewed evangelical center must appropriate anew this
Reformation understanding of the gospel-centeredness of the
church.”85 Grenz honestly admits that “keeping the primacy of the
gospel clearly in view is a necessary antidote to the temptation,
common among doctrinally oriented traditions, to assert that right
doctrine is essential to salvation.”86 In other words, the value of
sound biblical doctrine and correct teaching is diminished in a
gospel-centered approach. This is also seen by others who see the
following effect of ranking Jesus Christ higher than the Bible: faith
in Christ unites us even when we do not share the same view of
Scripture.87 In similar manner Seventh-day Adventist theologian
Rolf Pöhler writes that the common faith in Jesus is stronger than
82 Hans Frei, „Response to ‚Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,‘“

Trinity Journal vol. 8 (Spring 1987): 21, as quoted approvingly in Ibid., 325.
83 Ibid., 331.
84 Ibid., 337.
85 Ibid., 338.
86 Ibid., 343.

74
differences of opinion with regards to our use of the Bible.

According to Pöhler, questions of interpretation and hermeneutical
methods, while not unimportant, are of secondary significance as
long as faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel are present.88
6.7. The Distinction between Formal and Material Principle

The Formal principle and material principle are two
categories in Christian theology to identify and distinguish the
authoritative source of theology (formal principle), normally the
Bible, from the message of the Bible, especially its central doctrine
or the central teaching (material principle).89 As early as 1845 the
Protestant theologian and historian Philip Schaff discussed them in
his The Principle of Protestantism.90 According to F. E. Meyer’s
findings the formal principle in various churches is fairly similar: in
Protestant churches it is the Bible. The material principle, however,
i.e. the question as to what constitutes the most important or
central teaching of the church, is answered differently in various
(Protestant) churches.91
The disparate suggestions as to what constitutes the material
principle in theology disqualifies the material principle as a useful tool
88 Pöhler, „Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip:

Christologische Schriftauslegung und adventistische Theologie“, 58.
89 Paul Tillich thinks that the identification and application of this pair of
categories in theological thinking originated in the 19th century (Tillich, A History

of Christian Thought, 280).
90 Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism as Related to the Present State of the Church,
John W. Nevin, trans., (Chambersburg, PA: Publication Office of the German

Reformed Church, 1845), 54-94.
91 Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_principle (accessed April 19, 2011).
75
to distinguish between essential doctrines that cannot be given up

and teaching traditions that are changeable.92
6.8. A Christological Approach Avoids Sectarian Clichés

At times a Christocentric approach to theology is advocated in
order to avoid sectarian clichés. This is one of the reasons Norman
Gulley calls for a Christocentric arrangement of our fundamental
beliefs.93 In all fairness to Gulley it has to be pointed out, however,
that he is concerned more with a systematic – or Christocentric
arrangement of our doctrines than with a Christological
hermeneutic. He certainly does not advocate Christ or the gospel as
hermeneutical key for the interpretation of Scripture, but pleads for
a Christ-centeredness in our fundamental beliefs.94
6.9. Ellen G. White Supports a Christological Approach

Among Seventh-day Adventist theologians Ellen G. White is
also quoted in support of a Christological hermeneutic. Some of
her statements are used to legitimize a Christological hermeneutic
for Seventh-day Adventists. The following quotations often are
used in support of such an approach:
92 Contra Pöhler, 49-51.

93 Gulley, „Toward a Christ-Centered Expression of Faith“, 24.
94 Gulley clearly upholds traditional Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutical
positions and does not favor a Christological hermeneutic that employs content
criticism of Scripture. See, for instance ,Norman R. Gulley, “An Evaluation of
Alden Thompson’s ‘Incarnational’ Method in the Light of his View of Scripture
and use of Ellen White” in Frank Holbrook and Leo Van Dolson, eds., Issues in
Revelation and Inspiration (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society,
1992), 69-90, and more recently the discussion in his first volume of his Systematic
Theology: Prolegomena (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), 229-
325, and 360-385, esp. 378ff, and 640-716.
76
The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth

around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly
understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God,
from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that
streams from the cross of Calvary. I present before you the great,
grand monument of mercy and regeneration, salvation and
redemption--the Son of God uplifted on the cross. This is to be
the foundation of every discourse given by our ministers.95
Christ and His righteousness--let this be our platform, the very

life of our faith.96
Will not our church members keep their eyes fixed on a crucified
and risen Saviour, in whom their hopes of eternal life are
centered? This is our message, our argument, our doctrine, our
warning to the impenitent, our encouragement for the
sorrowing, the hope for every believer.97
The truth for this time is broad in its outlines, far reaching,
embracing many doctrines; but these doctrines are not detached
items, which mean little; they are united by golden threads,
forming a complete whole, with Christ as the living center.98
95 Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald

Publishing Association, 1948), 315. See also Ellen G. White, Evangelism
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1946), 190.
96 Ellen G. White, RH, Aug. 31, 1905, cf. Evangelism, 190.
97 Ellen G. White, MS 4, 1898; as quoted in 6BC, 1113. Notice that within the very
same quotation, where Ellen White emphatically calls to fix our eyes on Jesus, in
whom our hopes of eternal life are centered, she continues to point to all of
Scripture when she writes: “If we can awaken an interest in men's minds that will
cause them to fix their eyes on Christ, we may step aside, and ask them only to
continue to fix their eyes upon the Lamb of God. . . . He whose eyes are fixed on
Jesus will leave all. He will die to selfishness. He will believe in all the Word of God,
which is so gloriously and wonderfully exalted in Christ.” (emphasis added).
98 Ellen G. White, 2SM, 87. Notice again, that on the same page, where Ellen
White mentions „Christ as the living center” she also writes immediately in the
77
Ellen White also said that “of all professing Christians, Seventh-
day Adventists should be foremost in uplifting Christ before the
world.”99
Sometimes an additional statement of Ellen White is used in
support of a Christological hermeneutic where Christ’s justification
by faith is at the focus:
Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of
justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have
answered, "It is the third angel's message in verity."100
According to Pöhler, who quotes this passage from Ellen White
in support of his Christological hermeneutic, “it can be argued that
justification by faith is the doctrinal hub of Adventists, the articulus
stantis et cadentis ecclesiae adventisticae.”101
next sentence and on the same page: “The truths we present from the Bible are as firm
and immovable as the throne of God. . . . Take the Word of God as your textbook,
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works'" (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) (2SM, 87,
emphasis added).
“Those who search the Scriptures will find explicit instruction as to what God
requires of them on points of practical religious life. You are making a mistake in
calling the attention of the flock of God from the Word, the unerring word of
prophecy. . . . The commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus is the
message we have to bear to the world. The Word of God is not one-sided, it is
truth to be practiced. It is light extending on every side like the rays of the sun. It
is light to lighten every man who will read and understand and practice its
teachings. ‘If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him’" (James 1:5) (Ellen G.
White, Letter 103, 1894; cf. 2SM, 88).
99 Ellen G. White, Evangelism, 188.
100 Ellen G. White, RH, April 1, 1890, cf. Evangelism, 190.
101 Rolf J. Pöhler, „Does Adventist Theology Have, nor Need, a Unifying Center?“
in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle, 212. The
78
Is Ellen G. White indeed advocating a Christological

hermeneutic, that has Jesus Christ as its material principle in order
to interpret the functional principle, the Bible? Does Ellen G.
White use Jesus Christ or the doctrine of justification by faith as a
hermeneutical key to marginalize other biblical teachings that
supposedly are not as important? Is Ellen White promoting a
Christological hermeneutic from where one can decide what in
Scripture is authoritative and what is not? We will now turn to
these important questions.
7. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHRIST AND

SCRIPTURE – A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE
Representatives of a Christological (Christocentric) hermeneutic
are keenly aware that such an approach has significant implications
and consequences for our theology, our ethics and particularly for
our understanding of Scripture.102
Of course, Seventh-day Adventists affirm and believe that Jesus
Christ is central to our salvation. Without him we would not know
God as we do. It is true, that Jesus Christ is the central person for
our redemption. Without him we could not and would not be
saved. This Seventh-day Adventists gladly acknowledge and grasp
by faith. But the decisive question is this: How are we to
understand the relationship between Christ and Scripture?
It appears that there can be no encounter with the person of
Christ except through the medium of speech. The living and
speaking God of Scripture has chosen to reveal Himself through
implications of this view for Adventist hermeneutics, Pöhler has outlined in:
„Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben als hermeneutisches Prinzip:
Christologische Schriftauslegung und adventistische Theologie“, 46-60.
102 Ibid., 57-59.
79
the word. God has also seen it fit to commit his spoken word
through the biblical authors to the medium of writing, thus
generating the Bible, the written Word of God. It seems that one
has to believe Scripture before one can believe the Christ of
Scripture. The Word-incarnate (Jesus Christ) cannot be separated
from the Word-inscripturated (Holy Scripture). In fact, there exists
a very close and intimate relationship between Christ and the
Scriptures.103 It is undoubtedly true that Christ is central in the
Scriptures. Christ Himself showed the disciples how Scripture
pointed to Him (Luke 24:25-27). Scripture testifies about Christ
(John 5:39).
Yet, even Jesus upheld the principle that Scripture is its own
interpreter. When he, on the way to Emmaus, met the disciples, he
began “with Moses and all the Prophets” and explained to them, “what
was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27 NIV). Later
that night Jesus again pointed to Scripture when He made it clear to
the disciples that everything written about Him “in the Law of Moses,
the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44 NIV) must be fulfilled. “Then
he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45
NIV). Without Scripture providing a reliable account of Jesus, His
ministry and death, the gospel of Christ would not be known to us
and be of little use. The decisive question is: does Scripture derive
its authority from the gospel of Christ or does the gospel of Christ
gain its credibility from the trustworthiness of Scripture, which
faithfully reports what God has done in Jesus Christ and what His
will for us is? Christ himself referred to Scripture to legitimize his
ministry.
Jesus himself also expected that the Bible could be understood.
This is why He pointed others to Scripture. Jesus asks the lawyer
103The definite study on Jesus’ understanding and use of Scripture is John

Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 31994).
80
„What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26, NIV).
When the lawyer cited Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 Jesus commended
him for having answered correctly (Luke 10:28). In similar fashion
Jesus made the same point: “Have you never read in the Scriptures?”
(Matt. 21:42 NIV); “Haven’t you read” (Matt. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31;
Mark 12:10, 26; Luke 6:3); “Let the reader understand” (Matt. 24:15;
Mark 13:14).
Not once do we find Jesus saying that the problem of the
people in His times arose because the Scriptures are not clear on
that subject. Instead, whether He is speaking to trained scholars or
to untrained common people, His response always assumes the full
authority of all of Scripture. When Christ is construed as a
hermeneutical key for the interpretation of Scripture, the full unity
of the Bible is compromised as interpretative key.
For Jesus, Scripture was the sole authoritative source whereby
we can discriminate between right and wrong. Even Jesus Himself
abode by Scripture. Jesus quotes the Scriptures and refers to
Scripture rather than to his personal word, to refute the devil
during his temptation (cf. Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Speaking about the proper
faith response to Him as Messiah He said: “Whoever believes in
me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from
within him” (John 7:38, NIV emphasis added). Scripture
authenticated Jesus as the Christ. When Scripture is not the context
for understanding Jesus Christ, Christ becomes the pretext for
judging Scripture! Never do we find Jesus criticizing parts of
Scripture. Neither do we find the Apostles doing such a thing. Not
once do they insinuate that parts of Scripture are not trustworthy or
lacking divine authority. Can we be more Christian than Christ
himself? Can we be more apostolic than the apostles?
81
Therefore we carefully have to distinguish between a central

theme104 in Scripture and postulating a theological center that
functions as a hermeneutical key whereby other portions and
statements of Scripture are relegated to a secondary or inferior
status. A theological center that functions as a hermeneutical key
leads only to a canon within the canon that does not do justice to
the fullness, richness, breadth and scope of divine truth as we find
it in all of Scripture.105 To postulate a “gospel-hermeneutic”, where
104 Ellen G. White acknowledges that there are central themes in Scripture such as
the plan of redemption: “The central theme of the Bible, the theme about which
every other in the whole book clusters, is the redemption plan, the restoration in
the human soul of the image of God. From the first intimation of hope in the
sentence pronounced in Eden to that last glorious promise of the Revelation,
"They shall see His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads" (Revelation
22:4), the burden of every book and every passage of the Bible is the unfolding
of this wondrous theme,--man's uplifting,--the power of God, "which giveth us
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57” (Education, 125).
Ellen White, however, is very clear that such a central theme is never to be used
as a hermeneutical key whereby some parts of Scripture become more inspired
than other parts and are thus used against those sections of Scripture that are
deemed less important. Notice how she at once mentions a great central theme
and at the same time also affirms that all Scripture is inspired and that Scripture
should be compared with Scripture: “The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture
is to be compared with scripture. The student should learn to view the word
as a whole, and to see the relation of its parts. He should gain a knowledge of
its grand central theme, of God's original purpose for the world, of the rise of
the great controversy, and of the work of redemption. . . . Every part of the
Bible is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The Old Testament no
less than the New should receive attention. As we study the Old Testament we
shall find living springs bubbling up where the careless reader discerns only a
desert” (Education, 190, 191), emphasis added.
105 It has been pointed out that a “center” of Scripture leads to a criticism of the
content of Scripture (Sachkritik) (Armin Sierszyn, Die Bibel im Griff? Historisch-

kritische Denkweise und biblische Theologie [Holzgerlingen: Hänssler Verlag, 2001], 47,
51-52; cf. also Gerhard Ebeling, „Die Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen
Methode für die protestantische Theologie und Kirche“ in Gerhard Ebeling,
82
Jesus Christ functions as hermeneutical key for the interpretation of

Scripture, would be a reductionist monophonic theological
approach. Instead it has been suggested to take into consideration a
more encompassing “symphonic” theological perspective.106
Richard Davidson recently has suggested that in Genesis 1-3 and in
Ellen G. Whites thinking one may find at least seven different
theological entities called “center”. According to Davidson these
biblical themes are not separated centers, but rather layers of
concentric circles that form a multifaceted theological center.107
Indeed the biblical material (and inter alia the theological material in
Ellen G. White) is too rich and multifaceted to limit it to one theme
or center.
A monophonic center, even if it is Jesus or the gospel,
unavoidably leads to a canon within the canon.108 Gerhard Meier is
undoubtedly right when he writes that “in view of the two-
Wort und Glaube [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1960], 28-29), who points out that the
historical-critical method is no neutral method and inevitably leads to content
criticism (Sachkritik) of Scripture.
106 Cf. Vern S. Poythress, Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple
Perspectives in Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987).

107 Davidson, “Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1-3 and the Theological Center of
Scripture” in Daniel Heinz, Jiri Moskala and Peter van Bemmelen, eds., Christ,
Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle (Berrien Springs,
MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,
2009), 24-29.
108 According to Pöhler „we should recognize . . . that there are core beliefs, which
are crucial for the Christian faith, while others are not of equal importance.
Speaking of a canon within the canon is not tantamount to calling for a reduced
Bible; it may simply imply that there is a center or heart even in canonical – as in
all – truth” (Rolf J. Pöhler, „Does Adventist Theology Have, nor Need, a
Unifying Center?“ in Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in Honor of Hans K.
LaRondelle, 219). A Canon within the Canon obviously is a reduction of the
biblical text and by nature so, despite the above quoted disclaimer by Pöhler. A
canon within the canon inevitably leads to a restriction of biblical authority.
83
hundred-year search for a ‘canon within the canon’ that will

convince everyone on all sides, we are today in a position to strike a
balance. We see that the search was in vain.”109 Maier concludes:
“All the proposals that have been made betray the subjective
preference of the scholars who made them. Further, we observe
that the end effect is an attenuation of the biblical contents. . . . To
this should be added that having a ‘canon within the canon’
mutilates the continuity of Christian history. For the early church
knew of no such thing, and the modern church does not accept it.
We can only conclude that revelation itself contains absolutely no
indication that would permit us a ‘canon within the canon.’ The
undertaking of arriving at a ‘canon within the canon’ must,
therefore, be abandoned.”110
A subjectively proclaimed center of Scripture can never produce
the unity of Scripture that otherwise is provided through divine
inspiration. To the perennial question: what is the central element
of Scripture we probably can respond best by posing another
question: “Where does one find the central point of a symphony or
a play? Of course there are central themes, but no single point can
be taken as the center, unless it be the unity of the whole.”111 We
need to allow Scripture in its entirety (tota scriptura), in all its
multifaceted voices and genres to reveal the richness and depth of
God’s wisdom to us. Only such a symphonic reading of the Bible
will be able to do justice to the multiplex phenomena of Scripture
under the unifying guidance of the one Holy Spirit. This leads me
to briefly look at Ellen G. White and her approach to Scripture.
109Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 161.

110Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics, 162.
111 William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1979), 19.

84
8. DOES ELLEN G. WHITE SUPPORT A CHRISTOLOGICAL

HERMENEUTIC?
For any serious student it is obvious that Ellen G. White did not
mean to separate Christ from the Scriptures.112 When she wrote:
“the sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth
around which all other truths cluster”113 she was not proposing a
theological center that is to function as a tool for theological
criticism, a canon within the canon, whereby important statements
of Scripture can be distinguished from allegedly less important
passages and teachings. Rather “every truth in the Word of God, from
Genesis to Revelation, is to be studied in the light that streams from
the cross of Calvary.”114 And even where she describes “Christ as
the living center”115 who unites the biblical doctrines, she at once
affirms that “the truth for this time is broad in its outlines, far
reaching, embracing many doctrines.”116 While Christ certainly is central
to Ellen White and her religious thought117 she never ceased to
112 „Her emphasis on the fact that Christ is the Author and culmination of divine
revelation does not lead Ellen White to deny or downplay the crucial role of the
Holy Scriptures as a revelation from God“ (van Bemmelen, “Revelation and
Inspiration,” 55).
113 Ellen G. White, Evangelism, 190.
114 Ibid., emphasis added.
115 Ellen G. White, Letter 103, 1894.
116 Ibid., emphasis added.
117 Cf. her statement that “of all professing Christians, Seventh-day Adventists
should be foremost in uplifting Christ before the world” (Evangelism, 188).

Contra the Adventist Psychologist Thomas R. Steiniger, Konfession und
Sozialisation: Adventistische Identität zwischen Fundamentalismus und Postmoderne
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993). See also the balanced study by
Peter van Bemmelen, “’The Matchless Charms of Christ’: Theological
Significance of this Phrase in Ellen White’s Writings” in in Daniel Heinz, Jiri
Moskala and Peter van Bemmelen, eds., Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton: Essays in
85
emphasize that all of Scripture is to be followed and that no part of

Scripture is to be neglected. In this sense Ellen G. White could
affirm the centrality of certain biblical themes without denigrating
other parts of Scripture as unimportant. According to her, no man
has the right to judge Scripture by selecting those passages that are
deemed more important than others.118 All Scripture is given by
inspiration and is therefore profitable to make us wise unto
salvation (2 Tim. 3:16). She writes: “Many professed ministers of
the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One
wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They
set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture
which they do teach, rests upon their own authority. Its divine
authenticity is destroyed.”119 To use Ellen G. White in support of a
Christological hermeneutic, where Christ or the Gospel functions
as a hermeneutical key is to misuse her and to distort her numerous
clear statements to the contrary.
9. CONCLUSION
A Christological hermeneutic that posits Jesus Christ as
hermeneutical key and tries to bring unity to a diverse and
conflicting text does not adequately do justice to the biblical claim
that all Scripture is divinely inspired (2Tim 3:16). While divine
Honor of Hans K. LaRondelle (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department,

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 2009), 231-240.
118“Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God’s Word,
telling what is revelation, what is inspiration and what is not, without a rebuke. . .
. We want no one to say, ‘This I will reject, and this will I receive,’ but we want to
have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is” (Ellen G. White, 7BC, 919,
emphasis added, cf. Also idem., Christ’s Object Lessons, 39; and 1SM, 17, 42, 245;
5T, 700-701; 8T, 319.
119 Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 39.
86
inspiration often is not denied by representatives of a Christological

hermeneutic it is not so much inspiration that is the source for
biblical unity and authority but Jesus Christ who shall bring
theological unity. Having Christ as hermeneutical key often leads to
a perspective where parts of Scripture are considered as not
trustworthy or reliable. The enlightened student of God’s Word will
accept all of Scripture as divinely authoritative and will seek to
carefully compare one passage of Scripture with other passages of
Scripture, moving from clear and unambiguous statements to those
that are more difficult to understand. God has arranged to use the
Holy Spirit to lead us to the Living Word (Jesus Christ) through the
written Word (Holy Scripture). This is how God in His wisdom has
chosen to make His revelation universally available. Scripture is
central to our faith and to our devotion to God because there is no
other witness to Jesus Christ. We have no other Christ than the one
the biblical writers present to us. The Bible is the place where God
has told us about Himself. “Bowing to the living Lord entails
submitting mind and heart to the written Word. Disciples
individually and churches corporately stand under the authority of
Scripture because they stand under the lordship of Christ, who
rules by Scripture. This is not bibliolatry but Christianity in its most
authentic form.”120 The Spirit of Christ who indwells Christians
120 James I. Packer, Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996), 40. The term “Bibliolatry” implies
that the Bible is being turned into an idol. “It is used to castigate those suspected
of placing too high a value on the Bible, particularly when interpreted literally, by
suggesting they have made it an object of worship” (J. J. Scott, Jr., “Biblicism,
Bibliolatry,” in Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 61989], 152). It has to be acknowledged,
however, that those who, because the Bible has told them of Jesus Christ, know
and love Him, will dismiss all cries to bibliolatry as unfounded. As Protestants
we do not worship the paper and ink and the leather cover that goes to make up
a Bible. Our love for the Bible and our reverence for it is something far deeper
than the attachment one has toward an ancient and comfortable piece of
87
never leads them to doubt, criticize, go beyond, or fall short of

biblical teaching. Instead, the Holy Spirit makes us appreciate the
divine authority of Scripture. The Holy Spirit never draws us away
from the written Word, any more than from the living Word.
Instead, He keeps us in constant, conscious and willing submission
to both together. God exerts His authority, and with that the
personal authority of Christ, over us through Scripture.121 Sola
scriptura without Christ is empty, but Christ without Scripture,
who’s son is He? Without Scripture we would not know Jesus as
the messianic Christ and He could not be our savior. Thus, our
loyalty to the Bible is part of our loyalty to Christ. What is needed is
not our human criticism of Scripture – not even in the name of
Christ (!) – but the critical examination of ourselves, the church and
all other areas by Scripture, for which the biblical text alone is
divinely fitted. Thereby Scripture is allowed to be the controlling
principle and final authority for theology, faith and practice.
furniture. We love this Book because of its message. Its very words are treasured
in our hearts because we believe that God wanted to communicate His message
through these words and it is through these words that our sinful hearts are
brought closer to the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth
[Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957, reprint 1984], 106-107).
121 Cf. Packer, Truth and Power, 42, 43.
88
ABBREVIATIONS
LW – American Edition of Luther’s Works. Jaroslav Pelikan and

Helmut Lehmann, eds. (Philadelphia and St. Louis, 1955-)
MS – Ellen G. White, Manuscript
RH- Review and Herald
SM – Ellen G. White, Selected Messages
T – Ellen G. White, Testimonies
WA – Luther, Martin: Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer
Ausgabe)
WADB – Luther, Martin: Deutsche Bibel (Weimarer Ausgabe)
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 89-102
UNITY, BUT AT WHAT COST?

Dr. Gerhard Pfandl
Biblical Research Institute,Silver Spring, USA
Abstract
The article is a piece of historical and theological research into the
question of how Seventh-day Adventists see the fulfillment of biblical
apocalyptic prophecy taking place in their times. Ecumenical endeavours
in Christianity are evaluated from the perspective of that spiritual unity,
which all true believers, whatever their church affiliation, share according
to John 17. The study argues for true Christian unity coming from
“above”. This means that such unity is a God-created spiritual reality, not
an outward organization created by sinful human agents. It is also argued
that, as individuals, we may become part of this spiritual unity through
conversion, revival and reformation in our lives. To experience this
spiritual unity should be the goal of every Seventh-day Adventist..
In May 1997, Cardinal Basil Hume, spiritual leader of Roman

Catholics in Great Britain, spoke at Canterbury Cathedral. In the
presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he stated publicly that
the primacy of the Pope was a necessary ingredient of any move
toward Christian unity involving Rome.1 Christian unity has
become the focus of most Christian churches today. The biblical
foundation for the ecumenical movement is found in John 17:20-
22.
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe
in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You,
Father, are in Me and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,
that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory
which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one,
just as We are one (NKJV).
1 Newsbreak: “Adventist Official Rejects Cardinal’s Claims of Papal Primacy,”

Adventist Review, June 26, 1997, 19.
90
As Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), we have always been

cautious concerning the ecumenical movement. The Seventh-day
Adventist Encyclopedia says, “SDAs welcome Christian fellowship
with other denominations but believe that the message with which
they have been entrusted is for the entire world, and that the
proclamation of this message is not compatible with membership in
the World Council of Churches.” 2 We have observer status, but we
are not members of the World Council of Churches or any national
councils.
Norman Gulley goes a step further and writes, “The ecumenical
movement is another example of Satan’s attempt to hide Christ and
His truth, and is an important part of final events on planet
Earth.”3
To understand this negative attitude toward the ecumenical
movement we need to look briefly at the history of the ecumenical
movement and a specific prophecy of Ellen White that has shaped
the Adventist thinking.
I. THE CENTURY OF MISSION

The 19th century was the century of mission. Men like Robert
Morrison (China), Adoniram Judson (Burma), John Williams
(South Pacific), Robert Moffatt (Africa), and Hudson Taylor
(China) were sent out to the four corners of the globe to preach the
gospel to the heathen. And what a job they did! During the 19th
2 Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, revised ed. (Hagerstown,

MD: Review and Herald, 1976), s.v., Ecumenism.
3 Norman Gulley, Christ is Coming (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998),
124.
91
Unity, But at What Cost?
century, Christianity increased from 23% of the world population

in the year 1800 to 34% in the year 1900.
The century of mission increased the percentage of Christians in
the world by more than one-third. Today, Christians are still only
about one third of the world population. In other words,
Christianity has made no progress in the evangelization of the
world in the 20th century.
Although the Christian church as a whole had tremendous
success in evangelizing the world during the 19th century, tensions
developed between different churches and missionaries over the
new converts. “Sheep stealing” became a common accusation. The
heathen, therefore, began to ask: “How come, you serve the same
God, yet you are so divided?” And the missionaries did not really
have good answers to give.
II. THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

This question was taken up in 1910 at the World Missionary
Conference in Edinburgh. One of the topics discussed was: How
To Evangelize Without Fighting?
At the end of the discussion a resolution was passed, the goal of
which was to plant in each non-Christian nation one undivided
Church of Christ.4
In order to do that, they needed to have some kind of unity.
After all, didn’t Jesus say that they all may be one. At Edinburgh
the idea of an ecumenical movement was conceived, but because of
World Wars I and II, it took almost another forty years to bring the
ecumenical “baby” into the world.
4 B. B. Beach, Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? (Washington, D.C.:Review and Herald,

1974), 84.
92
In 1948, 351 delegates from 147 Protestant churches gathered in

Amsterdam, Holland, to organize the World Council of Churches.
Since then, the ecumenical movement has made good progress.
Today, about 350 churches, with close to 600 million members,
belong to the World Council of Churches, whose headquarters are
in Geneva, Switzerland.
Unity! Yes, but at what cost? There is no more “sheep stealing”
going on, because there is hardly any evangelization of non-
Christians taking place nowadays.
III. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

During the first twelve years after 1948, only Protestant
churches belonged to the World Council of Churches. Then in
1961, the Orthodox churches began to join. By 1964 practically all
the Orthodox churches were members of the World Council of
Churches.
The largest Christian church, however, the Roman Catholic
Church, with 1.2 billion people, is still not a member of the World
Council of Churches. Until the 1960s, you could not be a good
Catholic and be ecumenical. In 1964, however, the Roman Catholic
Church officially stepped into the ecumenical age. In that year, the
second Vatican Council adopted the decree on ecumenism, which
says that “All who have been justified by faith in baptism are
incorporated into Christ; they, therefore, have a right to be called
Christians and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the
children of the Catholic Church.”5 Since then, Protestant and
orthodox believers are called “the separated brethren.”
5 A. P. Flannery, Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 455.

93
On December 8, 1983, Pope John Paul II spoke at the German

Lutheran Church in Rome. This was the first time a pope spoke in
a Lutheran Church. With this visit, John Paul II showed that he
meant what he said in his coronation speech in 1978, “The division
which exists in the Christian World is a true scandal for the whole
world, and needs to be rectified.”6
The Catholic ecumenical position is very simple - the separated
brethren ought to become members of the Roman Catholic
Church, i.e., return to the fold. After Vatican II, Charles Boyer, the
president of the Association Unitas, was asked how this unity
among Christians can be achieved.7 His unhesitating answer was,
“Let us say it very clearly, by a return to the Catholic Church . . .
We will make marginal changes, but non-Catholics will have to
accept papal supremacy, the virgin Mary, the saints and so forth!”8
Since then Roman Catholics have recognized that a return to
“the sheepfold” is for most Protestant leaders not an acceptable
option. In recent years, therefore, they have spoken of an
acceptance of the primacy of the pope within the framework of a
fraternal religious system. And some Protestant leaders are in fact
seriously considering this option.
In 1989, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, leader
of 80 million Anglicans, after his audience with the Pope said, “For
the universal church, I renew the plea. Could not all Christians
come to reconsider the kind of primacy the bishop of Rome
6 Guiseppe de Meo, “The Pope Visits the Lutheran Congregation in Rome,”

Australasian Record, Feb. 25, 1984, 6.
7 Unitas was an ecumenical information office in Rome.
8 Charles Boyer quoted in B. B. Beach, Ecumenism: Vatican II (Washington,
D.C.:Review and Herald, 1968), 258.

94
exercised within the early church a “presiding of love” for the sake
of the unity of the churches in the diversity of their mission.”9
This has been echoed by Pope John Paul II himself in his
encyclical Ut Unum Sint: “That They May Be One”, published on
May 30, 1995. In this encyclical the pope wrote:
Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly
forms part of the concern of the primacy. I am convinced that I
have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in
acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the
Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me
to find a way of expressing the primacy which, while in no way
renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open
to a new situation.10
He then invited church leaders and their theologians to a
fraternal dialogue on how the papal primacy “may accomplish a
service of love recognized by all concerned.”11
Pope Paul VI in 1969 and John Paul II in 1982 visited the
headquarters of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, but the
Roman Catholic Church still is not, and probably never will be, a
member of the World Council of Churches. Nevertheless, there
exists close cooperation between the World Council of Churches
and the Roman Catholic Church in many ways. In a number of
countries around the world, for example, the Roman Catholic
Church is a member of the National Council of Churches.
Every Sunday, ecumenical worship services are held around the
globe, and in 1991, for the first time in history, the pope held an
9 South Bend Tribune, Oct. 1, 1989, quoted in D. K. Nelson, Countdown to

Showdown (Fallbrook, CA: Hart Research Center, 1992), 41.
10 John Paul II, That They May All Be One (Homebush, NSW: St. Paul, 1995), 106.
11 Ibid. 107.
95
ecumenical service with two Lutheran bishops at St. Peter’s

Cathedral in Rome.
In his address, the Swedish Lutheran bishop, Bertil Werkstrom,
stressed that the Protestant Reformation was never intended to
forge a rift between the Christian community. Rather, “It was
meant as a movement of reform within the one, holy apostolic
church . . . The moment has come where we must say that the
denunciations at the time of the reformation are no longer valid.”12
In 1994, Paul Crouch, founder of Trinity Broadcasting
Network, told two Roman Catholic priests and a leading Catholic
laywoman who were his guests:
In the essentials our theology is basically the same: some of these
even so-called doctrinal differences . . . are really matters of
semantics. . . . So I say to the critics and theological nitpickers,
“Be gone, in Jesus name!” Let’s come together in the spirit of
love and unity . . ..13
Unity? Yes, but at what cost? Truth is sacrificed on the altar of
unity.
IV. A PROPHECY
Now let’s turn to the prophecy. In 1885, Ellen White under
inspiration wrote:
When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to
grasp the hand of the roman power, when she shall reach over
the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when under the
influence of this three-fold union, our country shall repudiate
every principle of its constitution as a Protestant and Republican
12 Catholic Herald, Oct. 11, 1991, quoted in D. K. Nelson, Countdown to Showdown,

42.
13 Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), 405.
96
government and shall make provision for the propagation of

papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time
has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is
near.14
In 1885, the ecumenical movement, as we know it today, was a
long way in the future. At that time, not only were Protestants
quarreling amongst themselves (“sheep stealing”), most of them
were violently opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, as some
still are today in Northern Ireland. More than 100 years ago, she
wrote “When…” not “If….” Over the last fifty years, I believe, we
have seen the first part of this prophecy being fulfilled. I have
confidence, therefore, that the second part will be fulfilled in the
future.
V. REVELATION 13
Revelation 13:1-5
1 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up
out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his
horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.
2 Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like
the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The
dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded,
and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled
and followed the beast.
4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast;
and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast?
Who is able to make war with him?"
14 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, 9 vols. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1948), 5:451.
97
5 And he was given a mouth speaking great things and
blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-
two months.
Revelation 13:11-12
11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he
had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.
12 And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his
presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to

worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
Revelation 13 presents two symbolic beasts supporting each
other. Seventh-day Adventists have always taught that the first
beast is a symbol of papal Rome, and the second a symbol of
Protestant America.
Lest we be misunderstood, we must make it clear that when we
speak of papal Rome, we are not referring to individual believers in
the Roman Catholic Church, but to an institution. God has his
people in all Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic
Church.
In Revelation 13:12 it says:
And he [the second beast] exercises all the authority of the first
beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell
in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
According to this text, we may expect that sometime in the
future Protestant America will tell the world to worship, i.e., to
obey, the papacy. Because 1 Sam. 15:22 indicates that the highest
form of worship is obedience, “Behold, to obey is better than
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (RSV).
In 1888, Ellen White wrote:
Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and
Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his
deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism,
the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The
Protestants of the United States will be foremost in the
98
stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of

spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with
the Roman power; and under the influence of this three-fold
union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling
of the rights of conscience.15
“The Protestants of the United States,” she says, “will be
foremost in reaching over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman
power.” On March 29, 1994, thirty-nine leading evangelical
Protestants and Roman Catholics, men like Pat Robertson and
Cardinal John J. O’Connor, signed a document entitled
“Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the
Third Millennium.”
Headlines emblazoned upon newspapers across America said:
“Christians Herald New Era” and “Catholics Embrace Evangelicals
– Conservatives of Both Faiths Agreed to Accept Each Other As
Christians.”
In 1995, a book appeared with the title: Evangelicals and Catholics
Together: Toward a Common Mission in which it says,
European Catholics and Protestants have concluded that the
condemnation of the Reformation were based on
misconceptions, were aimed at extreme positions on the other
side, and no longer apply to today’s situation.16
I wonder, what would Martin Luther and the thousands who
gave their lives for the principles of the Reformation say to that?
On October 31, 1999, representatives of the Lutheran World
Federation and the Roman Catholic Church met in Augsburg,
15 Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950),
588.
16 Charles Colson and Richard Neuhaus, eds., Evangelicals and Catholics Together
(Dallas, Word Publishing, 1995), 108.

99
Germany, to sign a joint declaration on Justification by Faith, the

very issue that started the Reformation.
The president of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, issued a
statement in which he said: “An opportunity for Rome to appear
ecumenical without conceding a thing, and it is but the latest
example of Lutherans sacrificing God’s truth on the altar of
unity.”17
Unity? Yes, but at what cost? The Reformation is virtually being
wiped out and declared a mistake.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the Christian Coalition or Moral
Majority was operating in the United States. Ralph Reed, former
General Secretary of this organization, claimed:
The future of American politics lies in the growing strength of
Evangelicals and their Roman Catholic allies. If these two core
constituencies, Evangelicals comprising the swing vote to the
south, Catholics holding sway in the north, can cooperate on
issues and support like-minded candidates, they can determine
the outcome of almost any election in the nation.18
What does prophecy say? Revelation 13:14, 15.
He deceived those who dwell on the earth by those signs which
he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who
dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was
wounded by the sword and lived. He was granted power to give
breath to the image of the beast that the image of the beast
should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the
beast to be killed.
17 www.lcms.org/president/betrayal.htm. The statement has since been removed

from the website.
18 Politically Incorrect, 16, quoted in C. Goldstein, One Nation Under God (Boise, ID:
Pacific Press, 1996), 11.

100
An organization similar to the Christian Coalition could well

become the instrument for the development of the image to the
beast, which is the union of church and state to enforce religious
laws.
There is in fact a new organization replacing the Christian
Coalition (Moral Majority) of the 1980s. This new organization,
called “Christian Churches Together in the USA” (CCT), began in
2001. Thirty-four churches, including Evangelicals, Orthodox,
Roman Catholic, and Pentecostals, adopted the by-laws and were
officially organized in Atlanta, in 2006.
Among other purposes, this organization is formed, “to speak
to society with a common voice whenever possible, and to promote
the common good of society and engage in other activities
consistent with its purposes.”19 What they understand under the
“common good” we will have to see.
Unity? Yes, but at what cost?
1) There is hardly any more mission to the heathen, because it
is no longer politically correct to convert pagans, since all
religions lead to God anyway. Christ as the exclusive way of
salvation has been abandoned.
2) Truth has been sacrificed on the altar of unity.
3) The Reformation is slowly being minimized or explained as a
mistake.
Nevertheless, through all these events prophecy is being
fulfilled.
19 By-laws 6 and 7; http://www.christianchurchestogether.org/about/faqs.html.

101
VI. THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE

But did not Christ say Christian should all be one? Jesus’ prayer
in John 17:21, “That they may all be one”, is seen as the biblical
basis for the ecumenical movement.
But what did Jesus really pray for in John 17?
The chapter naturally divides into three sections:
vv. 1-5 Jesus prays for himself
vv. 6-19 He prays for his disciples
vv. 20-26 He prays for the church
In verses 11 and 12 He says:
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and
I come to you. Holy Father, keep through Your name those
whom You have given Me that they may be one as We are. While I
was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those
whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except
the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled
(emphasis mine).
The prayer of Jesus in John 17 is not an appeal to the disciples,
or to us, to produce unity.
The unity He refers to is already there, it is already in existence.
“Indeed,” says Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, “our Lord does not address
His disciples at all in this chapter. It is a prayer to God to keep the
unity that He, through His preaching, has already brought into
existence among His people.”20
The essence of that unity is the unity between Father and Son
(verse 21). This unity is a spiritual unity, not an organizational unity.
And this spiritual unity has always existed amongst truly converted
people. It is not a superficial unity which negates God’s Word for
20 M. Lloyd Jones, The Basis of Christian Unity (London: Inter Varsity, 1962), 12.
102
the sake of political or social goals, as worthy as some of them may

be. It is a unity which safeguards God’s teachings, rather than
changing and adapting them to the modern world. We agree with
D. A. Carson who said, “[Unity] is not achieved by hunting for the
lowest common theological denominator, but by common
adherence to the apostolic gospel.”21
How should we relate to ecumenical organizations? B. B. Beach
in an article on the church’s official website asks the question,
“Should Adventists cooperate ecumenically?” He answers the
question by saying:
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.22
CONCLUSION
As Seventh-day Adventists we are privileged to see the
fulfillment of prophecy taking place in our times. We are privileged
to have a part in that spiritual unity, which all true believers,
whatever their church affiliation, share.
True Christian unity comes from above. It is a God-created
spiritual unity, not an outward organization created by sinful
human beings. As individuals we may become part of this spiritual
unity through conversion, revival and reformation in our lives. To
experience this spiritual unity should be the goal of every Seventh-
day Adventist.
21 D.A. Carson, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 568.
22Bert B. Beach, “Seventh-day Adventists and the Ecumenical Movement.”
http://adventist.org/beliefs/other-documents/other-doc3.html.
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 103-122
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE

COSMIC CONFLICT VISION OF THE
BOOK OF REVELATION
Dr. Laszlo Gallusz
Belgrade Theological Seminary, Serbia
Abstract
This study has examined the only “ark of the covenant” reference in the
Book of Revelation. If the perspective this investigation has opened is
basically correct, then Rev 11:19 is one of the most important texts of the
last book of the New Testament. Located in a strategically significant
place, as the introductory temple scene leading into the central vision of
the book (12:1-14:20), it provides a theological keynote for the
interpretation of the Cosmic Conflict vision (12:1-14:20). It has been
demonstrated that the ark functions here as a cognate reference to God’s
throne which is the key symbol in the book. The revelation of the ark in
chapter 11 verse 19 directs our attention to three closely related themes:
(1) God’s covenantal faithfulness; (2) his sovereignty; and (3) an ethical-
motivational function. These themes are of fundamental significance for
the interpretation of the Cosmic Conflict vision in the Book of Revelation
(12:1-14:20).
Rev 12, 13 and 14 have received the most attention in the

Adventist discussion on the book of Revelation. These chapters,
presenting what is known as the Cosmic Conflict vision, are viewed
by numerous recent Adventist interpreters as the focal point of
Revelation’s chiastic macro-structure.1 The central significance of
1 Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible: The
Biblical-Contextual Approach (Sarasota, Fla.: First Impression, 1997), 105; William
H. Shea and Ed Christian, “The Chiastic Structure of Revelation 12:1-15:4: The
Great Controversy Vision”, AUSS 38 (2000): 269-92(269); Ranko Stefanovic,
Revelation of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2002),
37; Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes
(Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 2002), 14; Jon Paulien, The Deep Things of
104
this vision has been widely attested also among many non-
Adventist interpreters, even some of those who do not embrace a
chiastic view on the structure of the book.2
This paper3 calls attention to the significance of the vision of
the ark of the covenant in Rev 11:19 for the interpretation of the
Cosmic Conflict vision. While it is acknowledged that this short
vision is an introductory temple scene which leads into the Cosmic
Conflict vision, the evaluation of its contribution to the vision is
generally neglected. It has been rightly observed by some Adventist
interpreters that this short vision contains Yom Kippur imagery
which indicates an increasing focus on judgment in chs. 12-20.4
Likewise, it has been convincingly argued that Rev 11:19 can be
taken as the dividing line between the “historical” and
“eschatological” parts of Revelation.5 Nevertheless, the specific
God (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 2004), 123.

2 E.g. Paul S. Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the
Apocalypse (Washington: Corpus Books, 1968), 105-29; Michael Wilcock, I Saw
Heaven Opened: The Message of Revelation (The Bible Speaks Today; Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1975), 110-41; Alan J. Beagley, The “Sitz im Leben” of the Apocalypse
with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies (BZNT, 50; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1987), 81-82; Robert M. Mulholland, Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Asbury, 1990), 54-59, 214-60.
3 The author of the current paper presented it at the European Theology Teachers
Convention at the Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica, Romania, April 27 –

May 1, 2011, and he has given us his approval to published it in the current issue
of Theorhema.
4 Jon Paulien, “The Role of the Hebrew Cultus, Sanctuary and Temple in the Plot
and Structure of the Book of Revelation”, AUSS 33 (1995): 245-64(256-60);

Ranko Stefanovic, “Finding Meaning in the Literary Patterns of Revelation”,
JATS 13 (2002): 27-43(34-35).
5 Whereas Kenneth A. Strand (Interpreting the Book of Revelation [2nd ed.; Naples,
Fla.: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1979], 43-58) rightly recognized that the book of
Revelation falls naturally into two halves, he views 14:20 as the dividing line.
However, more convincing is the argument of Paulien (“Hebrew Cultus”, 256-
105
The Ark of the Covenant in the Cosmic Conflict Vision
of the Book of Revelation
connection of the ark scene with the Cosmic Conflict vision is not
elaborated. William Shea rightly concludes that a vital theological
relationship exists between the book’s introductory temple scenes
and the main visions. He states: “These introductory sanctuary
scenes ... are not unrelated to the lines of prophecy which follow
them. They speak to each other in such a way that what is shown as
occurring in the heavenly sanctuary relates directly to the nature of
the prophecy that follows the opening scene.”6 As it will be
demonstrated, the ark scene of Rev 11:19 is consistent with this
pattern, and I suggest that it points to three theological concepts,
which are significant for the interpretation of the Cosmic Conflict
vision. Before addressing these theological concepts, I will first
create an exegetical foundation for our enterprise.
1. EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS
1.1. Contextual Considerations
Since Rev 12:1 marks clearly the beginning of a new vision, the
contextual relation of 11:19 with the Cosmic Conflict vision has
been challenged by a group of scholars who view the ark scene
rather as the ending of the seventh trumpet (11:15-19). However,
the link of 11:19 to chs. 12-14 is, I believe, supported by structural,
literal and theological evidence. Structurally, every major vision of
Revelation is introduced by a heavenly temple scene and there is no
strong reason to suppose that the Cosmic Conflict vision is an
57) and Stefanovic (“Literary Patterns”, 34-35), according which 11:19 is the
turning point.
6 William H. Shea, “The Cultic Calendar for the Introductory Sanctuary Scenes of
Revelation”, JATS 11 (2000): 120-47(121).

106
exception. This conclusion is confirmed by the double reference to

nao,j in 11:19 and the presence of the ark as a cultic furniture.
Also numerous literal links tie the text to the succeeding vision.
The most significant is the use of w;fqh (“there was seen”), which
appears only three times in the book, and all references are in the
same context: in Rev 11:19, it appears in connection with the ark, in
12:1 as related to the woman and in 12:3 referring to the dragon.
Osborne rightly recognizes the logical relation between the three
“revelations”, and argues that this literary feature indicates “a linear
movement from chapter 11 to chapter 12”.7 Similarly, the phrase evn
tw/| ouvranw/| appears in all three texts and provides a further link
between 11:19 and the subsequent section.8 Finally, I hold that the
vision of the ark is theologically a “fitting prelude to the Holy
War”9 set out in the Cosmic Conflict vision. Against the Old
Testament meaning of the ark as symbolic of the holy war and the
certainty of Yahweh’s triumph over Israel’s enemies, the revelation
of the ark in Rev 11:19 appears as a scene which appropriately
introduces the vision of the cosmic power-struggle between two
opposed “sovereignties”, in which God emerges victorious.10
7 Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,

2002), 448; cf. Ekkehardt Müller, Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 4-11
(AUSDDS, 21; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1996), 327-28.
Müller (Microstructural Analysis, 330-31) rightly recognizes that in spite of the close
connection “Rev 11:19 is different from Rev 12:1 and Rev 12:3, because the term
shmei/on is only applied to the two latter verses”.
8 For the presentation of the literal links between the three texts in a table, see
Müller, Microstructural Analysis, 329.

9 J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB, 38;
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 182.

10 It seems possible that Rev 11:19 is more than a mere introductory temple vision
which leads into 12:1-14:20. Since the eschatological aspect of the Cosmic
Conflict vision is elaborated in more details in 15:1-16:21 which is even further
expanded in the “Babylon appendix” of 17:1-18:24, it is reasonable to conclude
107
1.2. Structural Considerations

One of the most fruitful areas of the Revelation research in last
several decades was the investigation of the book’s cultic aspects. A
significant conclusion in this discussion was that not only the
theology, but also the macrostructure of the book is heavily
influenced by the cultic motif.11 It has been demonstrated that
Revelation’s “grand strategy”12 is set up on sanctuary typology
which points to the significance of the heavenly temple scenes for
the drama of the book. Strand, for example, convincingly argues
that each vision of Revelation is preceded by a “victorious-
introduction” scene within a temple setting.13 On this basis, he
divided the book into eight basic visions beside the prologue and
that 11:19 introduces the entire second half of the book. This view is supported
by the observation that as the first half of the book starts with a throne room
scene (4:1-5:14), likewise the second half (11:19) – but this time symbolically, by
a reference to the ark.
11 For recent works on the cultic motif in Revelation, see e.g. Andrea Spatafora,
From the “Temple of God” to God as the Temple: A Biblical Theological Study of the Temple
in the Book of Revelation (Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia, 27; Roma: Editrice
Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997); Robert A. Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in
the Book of Revelation (SBL, 10; New York: Peter Lang, 1999); Gregory Stevenson,
Power and Place: Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation (BZNW, 107; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2001); John and Gloria Ben-Daniel, The Apocalypse in the Light of the
Temple (Jerusalem: Beit Jochanan, 2003); Franz Tóth, Der himmlische Kult:
Wirklichkeitskonstruktion und Sinnbildung in der Johannesoffenbarung (Arbeiten zur
Bibel und ihrer Geschichte, 22; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006).
12 Jon Paulien, “Seals and Trumpets: Some Current Discussions,” in Symposium on
Revelation—Book I (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; DARCOM Series, 6; Silversprings,

Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 183-98(186).
13 Kenneth A. Strand, “The Eight Basic Visions in the Book of Revelation”, AUSS
25 (1987): 107-21; Idem. “The ‘Victorious-Introduction’ Scenes in the Visions in

the Book of Revelation”, AUSS (1987): 267-88.
108
the epilogue.14 Strand’s approach has been encompassed and

refined by scholars such as Paulien,15 Davidson,16 Shea17 and
Stefanovic,18 who, however, argue rather for seven and not eight
major visions each introduced with individual temple scenes.19
Recently, Tavo has pointed out in line with this view that “for an
author to whom almost everything else would have seemed
‘sevenfold,’ structuring his work into seven parts would have been
the more natural thing to do”.20 While Tavo does not explicitly
employ cultic terminology in his structure, he speaks of “transition”
14 Strand, Interpreting, 52. An eightfold division is advocated also in Leonard

Thompson, “Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse”, JR 49 (1969): 330-
50(334); Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened, 114-15, 201-03.
15 Paulien, “Hebrew Cultus”, 248.
16 Richard M. Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology” in Symposium on Revelation—Book I,
112-15.
17 Shea, “Cultic Calendar”, 120-47.
18 Stefanovic, “Literary Patterns”, 32.
19 The septenary pattern as the key organizing principle of the entire book has
been earlier advanced with different results. See e.g. R.H. Charles, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC; 2 vols; Edinburght: T&T
Clark, 1920), 1:xxiii-xxviii; Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT, 16;
Tübingen: Mohr, 1926), 1-2; Günther Bornkamm, “Die Komposition der
apokalyptischen Visionen in der Offenbarung Johannis”, ZNW 36 (1937): 132-49;
Mathias Rissi, Zeit und Geschichte in der Offenbarung des Johannes (ATANT, 22; Zürich:
Zwingli, 1952), 9-26; John W. Bowman, “The Revelation to John: Its Dramatic
Structure and Message”, Int 9 (1955): 436-53; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat
Myth in the Book of Revelation (HDR 9; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 13-
55; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Proclamation
Commentaries; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1991), 35-36; Bruce M. Metzger,
Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon,
1993), 18-19; Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 7.
20 Felise Tavo, “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Re-Examining a Perennial
Problem”, NovT 47 (2005): 47-68(65). Tavo notes that e`pta, is used 55 times in
Revelation which makes roughly 62% of the total references in the New
Testament.
109
passages that switch “to a liturgy before the throne”.21 My

understanding of the book’s macrostructure is consistent with the
mentioned ideas regarding the role of the temple scenes and the
sevenfold division. The outline I hold the most convincing is the
following:
Prologue (1:1-8)
Introductory Temple Scene 1 (1:9-20)
Vision 1: The Seven Messages (2:1-3:22)
Introductory Temple Scene 2 (4:1-5:14)
Vision 2: The Seven Seals (6:1-8:1)
Vision 3: The Seven Trumpets (8:7-11:18)
Introductory Temple Scene 4 (11:19)
Vision 4: Cosmic Conflict (12:1-14:20)
Vision 5: The Wrath of God (16:1-18:24)
Vision 6: The Final Judgment (19:11-20:15)
Vision 7: The New Jerusalem (21:9-22:5)
Epilogue (22:6-11)
According to the outline given above, the scene of the ark in
11:19 appears as the fourth out of the seven introductory temple
scenes. On one hand the scene occupies a central position within
21 Tavo, “Structure”, 61. Tavo argues for six “transition” passages: 4:1-5:14; 8:1-5;
11:15-19; 15:1-8; 16:17-19:10; 21:1-8.
110
the seven introductory visions, but more significantly, it functions

as the prelude to the vision which lies at the centre of Revelation.
1.3. Analysis of the Key Motifs

There appear to be three motifs in the scene of Rev 11:19: (1)
the opening of the heavenly temple; (2) the revelation of the ark
within the temple; and (3) the incident of the atmospheric and
seismic phenomena. I suggest that a clear relation exists between
the three motifs which highlights the eminence of the ark in this
short temple scene: the opening of the temple serves the purpose
of the ark’s revelation, and the atmospheric-seismic phenomena are
accompanying incidents of this event which is central in the scene.
1.3.1. First Motif: The Opening of the Heavenly Temple
The opening of the heavenly nao,j of God (hvnoi,gh o` nao.j tou/
qeou/ o` evn tw/| ouvranw/|) is the introductory motif in the three-motif
scene of 11:19. The term nao,j which appears 13 times in
Revelation,22 has generally a narrower and a broader meaning in
relation to the temple.23 Here it refers clearly to the innermost part
of the heavenly temple, as evidenced by the presence of the ark, the
only cultic object located in the earthly temple in the Most Holy
Place.
The opened door, similarly to the opened heaven, is a well-
known apocalyptic motif in Jewish and Greco-Roman literature
which is frequently followed by theophanic phenomena.24 In the
ancient world the self-opening of the temple doors has been
22 Rev 11:1, 2, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 6, 8 (2x); 16:1, 17; 21:22 (2x).
23 See O. Michel, “nao,j”, TDNT 4:880-90.
24 David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (WBC, 52a; Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1997), 280-
82.
111
considered a prodigy.25 According to the tradition in b. Yoma 39b,

the temple doors of the Jerusalem temple opened by themselves 40
years before the destruction of the city, until they were rebuked by
Johannan ben Zakkai. Similar prodigies are recorded also in
Graeco-Roman literature. Aune notes a parallel to Rev 11:19 in
Vergil Aeneid 3.90-96: “Scarce had I spoken when suddenly all
things shook, the temple, the sacred laurel; the whole hill moved
around us. The shrine sprang open; the tripod clanged. As we fell
prostrate, a voice came to our ears: ‘Oh Dardans! Hardy men! The
land that first gave you and your fathers birth, with wealth and joy
will take you back. Look for your ancient mother.’”26 Against this
background, the motif of the heavenly temple’s self-opening in Rev
11:19 can be interpreted as a sign which points to a major turning
point in the drama of the book.27 The emphasis seems to be on
God’s active interference in the course of the cosmic conflict. The
language of theophany employed in the text points to the reality of
God’s presence in power and glory that will be manifested in the
subsequent vision of chs. 12-14.28
1.3.2. Second Motif: The Visibility of the Ark of the Covenant
This motif contains the element of surprise, since the idea of a
heavenly ark of the covenant is, with exception of Rev 11:19,
absent from the Jewish and Early Christian literature. In the
25 Xenophon Hellenica 6.4.7; Tacitus Hist. 5.13; Cassius Dio 66(64).8.2. For
prodigies generally in the ancient world, see e.g. Klaus Berger, “Hellenistisch-
heidnische Prodigien und die Verzeichen in der jüdisch und christlichen
Apokalyptik”, ANRW 2.23.2:1428-69; R. Bloch, Les prodiges dans l’antiquité
classique (Grèce, Étrurie et Rome) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963).
26 Aune, Revelation 6-16 (WBC, 52b; Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1997), 676-77.
27 Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery, 93 n. 167.
28 Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 203.

112
Jerusalem temple the visibility of the ark was hindered by the veil
that divided the sanctuary into two parts. To the contrary, the
protection of the veil is absent from the heavenly temple of
Revelation and the visibility of the ark, the confrontation with
God’s presence, is made possible.29 Thus, the revelation of the
divine presence in Rev 11:19 can be considered as being
thematically parallel to 21:3, in which is pictured the tabernacle of
God among men – his presence dwelling with the redeemed
humanity.
The ark is characterized as the ark of “his covenant” (h` kibwto.j
th/j diaqh,khj auvtou/).30 While the term diaqh,kh occurs only here in
Revelation, the concept of covenant runs thematically through the
book.31 The addition of the possessive pronoun auvtou/ in relation to
29 Ben-Daniel, The Apocalypse in the Light of the Temple, 178.

30 The syntax is unclear here, therefore two readings are possible: (1) “the ark of
his covenant” and (2) “his ark of the covenant”. It is not immediately clear
whether the possessive pronoun auvtou/ modifies only diaqh,kh as the
preceding noun or the whole noun phrase. Stephen S. Smalley (The Revelation to
John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse [Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 2005], 294) supports the first reading on the basis of the Greek
word-order and the regular use of the expression “his (God’s) covenant” in the
Old Testament (as e.g. at Exod 2:24; Deut 4:13; 1 Chr 16:15; Ps 25:10; Ezek
17:14; Dan 9:4). To the contrary, Aune (Revelation 6-16, 677) argues for the
second translational possibility which lacks the emphasis on the covenant. He
holds that in favour of this position is the frequency of the occurrence of the
phrases “his covenant” and “my covenant” in the Old Testament (e.g. Exod
2:24; Deut 4:13; 7:9, 12; 2 Kgs 13:23; 1 Chr 16:15; Ps 25:10, 14; Ezek 17:14; Dan
9:4). He also points out that the longer expressions such as “the ark of the
covenant of Yahweh” and “the ark of the covenant of God” occur thirty times in
the Old Testament (e.g. Num 10:33; 14:44; Deut 10:8; 31:9; Josh 3:3; 4:7; 6:6; 1
Sam 4:3; 1 Kgs 3:15; 1 Chr 15:25-26; 2 Chr 5:7). Smalley’s argument seems more
persuasive because of the unique occurrence of diaqh,kh in Revelation here
which has an important theological significance for the subsequent vision.
31 See e.g. Rev 3:20; 5:9-10; 7:15-17; 21:3-4.
113
diaqh,kh emphasizes the divine adherence to the covenant.32 This

exegetical insight indicates the purposefulness of the ark’s
revelation. From the following motif it becomes even more evident
that God is pictured here as actively involved in the drama,
motivated by covenantal faithfulness.
1.3.3. Third Motif: The Atmospheric and Seismic Phenomena
The atmospheric and seismic phenomena in Rev 11:19 have
been most thoroughly discussed by Bauckham.33 He persuasively
argues that the motif needs to be viewed together with three related
texts in Revelation and the resulting picture is a progressive series
of references pointing to the Sinai theophany of Exod 19:
Rev 4:5: avstrapai. kai. fwnai. kai. brontai,
Rev 8:5: brontai. kai. fwnai. kai. avstrapai. kai. seismo,j
Rev 11:19: avstrapai. kai. fwnai. kai. brontai. kai. seismo.j kai.
ca,laza mega,lh
Rev 16:18-21: avstrapai. kai. fwnai. kai. brontai. kai. seismo.j …
me,gaj … kai. ca,laza mega,lh
Bauckham aptly notes that “the progressive expansion of the
formula accords with the increasing severity of each series of
judgments, as the visions focus more closely on the End itself”.34
As the above comparison reveals, the allusion in Rev 11:19 is the
third in the series, the last before the manifestation of the fullness
32 Robert W. Wall, Revelation, (NIBCNT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson; Carlisle:

Paternoster, 1991), 155.
33 Bauckham, Climax, 199-209. See also Jan Lambrecht, “A Structuration of
Revelation 4,1-22,5,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau

Testament (ed. Jan Lambrecht; BETL, 53; Gembloux: J. Duculot; Leuven:
University Press, 1980), 77-104(93-95); Ugo Vanni, La struttura letteraria dell’
Apocalysse (Aloisiana, 8; Rome: Herder, 1971), 141-48.
34 Bauckham, Climax, 204.
114
of the divine wrath. This indicates that the subsequent Cosmic

Conflict vision is narrating a series of events occurring still before
the eschatological outpouring of the wrath of God.
It seems that the atmospheric and seismic phenomena points
beyond the Sinai events. Namely, they are well-known apocalyptic
motifs which appear in the Old Testament and in the Jewish
literature as the accompanying phenomena of a theophany. In these
sources the whole universe – including the earth, the heavenly
bodies, the sea and the foundations of the earth – is often
portrayed as quaking when God’s presence is manifested.35 The
created world is generally portrayed as quaking when related to the
following events: (1) the appearance of God as a divine warrior to
fight against his enemies;36 (2) the appearance of God for reigning
over the nations;37 or (3) the appearance of God for judgment over
the evil.38 It is well-known that the apocalyptic expectations
anticipate a cosmic quake of enormous dimension preceding the
eschatological theophany which is going to incorporate all the
mentioned aspects.39 This eschatological event related to the Day of
Yahweh is often portrayed in terms of a new Sinai theophany,
which presupposes a direct divine involvement similar to that in the
exodus event.40
35 Sir 16:18-19; T. Levi 3:9.

36 Judg 5:4-5; Joel 2:10; Mic 1:4; Ps 78:7-8.
37 Ps 97:5; 99:1.
38 Isa 13:13; 24:18-20; 34:4; Jer 51:29; Ezek 38:20; Nah 1:5.
39 1 En. 1:3-9; 102:1-2; T. Mos. 10:1-7; 2 Bar. 32:1.
40 E.g. Joel 2:1-2; Mic 1:3-4; Nah 1:3-6; Isa 13:13; 24:18-23; 34:4; Joel 2:10. The
divine eschatological intervention is often portrayed in the language of the past –

e.g. Judg 5:4-5; 2 Sam 22:8-16; Ps 18:7-15.
115
2. THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Numerous suggestions have been made regarding the meaning
of the appearance of the ark in Rev 11:19. This short temple scene
has been most often viewed as pointing to the coming divine
judgment or/and God’s covenantal faithfulness.41 It has also been
interpreted as a reminder of one of the following ideas: the
eschatological reward of the faithful,42 the possibility of the full
access to God’s presence,43 the status of the faithful and their
relationship with God44 or the fulfilment of the coming of God’s
kingdom.45 According to my understanding these interpretations
reflect only partially the theological meaning of the ark in this
context. The reason of the interpretive deficiency lays, at least
partially, in failing to give attention to the centrality of the throne
motif in Revelation. I suggest that the ark reference in Rev 11:19
41 E.g. Charles, Revelation, 1:297; Smalley, Revelation, 293-95; Stefanovic, Revelation,

361-62; Ben-Daniel, The Apocalypse in the Light of the Temple, 178-79; Robert H.
Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT, 17; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1977), 233; Jonathan Knight, Revelation (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999), 90; Ben Witherington III, Revelation (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 160; Edmondo F. Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse
of John (trans. M.P. Johnson and A. Kamesar; Italian Texts & Studies on Religion
& Society; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), 186-88.
42 Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1999), 619.

43 Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (3rd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1911),
142; Spatafora, From the “Temple of God” to God as the Temple, 271; Frederick J.
Murphy, Fallen is Babylon: The Revelation to John (The New Testament in Context;
Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998), 273; Ronaldo L. Farmer,
Revelation (Chalice Commenatries for Today; St. Louis, Miss.: Chalice, 2005), 90.
44 Wall, Revelation, 156.
45 M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (IBC; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1989), 149;
Adela Yarbro Collins, The Apocalypse (NTM, 22; Doublin: Veritas, 1979), 75.
116
embodies three basic theological functions that are of significance

for the interpretation of the subsequent vision. I will now focus on
these theological functions.
2.1. Covenantal Faithfulness

The ark was the visible symbol of God’s covenantal promises in
the Old Testament, the sacramental emblem of his covenantal
activity. The appearance of this holy furniture in Rev 11:19,
accompanied by well-known theophanic signs, points to God’s
acting in accordance with his covenantal promises. The preceding
text (11:18) seems to confirm this idea by announcing the arriving
of the time for God’s specific intervention (h=lqen . o` kairo,j) – the
manifestation of the divine wrath in judgment. Roloff rightly notes
that this text portrays God, who “himself enters from his heavenly
hiddenness in order to reclaim”.46 As the concept of divine
judgment in the Old Testament incorporates punitive and saving
aspects at the same time,47 it is natural to expect from the
manifestation of the divine wrath in the Cosmic Conflict vision to
be consistent with this pattern.48 Thus, God acts in chs. 12-14 in
accordance with his covenantal promises, which results, on the one
hand, in destruction of the powers trampling his covenant (13:10;
14:17-20), while, at the same time, in protection to those adherent
46 Jürgen Roloff, Revelation (trans. J.E. Alsup; CC; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress,
1993), 138.
47 For the two aspects of the judgment and their relationship, see Jiří Moskala,
“Toward a Biblical Theology of God's Judgment: A Celebration of the Cross in

Seven Phases of Divine Universal Judgment (An Overview of a Theocentric-
Christocentric Approach)”, JATS 15 (2004): 138-65.
48 The double aspect of God’s judgment in Rev 11:19 is also pointed out by
Mounce (Revelation, 232-33), but he fails to notice the relation of the idea to the
vision in 12:1-14:20.
117
to it. As the ark went in front of Israel in the holy wars of the Old
Testament, God’s presence is similarly with his covenant people in
events narrated in the Cosmic Conflict vision.
Stern rightly notes: “If the ark symbolized God’s presence
guiding his people, the appearance of the heavenly ark symbolized
God’s being about to fulfil the rest of his covenanted promises.”49
Since the ark basically evokes the idea of covenantal faithfulness, its
appearance provides an appropriate introduction into the vision in
which “positive ... affirmation of hope”50 is needed to God’s people
under the pressure of the beast’s rule.51 In the vision it is not only
God’s covenantal faithfulness emphasized, but also the covenantal
thinking of God’s people which is evident in their characterization
as the keepers of the commandments (12:17; 14:12).52
Paulien persuasively argues for an allusion to Yom Kippur in
Rev 11:19, since it is well known that this feast was the only
occasion in the temple cult when the ark was directly involved into
the ritual.53 Since the concept of judgment, with its both aspects, is
basic to Yom Kippur,54 the feast with its ark ritual was an
49 David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, Md.: Jewish New
Testament Pubications, 1992), 823.
50 Smalley, Revelation, 296.
51 Stefanovic (Revelation, 362) convincingly argues that the assuring function of the
ark in Rev 11:19 is primarily eschatological in its scope, because of the end-time
focus of the Cosmic Conflict vision.
52 The concept of covenant is central also in the vision of Seven Seals (6:1-8:1) and
Seven Plagues (16:1-21), which are described in the language of the covenant
curses (Lev 26; Deut 32).
53 Paulien, “Hebrew Cultus”, 253; cf. George B. Caird, A Commentary on the
Revelation of St. John the Divine (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966),
144.
54 During the Yom Kippur the positive aspect of the judgment was manifested in
the ritual of sprinkling the blood on the mercy seat. Thus, the atonement became
118
appropriate demonstration of the idea that God takes seriously the

covenant. Still, the revelation of the ark in Rev 11:19 is primarily
positive, as it appears in an assuring function pointing to the
covenantal faithfulness of God.
2.2. Symbol of God’s Sovereignty

Since Revelation is a highly theocentric work, the theme of
God’s sovereignty is not surprisingly central in the book.55 While I
believe in the prophetic nature of the book’s prophecies, I hold that
Revelation’s theological focalpoint is the tension between the divine
and the human sovereignties and the key question in the book is
“Who has the right to rule the universe?” Therefore, it is not
surprising that in a book about power the central symbol is the
throne, which focuses John’s theological argument as the conflict
of the rival sovereignties revolves around the legitimate claim of
authority. The term qro,noj occurs 47 times in the book, in 17 out
of its 22 chapters. It is featured in strategically significant structural
locations. In the book we do not read only about God’s throne,56
but the Lamb57 and his allies58 also have thrones. Moreover, God’s
a possibility for every repenting Israelite, because the ritual assured God’s
presence within his community (Lev 16:30). Therefore, the ark could rightly be
regarded as the “heart of atonement for the nation” (Osborne, Revelation, 448).
55 For Revelation’s theism, see e.g. Merrill C. Tenney, “The Theism of the
Apocalypse” in The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J.
Schultz (eds. M. Inch and R. Youngblood; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1983), 185-92; Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (New
Testament Theology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 23ff.
56 Rev 1:4; 3:21; 4:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 5:1, 6, 7, 11, 13; 6:16; 7:9, 10, 11, 15; 8:3;
11:16; 12:5; 14:3; 16:17; 19:4, 5; 20:11, 12; 21:3, 5; 22:1, 3.

57 Rev 3:21; 7:17; 22:1, 3.
58 Rev 4:4; 20:4.

119
enemies – Satan59 and the beast60 – are similarly in possession of

thrones. Actually, the throne motif functions as an antithetical
motif-network in Revelation, in which all the different thrones get
their significance only in the light of God’s throne which is elevated
above all as the axis mundi of the universe.
Not accidentally, the visionary part of Revelation starts and ends
with visions which emphasize the centrality of God’s throne on the
cosmic map of reality (4:1-5:14; 22:1-5). The throne motif also links
the ending of every vision which have in their conclusion
consistently either a throne-scene or a statement announcing God’s
reign.61 In the heart of the book we encounter an increased throne-
tension. In the Cosmic Conflict vision God’s throne is contrasted
with the throne of those powers that contest the divine sovereignty
(12:5; 14:3 vs. 13:2) and claim this supreme prerogative (13:4, 8).
Since the ark scene of Rev 11:19 serves as an introductory temple
scene of this conflict vision, it is logical to interpret the ark as the
59 Rev 2:13.
60 Rev 13:2; 16:10.
61 The throne appears as the focus of the author from the outset to the climax of
the drama: (1) the Seven Messages climaxes in the promise which depicts God,
Christ and the overcomers as sitting on throne (3:21); (2) the high point of the
Seven Seals is the celebration scene in front of God’s throne, which precedes the
seventh seal as an interlude (7:9-17); (3) the Seven Trumpets end in a heavenly
worship scene in front of God’s throne that is preceded by the announcement of
God’s kingdom (11:15-16); (4) the Cosmic Conflict vision is concluded by a
parousia scene dominated by the appearance of the Son of Man on a cloud
throne (14:14-20); (5) the Wrath of God vision concludes in the dramatic
description of Babylon’s dethronement, whose boast with sitting as queen is
shamefully reversed (18:1-24); (6) the Final Judgment vision concludes with a
judgment scene dominated by the great white throne (20:11-15); (7) the New
Jerusalem vision climaxes in the throne scene portraying the order of the new
creation. Such a composition of the book cannot be accidental. It reflects
utilazation of the throne motif as the central principle for conveying theological
ideas.
120
symbol of God’s throne which recalls the notion of divine

sovereignty that is expected to be manifested in the subsequent
vision. This function of the ark is consistent with the Old
Testament background which portrays it as a war palladium.
Similarly to the holy wars of Israel, God’s sovereign involvement,
symbolized by the ark, influences decisively the outcome of the
events narrated in chs. 12-14.62
2.3. Ethical Motivational Function

One of the functions of the ark of the covenant in the Old
Testament was to house the tables of the Testimony (Exod 31:18).
The Ten Commandments functioned as the basis of God’s royal
authority, which regulated the covenantal relationship. Thus, the
content of the ark has not been separated from the ark itself in the
thoughs of the people. No Israelite could think of the ark without
an immediate consciousness of the Ten Commandments. In this
sense the ark pointed to the commanding God, but it also
highlighted the need for a proper relation to God’s throne, an
appropriate attitude towards his rulership. This function of the ark
is designated by Briggs as “practical” and “motivational” role.
The ethical motivational function of the ark in Rev 11:19 is
thematically linked to the Cosmic Conflict vision in which the
throne-conflict is focused on the question of true worship. The
issue is enhanced by the repetition of proskune,w which functions
as the key word of the vision. The term appears eight times in chs.
62 The theological significance of the throne motif in Revelation is by no means

exhausted in this short discussion. For an in-depth treatment of this central
motif in Revelation, see Laszlo Gallusz, “The Throne Motif in the Book of
Revelation” (Ph.D. diss., Karoli Gaspar University of the Reformed Church in
Hungary, 2011).
121
13-14 out of which seven designates loyalty to the diabolic forces,63

while only once it is applied to the faithfulness to the creator
God.64 As Paulien has pointed out, the conflict around the issue of
worship recalls the first table of the Ten Commandments which, as
summarized by Jesus, points out the appropriate attitude to God:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest
commandment” (Matt 22:37-48).65
The issue of true worship in the Cosmic Conflict vision is
further emphasized by the double allusion to the keeping of the
commandments. This emphasis recalls the ark, which housed the
tablets with the commandments. The employment of the participle
(throu,ntwn) that points to continuity in the commandment-keeping
seems to emphasize that the positive attitude to the
commandments is not dependent on the circumstances, but it is
rather the sign of adherence to the covenant – the main
characterization of God’s people in the vision.
3. CONCLUSION
This study examined the only “ark of the covenant” reference in
the book of Revelation. If the perspective this investigation has
opened is basically correct, then Rev 11:19 is one of the most
important texts of the last book of the New Testament. Located in
a strategically significant place, as the introductory temple scene
leading into the central vision of the book (12:1-14:20), it provides
a theological keynote for the interpretation of the Cosmic Conflict
63 Rev 13:4 (2x), 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11.

64 Rev 14:7.
65 Jon Paulien, What the Bible Says About the End-Time (Hagerstown, Md.: Review
and Herald, 1998), 121-29.

122
vision. It has been demonstrated that the ark functions here as a

cognate reference to God’s throne which is the key symbol in the
book. The revelation of the ark in 11:19 directs our attention to
three closely related themes: (1) God’s covenantal faithfulness; (2)
his sovereignty; and (3) an ethical-motivational function. These
themes are of fundamental significance for the interpretation of the
Cosmic Conflict vision.
It has been demonstrated that the appearance of God’s ark-
throne has a positive function in the vision by providing
encouragement to the militant church which suffers the pressures
of the quasi-sovereignties. As in the holy wars of the Old
Testament the ark went in front of the Israelite army, similarly in
the eschatological conflict, God’s covenantal faithfulness and his
sovereign power are not farther from his eschatological army which
is characterized by true worship – a proper attitude towards God’s
throne which the symbol of the ark embodies.
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 123-153
DIDACTICAL-IDEALIST HERMENEUTIC
OF APOCALYPTIC/SANCTUARY
VISIONARY ACCOUNTS
A Methodological Evaluation of Hermeneutic in the Light of
the Relationship between Text and Reality
Lect. univ. dr. Zoltán Szalos-Farkas
Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica
Abstract
The current study – using the methodological tools of Systematic
Theology studies – probes into the impact on the Doctrine of Revelation-
Inspiration of a new interpretative trend within European and Romanian
Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics. Such hermeneutics has been
evaluated from the perspective of an in-depth analysis of the relationship
between Text and Reality, with reference to Apocalyptic and/or Sanctuary
Texts pertaining to both The Holy Scriptures and Ellen G. White’s Spirit
of Prophecy corpus. Based on the aforementioned analysis, it has been
argued that the new hermeneutic lays the foundation of a postmodern
form of spiritual/idealist exegetical practice within Adventism of
Apocalyptic/Sanctuary Texts. The fundamental presuppositions of such
exegesis have also been under scrutiny. These are relativism and
rationalism, as well as the view of a total discontinuity between inspired
Texts and the historical and spatial Reality these Texts describe.
INTRODUCTION
We need to clarify the three aspects of the topic referred to in
the title of this paper.1 First, the study will be an assessment of the
theological method lying at the foundation of didactical-idealist
hermeneutic that has been applied to both biblical and Spirit of
1 I presented this paper at the European Theology Teachers Convention at the

Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica, Romania, April 27 – May 1, 2011.
124
Prophecy texts by some of the Seventh-day Adventist theologians.

This will be an assessment that is conducted from the perspective
of Systematic Theology studies, with the analytical instruments of
this discipline. A definition of “didactical-idealist hermeneutic” and
of the problem addressed in this paper obtains shortly as part of
the introduction.
Second, the term “Text” refers to the entire Judeo-Christian
canon, known as the Holy Scripture, as well as to other relatively
short, but compact, literary units within the biblical canon,
especially apocalyptic and sanctuary Texts. In other words, the term
Text denotes writings considered to have been engendered by
divine revelation and inspiration, and mediated through visionary
communications to human instrumentalities. For this reason, the
present study also refers to the writings of Ellen G. White as being
Text. However, the exclusive authority of the Scriptures over her
writings, “The Spirit of Prophecy”, is here maintained.
Third, in our current systematic analysis, the word “Reality”
denotes equally the realm of the empirical and metaempirical. Thus,
we view Reality as referring to both the spatial and temporal
(historical/eternal) context of the things and entities that are either
terrestrial or celestial. The concept of spatio-temporality applied to
Reality does not diminish the semantic force of the concept when it
refers to the metaempirical, that is, the heavenly realm. After all,
Reality is not to be limited to our human sense perceptions. Reality
has here been defined in terms of a non-dualistic worldview, one in
which the empirical and the metaempirical, nature and supernature,
are in a relationship of epistemological unity; this unity being a
fundamental condition of authentic cognition and intelligibility.
To postulate the cognitive inaccessibility of, and cognitive
impossibility with regard to, the metaempirical would necessarily
and logically require also the postulation of an epistemological
reductionist limitation, akin to that contained in Immanuel Kant’s
dualist concepts of phenomenon and noumenon. And this fact would
make the hypothesis underlying this study to be totally pointless
and useless. The hypothesis of this research is as follows: The Text
125
Didactical-Idealist Hermeneutic of Apocalyptic/Sanctuary
Visionary Accounts
and Reality are in an epistemological unity which makes Reality

knowable on the basis of the description given by the Text, but not
the other way around. That is, Reality is not/should not be the
source of our knowledge of the Text, neither can it serve the
theologian or layperson as a criterion to judge the authority and
trustworthiness of the Text.
A DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

ADDRESSED IN THIS PAPER
For some time, there has been present in SDA hermeneutics an
assertion, according to which certain biblical passages and even
books, such as the apocalyptic writings, and most of Ellen White’s
Spirit of Prophecy corpus have only devotional value. The adjective
“devotional” and its cognates such as “theological” or “didactical”,
feature in Adventist theology as technical terms to describe a
hermeneutical approach to the Bible and/or the Ellen White’s
writings. Rolf J. Pöhler has recently proposed a new approach to
biblical apocalyptic which “leaves one with the choice between
classical historicism and a salvation-historical approach”.2 Pöhler
identifies the gist of his salvation-historical approach with the
adjective “theological”. That is, he expects the application of the
theological key to the Apocalypse to yield “a theology of history”
(emphasis in the text).3 What he means by “a theology of history” is
“the true meaning of world and church history as seen from a
2 Rolf J. Pöhler, “Probing the Keys to the Apocalypse: Hermeneutical Approaches

to the Book of Revelation” (Unpublished paper [outline], presented at the
European Theology Teachers Convention, at the Adventist Theological Institute,
Cernica, Romania, 2011), 4.
3 Ibid. 3, 4.
126
divine vantage point”.4 It is apparent that, for Pöhler, the true

meaning of history can only be understood from a divine vantage
point. This is a vantage point which – in Pöhler’s opinion – is
incompatible with classical historicism, and emerges only if a
salvation-historical approach is applied in interpreting the Text of
the Book of Revelation. Based on the aforementioned, it goes
without saying that the Text of the Apocalypse, in Pöhler’s view, is
eminently “theological” or “devotional”, without solid links to
historical Realities: persons, events and institutions.
Similar to Pöhler’s hermeneutical method is that of Florin Lăiu.
Lăiu uses the term “didactical” to denote the inspired writer’s
intention to convey spiritual encouragement and nourishment, as
opposed to literal information, through the writing down of biblical
or Spirit of Prophecy visionary materials. His view aids us in being
more precise in our definition of the problem addressed here.
Thus, terms like “theological” or “didactical” seem to be synonyms
of the adjectives “devotional” or “spiritual”, denoting the fact that
“The images presented in the vision[s]” of biblical prophets or
those of Ellen White describing the heavenly sanctuary “…are
nothing more than didactical texts, with a specific spiritual message,
and are not to be understood as an exact reflection of reality (emphasis
mine)”.5
From the definition above it is clear that the “theological”,
“didactical” or “devotional” nature of inspired passages becomes
4 Ibid. 3.
5 Florin Lăiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii: dialoguri fierbinţi pe teme biblice şi
religioase/Rubies of Late Hours: Hot Debates on Biblical and Religious Issues
(Unpublished book, electronic format, 2009), 208. See also Lăiu’s more recent
paper presented at the European Theology Teachers Convention, Cernica,
Romania, “The SDA Sanctuary Doctrine: Towards a Critical and Apologetic
Approach” (Unpublished paper, Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica, 2011),
12.
127
Visionary Accounts
obvious from the fact that the Text – as Lăiu and Pöhler see it –
does not exactly reflect the Reality it purports to describe. This is a
fundamental assertion of what I call didactical-idealist hermeneutic.
My purpose here is to submit didactical-idealist hermeneutic to a
Systematic Theology assessment and thus try to evaluate its
presuppositions and implications for the Doctrine of Revelation-
Inspiration.
THREE SENSES OF THE CONEPT OF REALITY

Our understanding of how the Text has come into being is
closely tied up with the semantic analysis of the concept of Reality.
We propose, therefore, to semantically analyse the concept of
Reality. This concept has at least three meanings when it is analysed
from the standpoint of how the Text has come into being.
First, the concept of Reality refers to the immediate, spatio-
temporal surrounding of a prophet experiencing a vision. The
phenomenological analysis of divine revelation has led to the
conclusion that the human agency involved in a vision loses every
contact with the spatial and temporal Reality around him or her.6
The revelatory events in which Ellen White was involved are prime
cases in this matter. The autobiographical or biographical accounts,
by eyewitnesses, speak about Ellen White being entirely
unconscious about the physical and temporal Reality surrounding
her while in vision.7 This first sense of the concept of Reality is not
6 This is a statement based on the phenomenological analysis of pertinent biblical

material containing prophetic visions. See Ez. 37:1; 40:1, Dan. 8:1-2, 2 Cor. 12:1-
3, Rev. 1:10.
7 See the phenomenological descriptions of Ellen White’s behaviour and personal
state during her visions; in James White, Life Incidents (Battle Creek, Mich.:
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1868), 272; also, Arthur L. White,
Ellen G. White, The Early Years, 1827 – 1862, vol. 1, (Washington, DC : Review
128
important for our research because it does not have direct

implications for our analysis of how the Text comes into existence.
Second, it can be argued that there is, however, a “visionary”
Reality, namely, the one that the prophet perceives as the object of
the divine communication through vision. Therefore, the second
sense of the concept of Reality is the one that denotes what is
going on in the “mind”8 of the prophet during the vision (Dan.
7:1,15). S/he is aware of him-/herself as being in, or present to, a
different Reality (Dan 7:15-16) than the one in which s/he is bodily
located. It is a Reality that can be earthly or heavenly, retrospective
or prospective, or concomitant and contemporary with the prophet
himself.
The prophet’s narrating or putting into writing (describing) the
Reality which is in his “mind” is called, in theology, “inspiration”
(Dan. 7:1b), while the act of communication of the message
through vision (or other revelatory means), as well as the thematic
content of the message, both located in the “mind” of the prophet,
are called, in theological circles, “revelation”. It is important to note
that the Reality in the prophet’s “mind” becomes accessible, that is,
understandable for the reader through writing or description, called
“inscripturation” or “textualisation”. This is how the Text is born
or constituted. Therefore, the Text is the result of a twofold
process known in theological circles as “revelation – inspiration”,
and Herald Publishing Association, 1985), 122-124.

8 The term “mind” is in inverted commas, because it is used in an improper
manner in this study. The Reality presented in a vision is not in the mind of the
prophet, rather outside of it. However, Reality “penetrates” the conscience, that
is, the mind of the prophet through the divine revelation of the vision itself,
given to the prophet with the purpose of being written down or orally related to
others. Both the writing down and the oral transmission of the visionary content
make the Reality that is in the “mind” of the prophet accessible to the reader.
129
Visionary Accounts
and both are associated with the activity of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet
1:20,21).
Third, the concept of “Reality” used in this study also refers to
the Reality that is outside of the prophet’s “mind”, towards which
the Text may point in a literal or non-literal way. If it is literal, then
the spatio-temporal accuracy of the narrative is proportional to the
personal capacity of the prophet to describe the contents of the
divine revelation that is within his/her “mind”. If it is non-literal,
that is, if it is literary, then the pictorial accuracy of the description
depends on the literary skills and artistry of a particular inspired
writer to depict spatio-temporal Reality in metaphorical, symbolic
or allegorical language.
Interpretative Passages as Texts

A word of caution and specification is, however, needed at this
point of our research. The Text is constituted not only through the
narration or description of the revealed visionary thought content
by the human agent, be it the biblical prophet, apostle, or the
inspired writer of modern times. The Text is constituted also by the
interpretation given by an inspired writer to certain parts of other
inspired writers’ visionary/revelatory material or to his/her own
visions. To illustrate this, we will refer to a comment of the apostle
John regarding the listeners of the Parable of the Good Sheppard. He
writes in his gospel (10:6) that “Jesus used this figure of speech, but
they did not understand what He was telling them” (NIV).
It is obvious that the apostle’s comment describes the cognitive
fiasco of Jesus’ preaching to his immediate audience. The preaching
occurred sometime between A.D. 27 and 31. The statement is a
retrospective gloss by the apostle John; a gloss inserted into the
Text when he wrote down his gospel, between 90 – 98 C.E. It is
also obvious that John’s purpose is to aid the reader by adding
clarity through the interpretation and explanation regarding the
retroactive cognitive Reality of Jesus’ audience. The question arises
130
with the force of necessity: is such an explanatory gloss part of the

Text or not? Does it have the same status as the rest of the Text,
being divinely inspired just as the Parable of the Good Sheppard is? The
answer should be self-evident if one takes into account what the
Scripture claims about itself (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Tim 3:15).
For the sake of clarity, we will present another example of how
the Text might be further constituted by the addition of
interpretative materials on the part of the inspired writer. This is an
example of a Text which is accepted in Adventist denominational
contexts as being the result of revelation - inspiration. It is a
description of one of Ellen White’s visions about the heavenly
sanctuary.
The curtain, or door, was opened, and I was permitted to enter.
In the first apartment I saw the candlestick with seven lamps, the
table of shewbread, the altar of incense, and the censer. All the
furniture of this apartment looked like purest gold and reflected
the image of the one who entered the place. The curtain which
separated the two apartments was of different colors and
material, with a beautiful border, in which were figures wrought
of gold to represent angels. The veil was lifted, and I looked into
the second apartment. I saw there an ark which had the
appearance of being of the finest gold. As a border around the
top of the ark, was most beautiful work representing crowns. In
the ark were tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments.
Two lovely cherubs, one on each end of the ark, stood with their
wings outstretched above it, and touching each other above the
head of Jesus as He stood before the mercy seat. Their faces
were turned toward each other, and they looked downward to
the ark….9
9 Ellen White, Early Writings, 251-252. URL http://www.whiteestate.org/. Online

on December 10, 2010.
131
Visionary Accounts
The following interpretative comment from Ellen White comes

as a gloss to her vision about the heavenly sanctuary. It is important
to notice what Florin Lăiu has pointed out in one of his recent
works, that White’s interpretation of the vision “insists on the exact
correspondence” between the sanctuary below (the earthly) and the
sanctuary above (heavenly).10 She wrote:
As the sanctuary on earth had two apartments, the holy and the
most holy, so there are two holy places in the sanctuary in
Heaven. And the ark containing the law of God, the altar of
incense, and other instruments of service found in the sanctuary
below, have also their counterpart in the sanctuary above.11
It is obvious that this explanation is part of Ellen White’s
writings, of her Text; and it cannot be postulated another status
than the one it acquired by the fact that it is the result of divine
revelation and inspiration. It would be, therefore, common sense to
argue that it is an inspired Text just as is the Text in which she
gives a written account of the heavenly sanctuary vision. This fact is
also underlined by Lăiu, stating that White “was shown [divinely
revealed] the correspondence between the two sanctuaries (below
and above)”.12
Concluding this subdivision of the paper, we may say that the
second and the third senses of the concept of “Reality” are
significantly related. The former sense captures the result of
revelation-inspiration in its being linked up with the spatial and
10 Florin Lăiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 231.

11 Ellen White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 1884:261, http://www.whiteestate.org/,
Online on December 10, 2010.
12 Lăiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 231. It is interesting to note that the grammatical
[passive] voice of the verb „to show” has been chosen by Lăiu in such a way as
to imply a divine agent who showed the prophetess in vision that there was a
literal correspondence between the two sanctuaries.
132
temporal Reality that is exterior to, and independent from, the

result of revelation and inspiration (The Text). Yet, the latter sense
is the Reality that is being described by the former (revelation-
inspiration). Therefore, the Text can relate in three different ways
to the Reality it describes, depending on the language it uses. These
three ways in which the Text relates to Reality will be analysed
below.
TAXONOMY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

TEXT AND REALITY
As indicated in this subheading, there can be more than one
kind of relationship between the inscripturated Text and outward
Reality, be it empirical or metaempirical. But before we look at
these types of relationship, one has to point out that the Text
features as the sign, while the Reality towards which it points is the
signified. No one would dispute the fact that the reader today does
not have direct access to the Reality described by the Text. So, we,
as readers, are confronted with the inaccessibility of the Reality
signified by the Text. But there would be some who would dispute
the question of why Reality should not be allowed to function as an
evaluative criterion for the reader to assess the cognitive
trustworthiness (credibility) of the Text. Disputation would occur
even though it is obvious why Reality cannot be used as an
evaluative criterion to judge the divinely sanctioned authority, the
cognitive credibility and correctness of the Text. It must be pointed
out that the above-mentioned inaccessibility is not the ultimate
reason for Reality being disqualified as a criterion to evaluate and
judge the Text. Rather, it is the fact that the Text itself claims to
function as the ultimate authoritative yardstick to evaluate, judge
and correct all worldviews, in its capacity of special revelation (Matt
4:4; Rev 22:18-19), while, at the same time, the Text assigns Reality
the subordinate function of general revelation (Psalm 19:1-6 cf. 7-
11).
133
Visionary Accounts
Of course, we admit that there can be extra-textual evidence,

such as archaeological finds or historical data that can confirm the
accuracy and fidelity of the relationship between sign and signified,
that is, Text and Reality. But the Text – based on its claim to be
revealed and inspired – excludes any other criterion of evaluation
and correction13 except for one, and that is the Text itself (John
17:17; 2 Tim 3:16).
The statements above would be groundless postulates if we did
not further substantiate them by analysing the various types of
relationship that the Scripture itself presents as existing between
Text and Reality. There are three types of relationship that can be
identified in the Text itself. These are:
1. Total correspondence between Text and Reality. It can also be called
total continuity between Text and Reality. The following
figure is meant to illustrate this relationship of total
correspondence:
TEXT REALITY
2. Partial correspondence between Text and Reality, or partial

continuity. The figure below is meant to illustrate it:
13 The statement “The Text corrects itself!” or “The Bible is its own corrector” is
one that I could argue for ad absurdum when applied to the Scripture, as a
negative “reflection”, “in the mirror”, of Martin Luther’s maxim: “The Scripture
is its own expositor”.
134
TEXT REALITY
3. Total lack of correspondence or total discontinuity between Text and

Reality. It can be illustrated graphically in the following way:
TEXT REALITY
Definition of the Concept of “Correspondence”

What we need now, for the sake of clarity, is a definition of the
concept of correspondence used in this paper. The concept of
correspondence denotes the cognitive reliability and
trustworthiness of the Text with regard to its historical-temporal
relationship with outside Reality as a whole; Reality that may
consist of personal entities, facts, states of affairs, conditions,
situations, events, institutions, objects, sequences of objects,
structures etc. Having defined what we meant by
“correspondence”, we need now to discuss, based on the biblical
Text, each type of relationship mentioned above so that afterwards
we can draw conclusions regarding their implications for the
Doctrine of Revelation – Inspiration.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEXT AND REALITY

Let us start with the third type of relationship (figure no. 3). We
are forced by the evidence to admit that in the Scripture there are
135
Visionary Accounts
passages that attest the existence of the third type of relationship,

that is, total lack of correspondence or total discontinuity between Text and
Reality. Such an instance is the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in
Luke 16:19-31. A thorough exegesis of the passage, done within the
framework of a biblical worldview (biblical cosmology, biblical
anthropology etc.), convinces us that the Text is completely
fictitious, without any connection to earthly or heavenly spatial-
temporal Reality. Jesus’ intention in using this parable is obvious.
He wants to present a “theological”, “didactical”14 or “spiritual”
message to his immediate audience, rather than an accurate, literal
description of the earthly, heavenly and subterranean spatial-
temporal Reality.
As stated above, the “theological” or “didactical” message of
the parable is easy to identify from the literary and thematic context
of Luke chapter 16, when it is interpreted within the literary-
thematic and historical context of the whole Scripture. So, the
intended message is to raise the awareness of the rich as to their
responsibility with regard to how they ought to relate – during their
lifetime – both to their fellow human beings and material
14 As stated earlier, the term “didactic” features in the theology of Florin Lăiu as a
technical term to describe his biblical hermeneutic of apocalyptic/sanctuary
Texts, as well as the hermeneutic he applies to certain texts of the Spirit of
Prophecy corpus. To be more precise, Lăiu uses the adjective “didactical” to
denote the inspired writer’s intention to convey spiritual counsel, as opposed to
literal information, through the writing down of biblical or Spirit of Prophecy
visionary materials. So, “didactical”, in Lăiu’s own words, Rubine din ceasuri târzii,
208, denotes the fact that „The images presented in the vision[s] [of biblical
prophets or Ellen White’s describing the heavenly sanctuary]…are nothing more
than didactical material, with a specific spiritual message, and are not to be understood
as an exact reflection of reality (emphasis mine).” The same definition of the term is
present in Lăiu, “Măsuţa cu nisip” (I, II, III, IV, V), Curierul Adventist, September
2009:14-15; October 2009:7-9; January 2010:8-9; February 2010:8-9; March
2010:8-9; and also in his “The SDA Sanctuary Doctrine”, 12.
136
possessions. Hence, the Text does not deliver any literal

information about the material, social and geographical Reality of
the first century (A.D.) Palestine, nor of the heavenly Reality of the
paradise or the underworld of Hades. This is the reason why this
type of relationship is called: total lack of correspondence/total
discontinuity between Text and Reality (figure no. 3).
The purpose of this article requires us to make the following
statement based on our thorough investigation of the whole Text
of the biblical canon: total discontinuity or total lack of correspondence
between Text and Reality is a literary characteristic, restricted to the
literary genre of a few passages of the Judeo-Christian Scripture.
The presence in the canon of this type of relationship does not
adversely affect the Doctrine of Revelation/Inspiration of the
Scripture. And this is because it can cogently be argued that the
biblical Text, in its entirety, is propositional revelation. This means
that revelation “is regarded as the communication of [factual,
cognitive] information” or “of propositional truth”15 about God,
man, creation, history etc. Moreover, propositional revelation
means, besides the factual reality of things, the explanation of the
meaning of these factual, historical, supra-historical, personal,
corporate acts and realities, described by the Scripture.16 The
presence of a few fictitious narratives in the canon, representing a
total discontinuity between Text and Reality, cannot be a trustworthy
basis to argue for the idea that total lack of correspondence or total
discontinuity between Text and Reality is the general feature of almost all
of the passages of the Bible.
15 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Books, 1998), 216.
16 Francesca Aran Murphy, “Revelation and the Trinity”, in Helen K. Bond, Seth
D. Kunin and Francesca Aran Murphy, eds., A Companion to Religious Studies and
Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), 511.
137
Visionary Accounts
The statement above is substantiated by our further study of the

other two types of relationship between Text and Reality. In what
follows, we are going to present our findings on the first type of
relationship called: total correspondence between Text and Reality. The
most relevant case in the Scripture to illustrate this type of
relationship between Text and Reality is the Parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The Text describes real personal entities,
real geographical places, literal events and institutions, factual social
issues and social classes, using an idiomatic expression in Greek:
kata synkyrian (v. 31, “according to an unexpected event”).17 Based
on this inner linguistic and hermeneutical control, it is reasonable to
maintain that every descriptive element in the Text had a social and
geographical correspondent in the first-century (A.D.) Palestinian
milieu. This is the reason why we call this type of relationship: total
correspondence between Text and Reality. It can reasonably be argued that
the presence of this kind of relationship in the biblical canon is the
rule, while the occurrence of total discontinuity or total lack of
correspondence between Text and Reality is the exception.
It is interesting and important to notice that, even if there is a
total correspondence between Luke’s Text and its signified Reality,
the authorial intent regarding the Text (Luke 10:25-37) is neither to
supply geographical data nor an account of social issues, nor to
flash out news headlines on first-century criminality in Judea. The
purpose that the author/writer (divine/human) has in mind is
“theological” or “didactical”: the transmission of an ethical truth
for the spiritual edification and moral rectification of the reader or
the interlocutor. This fact can be understood and explained on the
17 Commenting verses 30-32 in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Ellen White, The
Desire of Ages (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association,
1993), 499, says that “This was no imaginary [fictitious] scene, but an actual
occurrence, which was known to be exactly as represneted”.
138
basis of the literary context of the Text, and by the literary genre of
the passage which features as a narrative presentation, being a
parable, of “theological” truth. Textual criticism, the immediate and
the extended literary context, the cultural, social and historical
milieu, as well as the literary genre of the passage, are all definitive
literary givens to help the exegete in the exact identification of the
intended type of relationship between Text and Reality.
Another example of total correspondence between Text and Reality is
the narrative of the Creation, of the Fall and of the Flood, found in
Genesis chapters 1 to 11. In these cases, however, the author’s
intention in positing a total correspondence between Text and Reality, is
not just “theological” or “didactical”. In other words, the authorial
intent is not only to convey an advice, an exhortation or
encouragement. Rather, the authorial intent goes beyond the
“spiritual”, “theological” or “didactical” purpose, all these three
terms meaning the lack of a cognitive, literal correspondence
between the description in the Text and the described Reality. So,
we may ask: what is intended by the total correspondence between Text
and Reality in Genesis chapters 1 to 11? The answer should reflect
the fact that one has carried out a careful analysis of the Text itself
in order to be able to substantiate the claim of a total correspondence
between Text and Reality when it comes to the Genesis account of the
Creation, Fall and Flood.
Along with God’s existence (Gen 1:1), it is strikingly obvious
that a total correspondence is both claimed and presupposed in the
Text, rather than being substantiated by rational arguments and
proofs. Thus, the parallel phrases “Let there be …” and “it was so
…” (Gen 1:3, 9, 11, 14, 24) claim total correspondence between
Text and Reality. Such a correspondence presents itself as a solid
cognitive basis for the reader to develop an appropriate worldview.
Besides, this correspondence is also instrumental in his or her
139
Visionary Accounts
recognising the undisputed authority18 of the Text of Scripture as

the sole source for identifying adequate hermeneutical principles
and approaches to the interpretative task. Such recognition on the
part of the reader will come to the fore in his or her further
adopting a correct attitude, of self-submission, towards the
exclusive authority of God revealing himself in the Text. Worded
differently, the literal and cognitive description of the origins, the
marring and the general destruction/renewal of the geo-social
Reality of humankind, given by the Text of Genesis chapters 1 to
11, is meant to clarify the unique claims and status of the Text. And
also to ground the authority of the Text in the ultimate
presupposition of faith in the causal anteriority of a God, who is
both the author of the Text and the Creator/Lord of all Reality the
Text describes. This is the Reality towards which the Text points in
its capacity of being the authoritative source of understanding and
knowing Reality.
There is one more type of relationship left for analysis. And this
is the second type of relationship between Text and Reality called:
partial correspondence (figure 2). The apocalyptic passages that
describe the celestial world, the New Jerusalem, the heavenly abode
of the glorified saints, the renewed terrestrial habitat of redeemed
humanity, as well as the cosmic residence of God and his sanctuary
are examples that attest a partial correspondence between Text and Reality.
This means that metaphors, allegories, encrypted language and
symbols are used in the Text by the human writer to describe the
metaempirical, spatial and temporal Reality of the heavenly realm.
The literary genre of the Text (passage), known as apocalyptic,
18 Frank Hasel, Scripture in the Theologies of W. Pannenberg and D. G. Bloesch: An

Investigation and Assessment of its Origin, Nature and Use (Frankfurt am Mine: Peter
Lang, 1996), 31, has given a pertinent definition of the concept of authority,
aplicable to Scripture, as follows: “By authority we mean the legal or rightful
power and right to command and determine action”, - in footnote no. 5.
140
dictates the hermeneutical approach one has to apply. So, the

interpretation of such passages should take into account the fact
that the metaphorical description given by the Text refers to literal
entities, events and institutions pertaining to the heavenly realm or
Reality, even if a “theological” or “didactical” message is also
intended. The different literary devices (of symbols and metaphors)
do not authorise us to apply a spiritualised/idealised interpretation
of the Text which describes the spatial and temporal Reality of
heaven and the heavenly sanctuary.
The spiritualising hermeneutic, specific to liberal theology, is a
manner of dealing with the Text which works with the premise of a
total discontinuity between the Text and the spatio-temporal Reality,
whether earthly or heavenly. The idiomatic expression used by the
liberal exegetes to describe the temporal and spatial discontinuity
between the Text and Reality is the technical term “theological”.19 The
Text of Scripture – in the liberal view – is almost entirely a
“theological” Text, that is, without a correspondence between Text
and historical, geographical, social and/or supernatural Reality, so,
without a literal and cognitive correspondence between the Text
and the described Reality.
19 The definition of the term “theological” presented by Erickson, Christian

Theology, vol. 1, 235, in his comment on the liberal Christology of Martin Kähler,
The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical Biblical Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1964), 65-66, is the following: “We can never get beyond the account of the
Gospel to Historie [history], to the real, objective events. Instead we build our
faith on Geschichte, or significant history, which refers to the impact [ spiritual,
didactical] that Jesus had on his disciples.” Thus, in the Gospels/the Scripture
one should not expect to find objective descriptions of Reality. Rather, one is
faced with “theological” material, that is, the “spiritual”, “ethical” and
“didactical” influence of the subjective stories [Geschichte, in German] of cetain
individuals and groups.
141
Visionary Accounts
APOCALYPTIC-SANCTUARY TEXTS: THE

HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEM
Going back to the second type of relationship, a prime example
of partial correspondence between Text and Reality can be found in some
passages that describe the heavenly sanctuary. The heavenly
sanctuary is the original structure whose correspondent is the
earthly sanctuary. We may refer to some passages in the Book of
Revelation (chaps. 4-11), in Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews (chaps. 8-9)
or in the Book of Isaiah, where one finds the vision of Isaiah’s call
to the prophetic office that took place in the context of the
sanctuary (6:1-8); all these passages reflect a partial correspondence
between Text and Reality. The difficulty that the exegete faces boils
down to the question: what has to be interpreted and what does not
have to be interpreted literally when it comes to the diverse
descriptive elements in the Text depicting the heavenly sanctuary,
or heaven in general?
This difficulty is further amplified by the interpretation that the
inspired writer himself or herself gives to one’s own writings,
applying a literalistic pattern of correspondence between the Text
and the Reality it describes. As an example, we may refer to the
literalist commentaries, mentioned earlier in this paper, of Ellen
White’s referring to the correspondence between the earthly and
heavenly sanctuaries. In fact, she affirms a complete
correspondence between the descriptive Text regarding both the
earthly and heavenly sanctuaries and the spatio-temporal Reality of
these two structures. In other words, White promotes – in this
particular case – the idea of a total correspondence between the Text and
the earthly-heavenly Reality. Besides, she also advocates a total
correspondence between the terrestrial and celestial sanctuaries, as
Lăiu has correctly pointed out, quoting White:
As the sanctuary on earth had two apartments, the holy and the
most holy, so there are two holy places in the sanctuary in
Heaven. And the ark containing the law of God, the altar of
142
incense, and other instruments of service found in the sanctuary

below, have also their counterpart in the sanctuary above.20 And
in the wisdom of God the particulars of this work [in the earthly
sanctuary] were given us that we might, by looking to them,
understand the work of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.21
Without any doubt, the above mentioned commentary by Ellen
White applies a literalistic interpretation to the descriptive elements
of the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. The problem it poses
becomes evident from the perspective offered by our analysis,
specific to Systematic Theology studies, of the relationship between
Text and Reality. The problem is present not only when we
interpret Ellen White’s writings, but also when we interpret the
Scripture as Text. We must keep in mind – based on our analysis in
the first part of this research – that the Text is engendered by both
the faithful description of the revelatory content of a vision and the
prophet’s/apostle’s giving us extra information by personal
interpretation or comments.
Let us now pinpoint the hermeneutical problem: as a reader,
what interpretative, evaluative and arbitrational instrument do I
have to prove that the biblical writer, or Ellen White, is wrong in
making a literalistic interpretation of the inspired description of
revelatory (visionary) materials.22 In other wards, why is it wrong on
20 White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, (1884), 261.

21 White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing
22 Lăiu asserts that the apostle Paul and Ellen White made mistakes (committed
errors) in the description of the earthly or the heavenly sanctuaries. Their

mistakes are obvious from the erroneus description of the constitutive elements
of the terrestrial sanctuary, as is the case with Paul in Hebrews 9:4, or from the
postulation of a literalistic corespondence between the earthly and heavenly
sanctuary, as is the case with Ellen White: see Laiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 221-
223, 231, 233. The errors of Paul and Ellen White are due – in Lăiu’s oppinion –
to a non-critical dependance on information Paul was familiar with due to his
143
Visionary Accounts
the part of the inspired writer to interpret the heavenly sanctuary as

literally corresponding to the earthly sanctuary? Or, how can I, as a
reader, assess that Ellen White is wrong in positing a total
correspondence between Text and Reality when it comes to the
interpretation of the relationship between the sanctuaries below
and above?
To give an answer to these questions, and thus to seek to find a
reasonable key to the problem of the instrument of
arbitration/assessment/critique, our research (method) offers two
alternatives. (1) The Text itself could be the instrument of
arbitration and assessment; or, it could be (2) the Reality described
by the Text. Speaking of the second alternative, it is obvious that
from the perspective of the Reality the Text describes we have no
possibility to judge the Text. Why? The answer is in the point we
have made earlier in this paper: the Reality described by the Text
holds a subordinate function in its relation to the Text, that of
general revelation. And it is also inaccessible to the reader and, in
consequence, it is unverifiable. What we are left with is the Text as
the only available source or instrument for the reader to judge and
correct the Text. I, as a reader and researcher today, cannot see any
other safe alternative. Accordingly, our conclusion is that the Text
has to be judged and critiqued from the perspective of, and with
the instruments available in, the Text itself. This is the unavoidable
paradox of all sound theology.
However, not all contemporary readers agree with this paradox.
What is meant here is that the very postulation of descriptive
and/or interpretative mistakes within the Text, which were made
by the inspired writer, expresses (attests) the attitude of non-
rabinical education, or due to White’s non-critical dependance on 19th-century

denominational ideas about the two sanctuaries, see Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 222-
223, 231-232.
144
acceptance of the theological paradox by some Adventist readers in

the postmodern era. What are the possible consequences of such
an attitude? For a reader displaying this attitude, the postulation of
mistakes in the Text disqualifies the Text as an instrument of
evaluation, arbitration and correction. In consequence, the above-
identified problem remains unsolved. That is, as a reader, what
interpretative, evaluative and arbitrational instrument do I have to
prove that a literalistic or historicist interpretation, by the biblical
writer or by Ellen White, who maintains a relationship of total
correspondence between Text and Reality, is wrong or inadequate?
Moreover, what instrument does any reader have at his or her
disposal to correct an interpretative (or even descriptive) mistake
that is in the Text if neither the Text nor the Reality it describes
offer any kind of help? The aforementioned question is justifiable
in light of the two things that should be evident from our analysis
above: (1) a mistaken Text cannot be cognitively reliable to help in
one’s critique, and (2) an inaccessible Reality cannot offer help
either.
HOW IS THIS PROBLEM SOLVED BY DIDACTICAL-

IDEALIST HERMENEUTIC?
In his recent study, to which we have already made reference in
this article,23 Florin Lăiu uses a third alternative of solving the
23 See footnote entry no. 14, specifying the bibliographical details of a series of
articles by Lăiu published in the Romanian Union’s official organ entitled Curierul
Adventist, articles in which the author espouses a very personal and original view
of a “new theology” – as he calles it – of the sanctuary. The same “new
theology” of the sanctuary, elaborated on more extensively, is found in his
research paper presented at the 2011 European Theology Theachers Convention,
“The SDA Sanctuary Doctine”, pp. 1-17 and also in his unpublished book,
Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 193-249.
145
Visionary Accounts
problem: Human Reason (logic).24 Human Reason features in

Lăiu’s hermeneutical system as research method. What is meant by
the Human Reason’s being research method is as follows.
There is a wide consensus among historical-critical scholars that
theological research should be “scientific”. What does “scientific”
mean, in their view?25 In doing research, whose Object is the Text,
Human Reason is viewed as an authority that masters the Text.
Thus, it is an authoritative entity outside and above the Text. It is
only in this way that Human Reason is capable of being objective in
the process of theological research. Objectivity imposes on the
cognitive Subject (reader/theologian) an attitude of distancing him-
or herself from the Object of research, that is, the Text.
“Objectivity” is, therefore, another term for “independence”, both
terms denoting the fundamental elements of scientific method in
doing research, according to the 18th-century Enlightenment ideals
of scientism, very much present as a major assumption in
theological scholarship today. In other words, in Enlightenment
thought, the Human Reason’s objectivity ensures the scientific
quality of one’s research. Furthermore, the scientific quality of
one’s research is reflected in the conclusions drawn. How are
conclusions drawn?
Conclusions are drawn through rational or logical critique,26 by
issuing judgments regarding the Text and its human writer(s). Such
24 A detailed discussion of the Human Reason as a theological reasearch method,

is found in Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, A Search for God: Understanding Apocalyptic
Spirituality (Bucuresti:Editura Universitara, 2010), 18-58.
25 On the scientific critera of theological research from a perspective that upholds
the propitional view of revelation, see Szalos-Farkas, Ibid., 26-36.

26 As an example of the outstanding importance for scientific research of human
logic in drawing conclusions, see the line of questions wherebyt Lăiu, Rubine din
ceasuri târzii, 222, seems to try to raise awareness of how irrational it is to accept
the idea of a literal corespondence between the Text that describes the heavenly
146
judgments are based on presuppositions that are alien to the Text,

and are issued by the Human Reason that has positioned itself
above the Text. As an example of such judgement, we can refer to
Lăiu’s fundamnetal assumptions present in his theological and
exegetical research regarding the heavenly sanctuary, a research that
lasted more than twenty years. There are, in fact, two outstanding
assumptions that seem to have governed his research. First, that
“the prophetic visions” of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy do not
communicate “scientific information about the heavenly things”.27
For Lăiu, inspired visions would only communicate “scientific
information” if they “describe[d] the heavenly and future reality as
if it would be filmed by a camera”.28 Second, that “inspired authors
can make mistakes in what pertains to the human aspects of
presenting the message, but the message itself is never mistaken”.29
It is obvious that both of these assumptions force us to ask
ourselves: how can one account for this epistemological dualism
and dichotomy, implicit in Lăiu’s aforementioned statement? We
have called it “epistemological dualism”, because the author’s two
assumptions raise a fundamental question, namely, that of the
possibility of acquiring an authentic knowledge of Reality based on
the Text. In other words, this is a dualism and dichotomy of the
nonscientific, incorrect “presentation” of the “message” (by the apostle
sanctuary and the Reality it describes: “John was shown, too, the ark in the
heavenly temple, in the midst of the thunders on Sinai (Acts 11:19; 15:5). But
does the vision want to teach us that there is a physical [real] ark in heaven, with
stone tablets in it? What would be its use? So that the golden cherubs might have
something to look down at? Or, it is for the angels to know that they are not
allowed to steal donkies or to lust after women”?
27 Lăiu, “The SDA Sanctuary Doctrine”, footnote no. 43 on page 12.
28 Ibid.
29 Lăiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 222.

147
Visionary Accounts
Paul or Ellen White) and the correctness of the “message itself”.30 We

ask ourselves: how can one cogently argue for a mistaken
presentation of the inspired message that “never” causes a mistaken
message?
Submitting his theology of the sanctuary to a thorough
examination, I have reached the conclusion that the explanation
and the justification of Florin Lăiu’s epistemological dualism is in
his didactical-idealist hermeneutic. Such a hermeneutic is based on
the presupposition of a total discontinuity between Text and Reality. That
is, from Lăiu’s perspective, the Text of the heavenly sanctuary does
not describe the literal and spatial Reality, but the “didactical” or
“spiritual” Reality of a heavenly sanctuary. So, for Lăiu, the message
of the sanctuary vision is spiritual, and it is meant to strengthen the
reader’s faith.31 In order to argue for the Text achieving this goal,
Lăiu’s view of the Text, in its relation to Reality, does not need to
postulate any correspondence, total or partial, between the two.
30 The epistemological dualism between mistake and corectness, specific to Lăiu’s

hermeneutic, is made even more problematic by the fact that the author, Rubine
din ceasuri târzii, 231, admits, on the one hand, that White’s excesive literalism is
the result of divine revelation and, on the other hand, he seems to be arguing for
the idea that literalism is due to her own biased interpretation of the sanctuary
visions. So, in his first statement Lăiu asserts that “ it has been shown [her] (the
passive voice of the verb “to show” has been chosen by Lăiu to point to a divine
agent who gave the profetess a vision that reflected) the correspondence between
the two sanctuaries (the earthly and the heavenly); in the second statement he
contradicts the first one by saying that “the work of a prophet is, first of all, to
give an account of what has been shown him [in vision], rather than to give an
exact explanation of what he has seen.”
31 Lăiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 232, concedes that, in spite of the mistake of
excesive literalism, the faith of the Adventists, in the 19th century, had be
strenghtened through Ellen White’s promoting a total corespondence between
the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries: “For a while [in the 19th century], this
literalism had contributed positively to the establishemnt … of the doctrine of
the sanctuary.”
148
Spirituality does not require literalism,32 in Lăiu’s opinion. On the

contrary, he affirms that spirituality (or faith) is negatively affected
by literalism when it comes to the heavenly sanctuary narratives.33
Based on the above, our conclusion is that Lăiu’s didactical-
idealist hermeneutic spiritualises the relationship between Text and
Reality. And only through the spiritualisation of the relationship
between Text and Reality can one make sense and justify his
conclusion according to which “inspired authors can make mistakes
in what pertains to the human aspects of presenting the message,
but the message itself is never mistaken”.34
It is obvious that such epistemological dualism – even if it is
surmounted by the author through a spiritualised-idealist didactical
hermeneutic – makes impossible the acquirement of a true
knowledge of Reality through the Text. Moreover, the
epistemological dualism inherent in didactical-idealist hermeneutic
does not take into account the fact that the only means for the
reader to get access and thus to know Reality – earthly or heavenly,
past or future – is the Text, engendered by revelation and
inspiration. And the denial of a total or partial correspondence between
Text and Reality means also the denial of the possibility of
knowledge per se. Why? Because knowing only the spiritual,
devotional or moral message of the Text (of the heavenly
32 A thorough study of the dependence of Adventist spirituality on a biblical literal

hermeneutic can be found in the doctoral diseration of Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, The
Rise and Development of Seventh-day Adventist Spirituality : The Impact of the Charismatic
Guidance of Ellen White (Cernica : Editura Institutului Teologic Adventist, 2005),
94-144.
33 As a continuation of the quote in the footnote entry no. 30, we find the
following statement by Lăiu, Ibid.: “Nowadays, however, to present, as a

doctrine, the literal corespondence between the two sanctuaries, even if this
refers just to the overall bipartite model, does not encourage faith”.
34 Laiu, Rubine din ceasuri târzii, 222.
149
Visionary Accounts
sanctuary), without the Reality “behind” the Text, is not an

authentic knowledge, but a symbolic, conceptual, spiritual or
philosophical one.
Their scientific claims and “theological” view of the Text,
offering only a conceptual, symbolic or devotional knowledge,
causes historical-critical theologians/theology to repudiate the
doctrine of propositional revelation. In order to do theology, liberal
theologians do not need any correspondence between Text and
Reality, historical, spatial and metaempirical. They do not need the
revealed and inspired Text either. What they need, in order to do
theology, is simply ‘text’, that is, myth, legend, poetry and prose
(story without history).35 Whatever text suffices if only relevant and
meaningful to nurture one’s New Age, Buddhist, Hindus, Christian,
ecological, virtual or even Adventist spirituality.
CONCLUSIONS
This research has highlighted the repercussions of didactical-
idealist hermeneutic upon the doctrines of Scripture and Spirit of
Prophecy. This is an hermeneutic that does not reckon with its
underlying assumptions and presuppositions.
Thus, from our analysis of the different types of relationship
between Text and Reality, it has become evident that by
35 There is a new theological trend within Christianity that is based eminently on

“narratives”, that is, on stories instead of history, a fact that accounts for the wide
proliferation of the different Far Eastern spiritualities in the Western Christian
cultural milieu. As long as a certain narrative does not pose the question of
propositional truth, Christian narrative theology is “relaxed” because it can thrive
on all sorts of texts, including biblical ones, ignoring the question of whether the
texts/narratives are the result of revelation/inspiration; see Alister McGrath,
Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 174.
150
interpreting the Text via didactical-idealist hermeneutic one cannot

avoid undermining the propositional view of revelation that is
rooted in the literal sense of the Bible and of the Spirit of
Prophecy. The undermining occurs due to a fundamental
presupposition specific to didactical-idealist hermeneutic, namely,
that the relationship between sanctuary/apocalyptic Texts and the
Reality they describe is best understood by the use of spiritual
exegesis. Furthermore, the promoter of didactical-idealist
hermeneutic cannot avoid the rationalistic presuppositions of
liberal theology. And this is because he operates with a second
fundamental presupposition, that of the Human Reason capable of
critically assessing the Text, as has been evidenced by our study.
Human Reason, in this context, plays the role of “scientific”
method applicable in theological research. What this scientism
means, can be defined on the basis of our analysis of the different
types of relationship between Text and Reality.
To be scientific, in rationalistic terms, presupposes one’s
maintaining “objectivity” throughout the entire process of
theological research. In other words, as long as the scholar or
reader secures his or her independence from the Text by mastering
the Text and by subordinating it to Human Reason (or logic),
objectivity in research is guaranteed. This lends theological research
its scientific quality. Furthermore, objectivity features Human
Reason as the arbiter of the Text, capable of identifying mistakes in
it.
There are a number of very difficult problems generated by this
rationalistic research method, specific to didactical-idealist
hermeneutic. These problems pertain to the question of revelation
and inspiration of both the Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Instead of defining them in affirmative sentences, these problems
will here be pinpointed by a series of interrogative formulations, as
follows:
As a reader/researcher, what criteria do I have to distinguish
between the correctness of a description given in the revealed and
inspired Text and the mistake the inspired writer made when
151
Visionary Accounts
interpreting that Text? In other words, what tools do I have to

distinguish between correct and incorrect Texts in the Scripture or the
Spirit of Prophecy, if both the descriptive and the interpretative
Texts are the result of revelation – inspiration? On what grounds
can I affirm the correctness of Moses’ literalism in the first eleven
chapters of the Book of Genesis and the incorrectness of Ellen
White’s literalism referring to the two sanctuaries? That is, what
reason do I have to consider Moses to be correct when he affirms –
implicitly – the total correspondence between the Text of Genesis
chapters 1 to 11 and the Reality described by it, and Ellen White to
be wrong when she affirms the total correspondence between the
earthly and heavenly sanctuaries? Finally, is Human Reason (logic) a
method of theological research extracted from the Text? Worded
differently, is it an inherent element of the Text? If it is not, is
methodologically safe to impose upon the Text something that is
alien to the Text? In the final analysis, is Human Reason (logic)
capable of solving – by didactical-idealist hermeneutic – the
problem of the literalistic interpretation of the relationship between
Text and Reality without generating even more complicated
theological problems than the ones it thought to have solved?
Besides the issues mentioned above, the findings of this study
have determined us to formulate several questions with regard to
the hermeneutico-ethical problems – that is, the deontology of
interpretation – induced by the didactical-idealist and rationalistic
method of theological research. These questions can be formulated
as follows:
How can the reader/researcher avoid the indictment of a lack of
modesty/humility if he or she asserts the implicit inerrancy
(correctness) of one’s own theological conclusions while pointing
out the explicit (inspired?) mistakes of the apostle Paul or Ellen
White? If Human Reason is the arbiter of the Text, in which it is
capable to identify mistakes, what kind of alternative “text”
(source), possessing incontestable and exclusive authority, is there
available for the reader/researcher to correct his own Reason
152
which has reached inaccurate conclusions in the scientific discourse

of theological research? And what if Human Reason, besides
drawing false conclusions, has also widely disseminated them? Who
will repair the damage done, and how36 will one assume
responsibility for the loss of the readers’ faith in the propositional
revelation in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy? These are
questions of hermeneutical deontology.
As an answer to these interpretative-deontological questions,
our research – using the scientific instruments of Systematic
Theology studies – has emphasised the fact that has been almost
entirely neglected by scholars, namely, that modesty or humility is a
sine qua non of any trustworthy theological research. In other words,
an attitude of subordination on the part of the reader/researcher
towards the Text, which is humbleness in action, is a fundamental
and indispensable principle of theological method, one that will
determine the conclusions of one’s research.
Finally, the present study has brought an awareness of another
fact. Namely, that the maintenance of a correspondence between
the Text of the biblical canon or the Spirit of Prophecy and the
spatial-temporal Reality it describes, is not compromised by the
existence within the canon/Spirit of Prophecy of some fictitious
passages, of total discontinuity between the Text and Reality. Moreover,
the affirmation of a total or partial correspondence between Text
and Reality is not something the reader substantiates using evidence
taken from outside of the Text, but it is discovered and recognised
as existing in the Text, in the form of a claim of the Text about its
own relation to Reality. Such a discovery and recognition on the
36 The question of “how” is pertinent. Why? Because there is another, almost

inevitable, common sense question, which is pastoral in nature: “if even the
inspired Texts and writers (Paul or/and Ellen White) are wrong, what chance
does a specialist in theology or layman stand to convince the reader/researcher
of his mistaken theological method and erroneous conclusions?”
153
Visionary Accounts
part of the reader presuppose an adequate method of theological

research. According to this, the reader is always in a subordinate
position to the Text, allowing the Reality of a personal God, whom
the Text reveals to us, to govern the scientific discourse of
theological research by correcting the reader’s thinking,
presuppositions, worldview and personal attitude towards the Text.
Only in this way can the reader/scholar hope for conclusions that
are the expressions of truth arrived at by methodologically reliable
research. Applied truth, in turn, is the guarantee of a full and final
restoration in the reader’s life of that spirituality which acquires its
vitality from a proper understanding of the relationship between
Text and Reality.
TheoRhēma 6.2 (2011): 154-156
RECENZIE BIBLIOGRAFICĂ
Hunger: Satisfying the Longing of Your Soul (Foame: Satisfacerea dorului

sufletului tău), Jon L. Dybdahl. Hagerstown, Md.: Review and
Herald, 2008. Pp. 144 inclusiv o bibliografie selectată. 12.99 $.1
Cartea lui Jon Dybdahl se adresează unei preocupări legitime, şi
anume vieţii spirituale a membrilor bisericii şi relaţiei acestora cu
Dumnezeu. Mai precis: cum Îl experimentează cineva pe
Dumnezeu? Autorul face multe afirmaţii bune şi de folos. În
anumite părţi cartea inspiră cititorii, în timp ce în altele ridică un
număr de întrebări.
Dybdahl argumentează împotriva unui creştinism
disproporţionat, raţional şi, astfel – cu o anumită justificare –,
împotriva accentuării unilaterale a doctrinei, eticii şi teologiei
biblice. Dar, ca rezultat, aceste zone din gândirea şi trăirea creştină
par a fi uitate. Se pare că ceea ce lipseşte este o sinteză între teologia
cognitivă şi spiritualitate. De exemplu, în ultimul său capitol autorul
scrie: „În timp ce eu nu aş nega niciodată că teologia şi etica sunt
importante, ele nu pot sta deasupra rolului inimii şi a centralităţii
dragostei” (132). Aceasta sună ca şi cum subiectivismul triumfă
asupra cuvântului obiectiv. Pare a se lăsa impresia că atunci când
„disciplinele spirituale” sunt îndeplinite, totul este în ordine şi
relaţia cu Dumnezeu este garantată. Cu toate acestea, adventiştii nu
citesc Biblia şi în special Noul Testament într-o asemenea manieră
unilaterală (a se vedea discuţia despre lapte şi mâncărurile tari din
Evrei 5-6).
De-a lungul cărţii există tendinţa de a afirma că spiritualitatea
este prezentă în numeroase denominaţiuni creştine şi chiar oferă o
evaluare pozitivă a spiritualităţii în religiile lumii, deşi autorul face o
1 Recenzia a fost luată din buletinul informativ al Biblical Research Institute (BRI),
Reflections: The BRI Newsletter, Number 35, July 2011, p. 16.
155
Recenzie bibliografică
distincţie atunci când se ajunge la meditaţie. El spune „noi trebuie

să fim atenţi să nu minimalizăm sau să denigrăm tradiţii sau accente
diferite de ale noastre. Trupul lui Hristos beneficiază de toate
tradiţiile şi noi trebuie să le celebrăm la alţii...” (116). Această
afirmaţie poate fi înţeleasă ca însemnând că adventiştii ar trebui să
accepte misticismul şi orice abordare spirituală posibilă fără a le
evalua. Cu alte cuvinte, cartea pare a fi, în anumite locuri,
ecumenică şi pluralistă. Ne întrebăm: nu are înţelegerea adventistă a
naturii omului, de asemenea, consecinţe pentru spiritualitate,
înţelegere care priveşte corpul, sufletul şi spiritul ca o singură
entitate şi neagă nemurirea naturală a sufletului? Nu ar trebui ca şi
această problemă să fie discutată?
Tratarea „disciplinelor spirituale” aminteşte puternic de cartea
lui Richard Foster, Discipline spirituale, care conţine de asemenea atât
material bun, cât şi material problematic. Această lucrare este citată
în mod repetat şi poate deranja anumiţi cititori. Există câteva
afirmaţii în cartea lui Dybdahl care pot fi greşit înţelese: autorul
recomandă lectio divina (62), folosirea îndrumătorilor spirituali
(„spiritual guides”, „călăuze spirituale”, 136), „rugăciunea lui Isus”
potrivit tradiţiei ortodoxe ruse (n.c. sau româneşti), un tip de
rugăciune repetativă care poate fi folosită ca o mantra (52),2
rugăciunea pe ritmul respiraţiei (52), rugăciunea şi meditaţia asupra
obiectelor de artă şi a mijloacelor vizuale (53), vizualizarea etc.3
Avertizări cu privire la practicile exagerate sau problematice sunt
practic inexistente. Mai mult, potrivit autorului, creşterea în
practicarea disciplinelor spirituale ar trebui evaluată (135).
Capitolele finale sunt abordate mai mult din punct de vedere
2
Dybdhal, 52, citează rugăciunea astfel: „Doamne Isuse Hristoase, Fiul lui
Dumnezeu, ai milă de mine, păcătosul.” Mai simplu, „Isuse, ai milă de mine” sau
„Ai milă de mine”.
3 Cf. Bill Cork, „On Contemplative Prayer”. Accesat la 13 iunie 2011. Online:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/ 2010/10/31/contemplative-prayer.
156
psihologic. Recunoaştem că autorul încearcă în anumite locuri să-şi

prezinte argumentele din punct de vedere biblic, dar eşuează în a
face dreptate textului biblic. În ansamblu, se pare că materialul
biblic este marginalizat. Diagrama de la pagina 109 enumeră sub
rubrica „creştin teist” pe Dumnezeu, îngeri, ştiinţele sociale, karma,
magia şi ştiinţele naturale; alegerea vocabularului precum şi
descrierile lor de la pagina 105 ar putea ridica probleme pentru
cititori.
În pofida unei bibliografii detaliate care încurajează cititorii să
cumpere diferite cărţi, ceea ce lipseşte cu adevărat sunt autorii
adventişti,4 o descriere a „spiritualităţii” adventiste şi comentariile
lui Ellen G. White asupra acestui subiect, de exemplu în Calea către
Hristos. De asemenea, lipseşte o discuţie asupra modului în care
păzirea Sabatului, discuţiile biblice de la Şcoala de Sabat, întâlnirile
de rugăciune precum şi practicile adventiste ale botezului, spălării
picioarelor şi Cinei Domnului influenţează viaţa spirituală a
membrilor bisericii. Chemarea din Apocalipsa 14:7 de a ne închina
Dumnezeului creator nu este auzită în această carte. Cu alte cuvinte,
această lucrare eşuează în a fi o contribuţie adventistă specifică la
spiritualitate.
Deşi subiectul este important, impresia generală este că această
carte are nevoie, în diferite locuri, de îmbunătăţiri majore.
Dr. Ekkehardt Mueller

Biblical Research Institute (Institutul de cercetări biblice al
Conferinţei Generale)
(traducător: Dan-Adrian Petre)
4 A se vedea o lucrare recentă care tratează spiritualitatea adventistă şi în special

spiritualitatea lui Ellen G. White: Zoltán Szalos-Farkas, A Search for God:
Understanding Apocalyptic Spirituality (Bucureşti: Editura Universitară, 2010).

The Eschatological Hermeneutic of Biblic PDF

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

The Eschatological Hermeneutic of Biblic PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TheoRhēma 6.

FOREWORD TO THE CURRENT ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL

CUVÂNT ÎNAINTE LA NUMĂRUL CURENT AL REVISTEI

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC OF BIBLICAL

GOSPEL CENTERED HERMENEUTICS: PROSPECTS AND

Frank M. Hasel ........................................................................................ 49

UNITY, BUT AT WHAT COST?

Gerhard Pfandl ........................................................................................ 89

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE COSMIC CONFLICT

Laszlo Gallusz ........................................................................................ 103

Zoltán Szalos-Farkas ............................................................................. 123

Dybdahl, Jon L. Hunger: Satisfying the Longing of Your Soul

It has now become a tradition for the theology teachers of the

A devenit deja o tradiţie ca o dată la doi ani profesorii de

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL HERMENEUTIC

I. INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF

1 Leonard Goppelt, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964–1976), 8:255–

Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1978), 165, citing Werner G. Kümmel, “Schiftauslegung,”

Robert M. Grant wrote, “the New Testament method of

II. THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY

Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (7 vols.; 3d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr

Macmillan, 1963), 54–55.

the nature and function of Old Testament typology.”6 D. A. Carson

6 Mark W. Karlberg, “Legitimate Discontinuities Between the Testaments,” JETS

(paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society 46th Annual Meeting,

CHART 1. THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY:

The Traditional View Post-critical Neo-Typology

As I began my dissertation work, I wrestled with how to decide

in Scripture? But if you define it before going to Scripture, then you

CHART 2. THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF BIBLICAL TYPOLOGY8

8 These characteristic elements of biblical typology have emerged from detailed

prefiguration of the corresponding New Testament antitype. Second,

III. IDENTIFYING THE TYPES IN THE OT: THE

9 See Davidson, Typology in Scripture, 36–37.

Terry,11 Louis Berkhof,12 Leonhard Goppelt,13 and others who saw

11 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950),145.

New (trans. D. H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 199, 205.

Press, 1985), 121; cf. 103–121.

The recently-published dissertation of Paul Hoskins provides a

classified as partially prophetic, then it can be viewed as an

As noted above, the predictive/prophetic aspect of typology

I suggest that the mutely prefigurative OT type (person, event,

CHART 3. TYPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

1. Adam New Adam Antitypical Adam

2. Flood New Cosmic Antitype

Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

3. Exodus New Exodus Antitypical Exodus

Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

4. Earthly Earthly a Copy of the Antitypical Heavenly

5. Moses New Moses Antitypical Moses

Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

6. Joshua New Joshua Antitypical Joshua

7. David New David Antitypical David

Old Testament Old Testament Verbal New Testament

8. Jonah New Jonah Antitypical Jonah

The middle column of Chart 3 points out the OT verbal

ha’adam (with the article) indicates an individual person, “the man.”

Cor 15)20 is not only a NT concept, but already present in and

V. 15c serpent “you”/ – Singular – "He/ "His heel"

20 The concept of corporate solidarity in these Pauline passages is widely

Intertextual Study” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 2002); and O. Palmer