1
The Miracle of Moral Motivation1
Christian Wannenmacher
Let us begin with a striking remark in Evangelium und Kultur by Eric Voegelin:
“The only content of the Gospel [according to John] is not a doctrine but the
event that God was present in Jesus. That is an event – nothing at all is being
taught. That here is such a human being in whom God is so present, who is so
open to the Divine Presence that he demonstrated this Presence in His life so
concretely convincingly – that must also have been the secret of Christ’s
success and His effect on His friends, the Apostles, etc., who were so impressed
by the Divine Presence in His daily life, in His deeds and in His behavior. […] It is
not any kind of doctrine at all, but the impression made by a man who is
completely open to the Divine Presence in His existence. That is an event that
in this way is new.”
It was this kind of Presence which John experienced with his call out of
the circle around John the Baptist into following Jesus, and finally which
inspired him to write down his Gospel. However it is also this kind of Presence
that emanates from each and every teaching preacher or preaching teacher in
genuine discipleship according to the promise of this Gospel (John 7: 38) even
up to today.
When comparing Paul’s writings with those of John, we are dealing with
two prototypes of the preaching of the continual Presence of Jesus Christ: Paul
is the pugnacious dialectic from the tribe of Benjamin who at times compared
himself to a demolition expert in order to further secure the foundation of the
1 This lecture arose from a contribution drawn up together with Viktor Golinets to the celebratory
publication Christ, Salvation and the Eschaton, Daniel Heinz / Jirí Moskala / Peter von Bemmelen (eds.), Berrien Springs, MI: SDA Theological Seminary 2009, pp. 133-155. It bore the title "›Der beste Wein kommt noch‹. Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis vom hermeneutischen Zirkel zur eschatologischen Struktur der Zeit“ (›The Best Wine Is Yet to Come.‹ Observations on the Relationship between the Hermeneutical Circle and the Eschatological Structure of Time.)
2
Congregation (1 Cor. 3:10 and 2 Cor. 10: 4-6), and John, the bold Eschatologist,
like an eagle is looking in that direction from which the light is coming.
(According to legend the eagle is capable of looking into the sun without being
blinded.) At the same time the Benjamites had always been known as the
defenders of the Temple (Genesis 49: 27; Jos. 18: 11-28; Ezra 1: 5). Although
both thought apocalyptically, they approached the connection between
prophecy and morals quite differently in their hermeneutics. Paul shortened
the classic alternatives of their times with the formula “For Jews request a sign,
and Greeks seek after wisdom;” (1 Cor. 1:22). What does this formula mean?
And what meaning does it still have today?
A Knowledge of God Precedes the Knowledge of Oneself
God desires that all of us human beings should decide between ‘Good’ and
‘Evil’. Viewed philosophically, ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are two predicates, marking an
absolute separation as a norm of orientation for our behavior. Viewed
theologically, Christ and His adversary are the representatives of two kingdoms
which either want to reign our behavior. To be sure the philosophers in the
wake of Augustine deny that ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are actually two independent
principles, because they consider ‘Evil’ merely as a lack of perfection of an
existing thing (privatio boni). But this interpretation should not be pushed too
far until Evil is only considered to be a system’s unintentional spin-off. The
challenge of preaching (up to today) still lies therein to show how both points
of view may achieve a subjective and objective meaning: Salvation history
(which consists of stories of healing) could be brought into sharper focus by
observing the tension between Christ’s statement “Those who are well have no
need of a physician, but those who are sick” and His subsequent appeal “I did
not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Mark 2:17).
3
Namely habit and education make behavior so plain to us that no one
makes unprecedented decisions. In this way human beings always prefer
certain basic decisions. In its daily version the Hermeneutical Circle therefore
means: We have already formed an opinion, in the best case it can be revised,
but it mostly proves to be a stiff-necked prejudice which of course defy
clarification, but without which none of any learning process would come into
action at all. In §63 of his Sein und Zeit Martin Heidegger explains this
relationship as ‘the basic structure of care’ coloured by the fundamental mood
of anxiety. In the exegesis of texts this Hermeneutical Circle (confirmed in
every-day life) represents a special relationship between understanding the
text as a whole and the individual passages in it, which then win an preeminent
status in the presentation of an interpretation.2 Through this distinction
interpretations are forcibly presented; however, one could just as easily think
to emphasize other passages which would speak for a divergent interpretation.
According to the existential view the truth of the Hermeneutical Circle can only
be personally experienced in its living dialectic: “One must understand in order
to believe, and one must believe in order to understand.”3 At first glance this
Circle appears to be hermetic but then stretches into the future and is open to
those experiences which are verifiable (John 7:17). Its open variable, the
entranceway, is trust. Anselm’s credo, ut intelligam simply takes place in hope:
In the Platonic-Augustine tradition it however presupposes a certain amount of
understanding—a pre-understanding of what is asked—without which Faith is
impossible.
2 “It is in and of itself evident that the relative contrast between understanding the individual texts and
the understanding of the text as a whole is so reconciled that each part be allowed the same treatment as the whole.” (F. D. E. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik und Kritik, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1993, p. 168). 3 Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, New York: Harper and Row, 1969, p. 351. Because the so-
called hermeneutical circle is no vitious logical circle, one can more precisely speak about a dilemma of the interpretation or the comfirmation, respectively (see Wolfgang Stegmüller Das Problem der Induktion: Humes Herausforderung und moderne Antworten. Der sogenannte Zirkel des Verstehens, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986, 17ff. and 80).
4
Therefore, in this context Paul Ricoeur is talking about a “living and
stimulating circle”. In the hope of overcoming their greatest defeat up to then,
disillusioned human beings engage in the study of the Holy Scriptures and
thereby not only learn about the plan of salvation, but also how to make vital
decisions. In the hope of becoming acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth,
Christianly socialized but restless contemporaries engage in the observance of
keeping the Sabbath holy and are thus able to experience their first answers to
prayer. In the hope of being able to comfort others in existential distress with
convincing references to Jesus Christ, human beings motivated by the Holy
Spirit make their decisions to be baptized and are not later disappointed for
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved;” (Mark 16: 16; cf. 1 Cor 9: 10
with Romans 8: 24).
About the capability of practical reason C. S. Lewis remarked,
“Concerning our fallen state I would like you to consider that the key-note of
the Scriptures in no way makes a broad suggestion to believe that our
knowledge about the law is corrupt to the same degree as our strength to fulfill
it […] A theology which goes about to represent our practical reason as radically
unsound is heading for disaster.”4 We have to agree with him, but most of the
modern moral philosophers not only start from the point that man can
understand the principles of morals, but that he can do Good on the strength
of his own intelligence. Accordingly many draw on virtue “as opposed to
experiences of sin and grace”.5 In order to solve the moral-psychological
dilemma the modern habit is to follow the Hellenistic idea of the moral self-
awareness, thus drawing on philosophy or, in Biblical terms, on human wisdom.
Thus it is pursuing the recapitulation of the Greek metaphysics within the
framework of anthropology (one of the science-oriented programs for the
4 C.S. Lewis, “The Poison of Subjectivism,” Christian Reflections, ed. by Walter Hooper, Geoffrey Bles,
London 1967, p. 122. 5 Michael Theunissen, Negative Theologie der Zeit, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1991, p. 34.
5
enlightenment of man about himself and his faculties). This undertaking of the
theoretical reason demands too much of us and departs from the Biblical way
in a crucial respect.
He who would like to uphold a loyal relationship with the Biblical
tradition need not close his eyes to present-day developments. But he should
not straightway set about on the systematic-theological answering of the
numerous philosophical questions remaining unanswered, but should utilize all
of his efforts so that the old Biblical texts may again begin to speak. And as at a
court trial the witness can and must be heard. In the face of his death- and
ruin-seeking era the evangelist John already tried to recapitulate the judgment
process against Jesus. He summoned a whole series of witnesses who were to
speak on behalf of the New Way (Acts 9:2; 24:14). In looking more closely, we
then see something quite unexpected occurring: To be sure we also find “a
downright stepping aside of the opponents and sympathizers”6 in the Gospel,
but finally it is not Jesus at all standing before the court (once more) but the
reader or listener, respectfully: The judgment which they spoke on Him “falls
back on them themselves”.7
At the wedding at Cana the first person at all to ask Jesus for a sign was
His mother. The paradox of the Presence eschatology8 lies in Jesus’s apparent,
initial refusal with the indication “My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). The
indication is repeated in John 7:8 and nevertheless Jesus acts upon it
immediately, again this time however “not openly, but as it were in secret”
(John 7:10). Written down at the beginning of the Gospel, the reproach of the
master of the feast to the bride-groom (“You have kept the good wine until 6 Klaus Berger, Im Anfang war Johannes. Datierung und Theologie des vierten Evangeliums, Stuttgart:
Quell, 1997, p. 67. 7 Jon Paulien, John: Jesus Gives Life to a New Generation (The Abundant life Bible amplifier, Pacific
Press 1995), pp. 64f. 8 The time of the end begins with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: “Jesus’s miracle at the wedding at
Cana announces that the great eschatological outpouring of God’s blessings has now arrived in the person of Jesus. […] The wine […] symbolizes the […] spiritual blessings being offered to Mankind in the person of Jesus.” (Paulien, pp. 78f.)
6
now!”, John 2: 10) is countered by John with the words, “This beginning of
miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee; and manifested His glory; and His disciples
believed in Him.” (John 2:11). By mentioning the first sign after which others
were still to follow, John draws the reader into a progressive tension which
does not let go of him up to the end of the Gospel.
When we follow Hans Karl LaRondelle’s exegesis, we encounter in this
progressive tension however a typical pattern of salvation history altogether
and at the same time the moral intention of the Holy Spirit for our own lives as
well.9 The separation of the progressive Fulfillment from the moral conditions
of its consummation is what makes the story of disaster first of all possible.10
The tension between prophecy and the fulfillment of events is nevertheless
fundamental to the Biblical view of history as Heilsgeschichte. Only both
factors are not to be so sharply separated from one another so that the
prophecy of certain events would not already have an influence on the
behavior of those awaiting the fulfillment of the events prophesied. The
concept of self-fulfilling prophecy insinuates a psychological mechanism of
suggestion appearing to obstruct each and every claim of truth. Up to the time
of Kant the thesis of priestly deception was still being used in this place. In his
9 ”Recognizing the progressive fulfillment in redemptive history, the Adventist hermeneutic seems to
acknowledge a multiple fulfillment of the broad terms of God’s ancient and conditional covenant promise to restore Israel and gather them out of the dispersion among the nations when they worship Him in Spirit and truth (Deut. 30:1-10; Isaiah 11: 11-16; Amos 9: 11-15; Jer. 32: 10).” (Hans K. LaRodelle, The Interpretation of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Eschatology.” A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. G. M. Hyde, Washington 1974, p. 228) Moral and historical knowledge enter into a close bond in the Biblical doctrine of the Sanctuary, whereby their Christological connection has been expressed in such an exemplary way by Louis Were that Hans LaRondelle has repeatedly quoted him in his own writings. Typically he refers to the two following thoughts: (1) “All of the temple scenes of the Bible—whether as recorded in the history of ancient Israel or in the prophetic portions of Scripture—were written to typify God’s moral purpose, and that through them individuals might find the way of salvation. […] While the study of sacred history is interesting and profitable in itself, yet the main reason for which these incidents are recorded is that by them we might receive spiritual strength.” (The Moral Purpose of Prophecy, Berrien Springs, Mich.: First Impressions, [1949) 1989, pp. 40-42) and (2) “Interpretations of prophecies which do not find their center in Jesus as the Saviour, or as the Destroyer of evil, are wrong applications of Scripture.” (The Certainty of the Third Angel’s Message [Berrien Springs, Mich.: First Impressions, (1945) 1979], 15). 10
For the difference between both aspects (prophecy and the plan of salvation) in a multiplex assessment cf. LaRondelle 1974, pp. 232-237. When His people fail, the Lord Himself springs into the breach: “The underlying and all-important theme of the apocalypse of Jesus Christ is that the God of Israel will faithfully fulfill His covenant promises through Jesus Christ.” (Ibid., p. 234.)
7
Dispute between the Faculties Kant perchance asked, “How is a history
however possible, a priori? – The answer is when the prophet makes and brings
about the incidence himself which he has announced in advance.”11 According
to Kant this also holds true for avoiding religious self-deception. Believers
oppose these objections with a defiant avowal of their experiences with God.
Their critics reply, “Let him understand who wants to…” The circularity of
human understanding is nowhere more stubbornly revealed than in questions
having to do with Faith. Nothing has changed in this up to today: the Faithful
desire encouragement and the Skeptic scientifically proven evidence.
Abraham became one of the patriarchs of Faith because he was the first
one to have the well-founded courage to ask God for a sign (Gen. 15:8) and
thereafter received the prophecy of the Exodus of his People which up to that
point of time had not yet taken any form at all (Gen. 13 – 16). Noah’s sign, the
rainbow, on the other hand was neither asked for nor historically terminated.
It is a continuing sign of the confirmation of a promise for all mankind. Abram
(so named before becoming Abraham, the patriarch) nevertheless asked for a
concrete sign of his being chosen. This is what constitutes the historical
character of the sign. His doubt of his having been chosen is manifested
morally when Abram listened to his wife and undertook a humanly devised,
prior fulfillment. The moral ambivalence of mankind comes directly into play
here with all of its implications.
Jesus therefore recommended, “Beware of false prophets, who come to
you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know
them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from
thistles?” (Matt. 7: 15, 16). In addition to the actual fulfillment of an event
foretold by him, the sign of a canonical prophet in the Old Testament was
11
Cf. Immanuel Kant, Der Streit der Fakultäten (The Contest of Faculties), Werkausgabe XI, Frankfurt / M.: Suhrkamp, [1798] 1968, p. 351.
8
already a life-style obedient to the Commandments.12 It is especially these two
basic conceptions which are clearly contrasted with one another in the Hebrew
Bible: The Fear of God (yir’at YHWH) and the Dread of God (emat or pachad
YHWH). The equivalent of the Fear of God is uprightness, godliness,
incorruptibility, in short, the active observance of the Law.13 On the other hand
the Dread of God is first a category of meaning of Israel’s waging war in the
early times. Through Amos and Isaiah it is however intensified to an
eschatological category of judgment which can also be turned against Israel
itself.
The way in which John introduces the Holy Spirit in his Gospel indicates
that he had a completely analogical relationship in mind, for Paraklet means
legal counsel as well as ‘Comforter’. Jesus points to the second aspect with the
words, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.” (John 24: 26). According to the first aspect, as the Spirit of
Truth, He will give testimony and “He will convict the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16: 8). The tension between an
individual Cloak of Righteousness and the threat of a collective judgment in the
Old Covenant is even more intensified in this description through a new tension
between the strongly emphasized individual-cognitive functions of the Spirit on
the one hand and the strongly affective background on the other hand. When
Jesus speaks of the strong feelings of the adversary, that then takes place in
extremely clear and pregnant words, “If the world hates you, you know that it
hated Me before it Hated you.” (John 15: 18). The Commandment of Love that
Jesus offered in contrast testifies of burning intensity and pure rationality at 12
Cf. Isaiah 8: 16-20; Jer. 23: 9-40 with Hans K. LaRondelle, Chariots of Salvation. The Biblical Drama of Armageddon (Washington, DC / Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1986), pp. 16-25. (In German: Harmagedon. Ende und neuer Anfang. [Armageddon. The End and a New Beginning], Hamburg: Saatkorn-Verlag, 1991.) 13
Cf. Hans K. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism. A Dogmatic-Ethical Study of Biblical Perfection and Phenomenal Perfectionism (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1971) p. 112 and the same, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible. The Biblical-Contextual Approach (Sarasota, Fl.: First Impressions, 1997), pp. 334f.
9
the same time. The mystery of the substitution enables the Spirit to wage war
against human evil, also symbolized as the flesh because of its weakness, in a
completely new way. It is not without reason that John first introduces the
mystery of the New-birth effected by the Holy Spirit in the dialogue between
Nicodemus and Jesus. Ellen White remarked on this:
The symbol of the uplifted serpent made plain to him the Saviour’s mission. […] Those who had been bitten by the serpents might have delayed to look. They might have questioned how there could be efficacy in that brazen symbol. They might have demanded a scientific explanation. But no explanation was given. They must accept the word of God to them through Moses. To refuse to look was to perish. Not through controversy and discussion is the soul enlightened. We must look and live. […] There are thousands today who need to learn the same truth that was taught to Nicodemus by the uplifted serpent. […] In the interview with Nicodemus, Jesus unfolded the plan of salvation and His mission to the world. In none of his subsequent discourses did he explain so fully, step by step, the work necessary to be done in the hearts of all who would inherit the kingdom of heaven.14
The invisible power of the Spirit of God can so change human life that the image
of God will again become visible. The blessings will come the moment we
entrust our lives to God in faith. Although this procedure by far surpasses all our
human understanding,15 it can be observed in its effect on others. Although we
can only experience the beginning of salvation as a moral new-birth, its effects
will last into all eternity. Although the procedure of this new-birth after Christ’s
own witness for each disciple has to become a reality experienced on oneself,
14
Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages. The Conflict of the Ages Illustrated in the Life of Christ, 1898, pp. 174-176. Cf. the reflections following this quotation with pp. 172f. 15
“The wordlywise have attempted to explain upon scientific principles the influence of the Spirit of God upon the heart. The least advance in this direction will lead the soul into the mazes of skepticism. The religion of the Bible is simply the mystery of godliness; no human mind can fully understand it, and it is utterly incomprehensible to the unregenerate heart.” (Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 4, 1881, p. 585.) Cf. Immanuel Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft (Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone), Frankfurt / M.: Suhrkamp, [1793], 1982, p. 695: „Wie es nun möglich sei, dass ein natürlicherweise böser Mensch sich selbst zum guten Menschen mache, das übersteigt alle unsere Begriffe; denn wie kann ein böser Baum gute Früchte bringen?“ (However it may then be possible for a naturally evil person to turn himself into a good person; that is beyond all comprehension; for how can a bad tree bear good fruit?)
10
we can only express it in metaphorical language (i.e., the wind or the uplifted
serpent). For a technical age such as ours herein lies the shock: Neither do we
look into its mechanism nor are we masters of its procedure.16 In spite of all the
promises of autonomy we can neither bring this phenomenon under our control
nor can it be simulated in any satisfactory way. The costs would be too great.
Signs, Miracles and the Criticism of miracles
As the Eternal God revealed Himself to Moses on Mount Horeb, He gave him a
sign (‘ot): “I will certainly be with you. And this shall be a sign to you that I have
sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God
on this mountain.” (Exodus 3: 12).17 In distinction to many other Biblical signs
this one was not perceptible: The success of the Divine commission is not
confirmed immediately, but the final confirmation is shifted into a stage in the
future, when the decisive action – the successful Exodus – will have already
taken place. This duplication of the perspective at first appears to be senseless
and Moses also grasped the challenge intimated by it immediately. In his
dialogue with God he expressed his misgivings concerning the possible
difficulties regarding the various aspects of the authority of his commission.
Herein is also the rationality of calculating revealed on both sides. In spite of
the increasingly more concretely formulated signs accompanying him from
God’s side, Moses seems to still want to withdraw from the commission at the
end. (Exodus 4: 13f.). However that did not then occur.
With the instructions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread the relationship
between the sign and its fulfillment is somewhat more complicated, for the
word ‘ot can also mean ‘symbol’. First of all, God commands the Israelites to eat
16
The principle of verum-factum, whereby we really only see what we have also done ourselves, was first explicitly formulated by Giambattista Vico (1668-1744). 17
The verb ‘to serve’ in this context means to acknowledge YHWH as the Lord (cf. Exodus 20:5; Deut. 23:5) and to express this acknowledgement through offerings. (Cf. Exodus 10: 26).
11
the Pesach-lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exodus 12: 8).
Further along they are told to celebrate this feast every year, during which no
leavened bread is to be eaten for a period of seven days (Exodus 12: 14-20).
However as Moses inculcated to the people the Lord’s Feast in Deuteronomy 16,
he connected the eating of mazzot at Pesach with the haste with which the
Israelites left Egypt so that they were only able to bake unleavened bread. (Cf.
Deut. 16: 3 with Exodus 12: 34). Was it not God Himself who had given the
people the commandment even before the Exodus? Or does it actually have to
do here with different layers of the composition of a narrative in which the
correct sequence of the events handed down have become mixed up? However
it can also have to do with the Hysteron-Proteron – a figure of style in which,
according to logic or sequence, the later occurring is first named. And that
Moses did not always use the same words in the repetition of the
Commandments is also otherwise attested to. So at the end of the wandering
through the desert Moses names the deliverance from slavery as a further
reason for the Sabbath Commandment in addition to the remembrance of God’s
act of Creation. Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread in Exodus 12:14 and 13:9 is
not only described as ‘symbol, sign’ (‘ot), but also as a ‘remembrance’ (zikkaron)
of the Exodus.18
If we were to reduce these instances of the narrative to a common
denominator, then the following picture would result: first of all a sign is
introduced and then only after that introduction events are taking place which
will be made responsible for the visible form of the symbol. The fulfilled sign can
later symbolize the events of the past.19 In this way events first announced
18
The stones out of the Jordan are likewise named ‘ot and zikkaron (Joshua 4: 6, 7). Cf. Walter Rehfeld, “Miracle Experience of Biblical Man.” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, August 16-24, 1989. Division A. The Bible and Its World, ed. David Assaf (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990), p. 155. 19
“Just as <’OTH> can be the sign of what will happen in the future, warning and threat, it can also be a remembrance of the past, a monument of some important event of history.” (Rehfeld, p. 155.)
12
through the sign initially still lie in the future, but after the consummation their
original confirmation already will be in the past. For the Unleavened Bread, ’the
bread of sorrows’, is associated with the time of slavery, which Exodus 3:7
describes as the time of misery, the nucleus of the symbol was accordingly
already known in earlier times and the reader again transposed into a time way
before the sign’s introduction and its actual fulfillment. Thus in the presentation
the text differentiates very precisely between the time of the narration and the
time narrated, without destroying the prophetic structure in which we are
referred to the present, the future and the past with one and the same word.
The Exodus out of Egypt, whose sign was to be the worship service at Sinai, is
later symbolized by the worship service on Sabbath (Lev. 23: 3), therefore on
that day which also reminds us of Creation.20
Such narratives challenge our sense of cause and effect, for all of these
passages speak of ‘ot, which belongs to the semantical field of the Hebrew
words for ‘miracle’. This word, of course, does not first of all serve to describe a
miracle, for which the words pele’ (Isaiah 9: 5) and mopet (Exodus 7:3) are
reserved, but rather as an allusion to or confirmation of a miracle (Isaiah 7: 11,
14; 38: 7). Frequently ‘ot therefore conveys the meaning or at least the
connotation of ‘miracle’ as well. Thus a sharp separation between ‘sign’ and
‘miracle’ is not significant in the Biblical record and is also quite explicitly
omitted, while proceeding from the interpretation of the Exodus in the context
of Deuteronomy to the New Testament, especially in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles.
The way in which God gives us his signs requires from us trust in His
leading, i.e. in His intervention in the time lying ahead of us. In addition to this
form of faith the signs and promises given us in the Bible however demand
20
In the Jewish blessing for the Sabbath (Kiddusch) the text from Leviticus is interpreted in the following way: “For it is the first day of the holy prophecies, a remembrance of the Exodus out of Egypt.” (Elie Munk, Die Welt der Gebete [The World of Prayers], Basel: Victor Goldschmidt-Verlag, 1975, p. 16. Cf. also p. 18.)
13
action on our part as human beings as well. We must act out of faith, although
not every promise can be attained within our life-time. But only when we first
act according to the Divine instructions, will the signs become true. So it was
with God’s leading in the Exodus that Moses fulfilled in Sinai with the people
two months after the first Pesach (Exodus 19:1), so it was with the mazzot,
which became the sign of the delivery from slavery for God’s people (Matt. 26:
17, 26; 1 Cor. 5: 7-8) and so did the Levites have to act out of faith when they
took the first steps into the water of the Jordan (Josh 3: 13).
In an article the Jewish scholar Rimon Kasher inquires into the question of
whether ‘salvation through miracles’ is in any way dependent on the moral
behavior of the one concerned.21 He ascertains that man’s moral motivation is
described as the condition for Divine intervention in the books of Chronicles and
Daniel above all. In the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible this stipulation is not
so clearly articulated.22 There is actually only one history, explicitly making the
moral behavior of the Israelites the condition for God’s intervention. In the war
with the Philistines in 1 Samuel 7 the Israelites had to first remove all of the
idols before they could hope for a positive result through God’s intervention.
Therefore Kasher concludes that such a connection does not exist.23 We,
however, are not convinced that God’s miraculous intervention in early times
principally takes place in extra-moral relations, for the central role of
21
Rimon Kasher, “The Religious-Moral Stipulations of the Miracle in the Bible.” Studies in Bible and Exegesis. Vol. III. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein – in Memoriam, ed. M. Bar-Asher / M. Garsiel / D. Dimant / Y. Maori (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), pp. 217-229. Literally the title of this article runs in the Hebrew language: “The Religious and Moral Condition for Salvation through Miracles. A Chapter in the Jewish-Biblical Theology.” One should note here that the Modern Hebrew word for ‘miracle’ (nes) is the Old-hebrew word for ‘sign, Banner’ (Exodus 17: 15; Num. 24: 10; Isaiah 11: 10). 22
Here Kasher is thinking of Hezekiah’s illness and his recovery through YHWH (Isaiah 38: 1-8), of the widow of the God-fearing disciple of the prophet (2 Kings 4:1) and of the directly following narrative of the at first childless Shunammite woman whose boy was brought back to life by Elisha (2 Kings4: 8-37). In addition to Daniel 3 and 6 the chronicled work mentions the war reports of 2 Chronicles 13; 20; and 32 (Kasher, pp. 217 and 219). 23
“The broad palette of the description of miracles for the general public […] leaves no doubt that the lack of reference to the connection between Miracles and the behavior of the general Israelites in fact points out the absence of this connection.” (Kasher, pp. 222f.)
14
substitution not only influences the New Testament understanding.24 According
to our understanding of the moral dimension, a first revocation of the
delegation of the responsibility of the prophets already followed upon the high
point of the decision on Mount Carmel. The shifting of importance is then made
further clear in the context of the relationship between Elijah and Elisha. The
typological relationship between Elijah and Elisha corresponds on a smaller scale
to that decisive relationship later between Jesus and Moses on a larger scale.25
Already the Ancients were moved by the question why God worked
miracles when man had not deserved them. Many of the Jewish scholars of the
times of the Talmud have seen the reason for it in the merit of the Patriarchs of
Israel. There were also approaches which did not look for the reason in the past
or the present, but in the future. According to the Midrasch Mechilta de Rabbi
Jischthmael the future acceptance of the Torah is the cause of the successful
crossing through the Red Sea. This explanation not only emphasizes
mnemotechnically significant Mezuza but the Thephillin as well. The Mezuza
was placed on the right-hand doorpost in order to make the claim of the Law
visible, and the marking of the body through the prayer-thong was an indication
of the inner devotion, “for it depends on the interaction between the heart and
the word“.26
In Taanit, the treatise on fasting of the Jerusalem Talmud, it is further
handed down:
24
“At Sinai the Israelites had seen signs and miracles and experienced God in fire and storm. All of that had frightened them and caused them to fear for their lives. Therefore they entreated Moses to intercede between them and God (Deut. 18: 16). They would rather forego miracles and listen to the words of the prophets God would send to them. The irony in this whole story is of course: When God really sent the prophet promised, Israel was then not satisfied with his word but above all wanted to see miracles!” (Paulien, p. 157.) 25
“The history of the Exodus out of Egypt should serve as an example for the New Israel which God has united in Christ. The conception that Jesus is the successor of Moses and the <new Josua> at the same time is a peculiarity only found in the Gospel of John in this form (1: 17; 3:14; 5: 45-47; 6: 30-35).” (Paulien, pp.84 and 278.) Concerning the relationship between Elijah and Elisha cf. 1 Kings 17: 8-16. 26
Heinz-Jürgen Loth, Judentum (Judaism), (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p. 62.
15
R. Jakob bar Idi in the name of R. Joschua b. Levi: “What will the leaders of the generation do? For the Congregation is exclusively regulated by the majority.” So do we think: if on Mount Carmel the Israelites had not shouted ›YHWH, He is God! YHWH, He is God!‹ (1 Kings 18), the fire from Heaven would not have come down and would not have burned the offering.27
In order to maintain public discipline in fasting, the Rabbis took Elijah as an
example. Concerning the wording of the Biblical report, their interpretation
with the emphasis of the point of view of the majority consciously turns around
the causality, for in the Bible we do not find any acknowledgment of God before
the miracle. Concerning the moral motivation of the majority, the Biblical text
positively indicates that on Elijah’s command the people had nevertheless
anticipated the miracle; only after the priests of Baal had failed, of course.
According to Rimon Kasher, this passage only shows that the religious
perception turns around the chronological sequence of the events.28 We
understand the inversion however as an actual indication of the possibility of a
miracle in the sense of the Messianic Faith. Despite these differential valuations
one notices that the reader of the Bible in the Talmudic Epoch also considered
the relationship between the cause of a sign and its fulfillment as a problem in
need of a spiritual explanation. For even at that time there was doubt in regard
to Divine intervention in the course of nature.29 After the Enlightenment the
Old-Hebrew way of thinking appeared all the more untrustworthy to those men
oriented to the scientific ideal of the North Atlantic societies. It seems to lie
quite deep in our nature that the inversion of causation appears irresolutely
strange and has a perplexing effect on us.
Peter’s words sound strange to skeptical contemporaries of all ages
likewise, “Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.” If it had
27
jTaanit, Chapter 3:4 (translation of Viktor Golinets). 28
Kasher, p. 225. 29
Cf. Cornelis Houtman, „Säkularisation im alten Israel?“ (“Secularization in Old Israel?”), Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996), 408-425.
16
been anyone else than Jesus who had ordered Peter, he would have sunk on the
spot. Would Peter not have been able to receive proof in any other way that he
indeed was face to face with Jesus? May be in such a way, in which failing Peter
himself would have remained untouched? He did not do so. Presumably
because he did not start from the principle that someone other than Jesus
would dare to utter such a command. And moreover because Peter was
certainly rooted in that Biblical tradition in which God’s answer to the needs of
man have to be experienced, even or exactly in the midst of danger. The
narratives of the Bible connect the success of Faith with the trust one sets in
God. Just like the Levites in the Jordan, Peter had to dare the first step in faith.
“But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to
sink, he cried out, saying, ‘Lord, save me!’” (Matt. 14: 30). Because the question
of causality of faith was an epicenter in the New Testament as well, the
underlying problem later is more sharply expressed by Jesus again through a
prophetic warning message: “At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is
the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false
prophets will rise and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the
elect, if that were possible.” (Matt. 24: 24).
On many pages of the Bible we encounter God’s promises. God shows us
that the barriers of causality do not have to be thought of at any time and that
there can be room for other conceptions of truth in our lives. Charged by
Eternal God, Isaiah announced, “Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer;”
(Isaiah 58: 9). However a few pages thereafter it is written, “It shall come to pass
that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear.”
(Isaiah 64: 24). This statement is made on the background of the description of
the Messianic time, which is not to be comprehended by the common, every-
day mind (Isaiah 64: 3; 65: 1, 16-18, 24-25). Worthy of note is that the linguistic
background on which the sign for Hezekiah was given also contains many
17
eschatological connotations. In this way the turn of phrase, “For out of
Jerusalem shall go a remnant (še’ērīt), and those who escape from Mount Zion;”
remind us of the description of the End of Days in Isaiah 2: 2-5, “For out of Zion
shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”. Next to še’ār
the word še’ērīt (both words mean ‘rest’), is the terminus technicus for God’s
people saved from oppression (Isaiah 37: 4; Isaiah 46:3; Genesis 45: 7; Zach. 8:
11, 12). The turn of phrase, “Also in the third year sow and reap, plant
vineyards and eat the fruit of them” (Isaiah 37: 3c) corresponds to the
eschatological, “They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant
vineyards and eat their fruit.” (Isaiah 65: 21) The ‘third year’ reminds us of the
‘third day’ of Christ’s resurrection through which God’s promises for His people
are realized. “The zeal of the Lord of hosts” is also responsible for the birth of
the Son which is called a ‘miracle’ (pele’) (Isaiah 9: 5-6) and the incarnation of
God in Jesus Christ is subsequently “the central miracle testified by the
Christians”.30
It seems the Biblical faith reverses the natural order of things by inferring
the things seen from the things not seen (Hebrews 11: 1; 2 Cor. 4:18). That is
the key – or ‘opener’ (maptēach) in Hebrew – which reveals to us the manner of
Divine association with man. Faith reaches its climax in the trust of the Person
of Jesus (cf. John 3: 18 and 16:9). Jesus is likewise like a key interpreting the
Scriptures (Luke 24: 25-27). In contrast to a resigned “Let him who can
understand!” we should observe as a biblical command, “He who has ears to
hear, let him hear!” (Matt. 11: 15; 13: 9, 43). It is Jesus Who interprets the
cosmic circumstances and their mysteries to His disciples (Matt. 13: 35). It is He
who gives signs and interprets them as He will (cf. John 2: 18-22). When in His
Revelation Jesus says, “He who has an ear, let him hear!”, He is pointing out the
past as well as the future. It is He who is explaining to us what typological
30
Lewis 1999, p. 129.
18
meaning the Old Testament symbols and prophecies have for the Faithful in the
last days (cf. Hebrews 1: 1-2). “The Christological-eschatological qualification of
the type-antitype relationship was introduced by Christ Himself. He saw in the
OT prophets, kings and sanctuary cultus, types of His own Messianic mission.”31
We are assured that the final Revelation of God is still before us (1 Cor. 13: 9-
12). In order to experience the fulfillment of the symbols in the future,
however, the listeners are ordered to behave morally in a religious sense.32
When Jesus proclaimed the power of Faith with the words, “all things are
possible to him who believes”, the one addressed cried out, “Help my unbelief!”
(Mark 9:24). Ellen White commented on the encounter with the royal office
from Kefar Nachum:
The nobleman wanted to see the fulfillment of his prayer before he should believe; but he had to accept the word of Jesus that his request was heard and the blessing granted. This lesson we also have to learn. Not because we see or feel that God hears us are we to believe. We are to trust in His promises.33
The Miracle of the Eschatology of Presence
Traditionally God is regarded as the first cause of His Creation. In recourse to the
unawareness of ‘second causes’, however, a radicalization of the criticism of
miracles took place during the British Enlightenment. According to Thomas
Hobbes miracles had subsequently ceased, because their function of making
God’s Law known had already been fulfilled. Nevertheless Hobbes discussed
31
LaRondelle, 1974, p. 233 with a view of the rhetoric surpassing offer in Matt. 12: 6, 41b, 42b and Matt. 22, 41-45. 32
“The most impressive truth of Biblical perfection is that it does not concentrate on man’s nature in the abstract but man’s perfect relationship with God and his fellowman here, now as well as in the future.” (LaRondelle, 1971, p. 327). “The true connection with Yahweh, the covenant God, is not the result of any moral virtue or exertion of man, but is rather the source of morality.” (Hans K. LaRondelle, Deliverance in the Psalms. Messages of Hope for Today, Berrien Springs, Mich.: First Impressions [1983], 1986, p. 31). 33
White, 1898, p. 200. Jesus consider the Galilean to be a man who let himself be enraptured with miracles and great words, but made no preparation to believe His word. Apparently He followed the same tactic as in His discussion with Nicodemus in order to shake the man out of his reserved attitude.” (Paulien, p. 127). For John’s criticism of a superficial belief in miracles cf. further ibid., pp. 98 and 126.
19
them later in view of their function of legitimizing all of prophecy, because he
still had to concede that “the works of God in Egypt, wrought by the hand of
Moses, were indeed miracles in the actual sense of the word”.34 In contrast
David Hume considered the miracles proclaimed in Exodus 4 and reported in
chapter 7 as only ‘a violation of the laws of nature’ 35 and, according to the
principle of analogy, considered these reports to be unbelievable. With his
radical answer Hume took up Hobbes’s challenge, “The question no longer is
whether an action viewed by us is a miracle and whether a miracle read or
heard by us was an actual deed and not the action of a tongue or pen, but
simply expressed whether the reports are true or false.”36 That was to later
form a precedent in the liberal theology.
C. S. Lewis reproaches Hume that he has become entangled in an
unfruitful hermeneutical circle, “Now of course we must agree with Hume that if
there is absolutely ›uniform experience‹ against miracles, if in other words they
have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the
experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of
them have been false. And we can know all the reports of them to be false only
if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in
a circle.”37 Only through faith is one enabled to lay a claim to things not seen.
First at the time of a fulfillment in history – when the decisive events have taken
place – will it become clear whether a prophecy is correct or not. However even
then every one still has the freedom to say, “That was only an accident.” Or “Let
him understand it who will”, whereby the steering of history by God is once
more denied. Faith is not only needed before the fulfillment of what is
34
Leviathan oder Stoff, Form und Gewalt eines kirchlichen und bürgerlichen Staates (Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil), Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1984, p. 336; cf. p. 219 footnote 50 with p. 289; pp. 337ff. with pp. 287ff. 35
Eine Untersuchung über den menschlichen Verstand (An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding), ed. H. Herring, Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam, 1982, pp. 147 and 165. 36
Hobbes, p. 340. 37
C. S. Lewis, Wunder (Miracles), Basel: Brunnen, 1999, p. 121.
20
prophesized. For in this way prophecies as such are perceived and in their
miraculous fulfillment also made possible in a certain way.
Since inductive reasoning cannot unequivocally decide on Hume’s
hypothesis about the framework of our experience, according to Lewis only the
feeling for “the suitability of the things”38 remains as criterion for the probability
– not, however, the possibility – of a report on miracles. “Whatever men may
say, no one really thinks that the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection is exactly
on the same level with some pious tittle-tattle about how Mother Egaree Louis
miraculously found her second best thimble by the aid of St. Anthony.”39 The
inclination for pious banalization can be observed in every denomination. Jon
Paulien concluded on this, “When miracles serve to teach the people to see
Christ’s ›Glory‹, they awaken faith. As soon as miracles however become an end
in themselves (John 2: 3-5, 23-25; 6: 26), the danger is great that they may
become stumbling blocks and hindrances to a genuine faith in Christ. […] If,
however, Christ is arisen from the dead, then the consequences are enormous
for the present. For if this Resurrection has actually taken place, then each and
every other miracle is also possible.”40
The presence of God in Jesus Christ is the miracle that can only be
comprehended in faith, and Whose works however remain experienced in His
followers. The paradox of the eschatology of presence is therefore very closely
connected with the possibility of miracles: it is a vexation for the one and an
encouragement for the other. We, as well, can experience miracles in our own
lives and motivate others to again open themselves up for this dimension in
their lives. However not everyone who believes in the possibility of miracles is
already a believer in the sense of the Gospel. The occurrence of miracles must
not be a riddle itself; they also do not allow themselves to be proven in the
38
Ibid., p. 126f. 39
Ibid., p. 127. 40
Paulien, pp. 79 and 323.
21
strictest sense. The irony of the Word of God is in opposition to the bluntness
of the intentionally unbelieving man, for with the wrong-headed He deals with
subtlety (Psalm 18: 27). Proceeding from the New Testament, the Christian
battle is not raging over the possibility of miracles as such (cf. Chapters 5, 9, and
11 in John with Matt. 12: 28; Mark 8: 11; Luke 11: 16, 29), but especially over
the miracle of the Divine Incarnation in the Person of Jesus and therefore over
the absoluteness of the Christian claim that the moral rebirth is inseparably
connected with the acknowledgement of His Person.41 There are many ways of
disputing this claim. The rumor that Jesus Himself doesn’t think of Himself to be
the Messiah is just as old as the opposite reproach of blasphemy of God. At that
time the battle tactics of the opponents was already the substitution of the
literal for the symbolic speech and in this way the shifting of attention from the
metaphorical meaning to the sign itself. The literalistic adjustment destroys the
ingenious stable net of the language, by mounting rigid meanings in place of
flexible references and thus deforming their sense with human prejudice.42
As long as we move in closed, man-made systems of symbols, our
knowledge will remain laborious and fragmentary, indeed often tedious and
boring as well. As long as the heart is still in rebellion, our thoughts will be
running around in circles. The idling of the hermeneutical circle can however be
stopped through a readiness to believe. John’s leading concepts to illustrate the
Christian mission are the symbols of nourishment ‘wine’ and ‘water’ as well as
‘flesh’ and ‘bread’ in addition to the political ‘grace’, ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ and
41
”It is not Christ’s being the Messiah, the Son of God or the Son of David which is being called into question in the miracles, but God’s presence in Jesus.” (Berger, 1997, 196). “Every other miracle is the preparation of this one or draws it into the foreground or is a consequence of it. […] The suitability and therefore the believability of the individual miracle also depend on its relationship to the Great Miracle; any discussion of the individual ones, separated from the Great One, is worthless.” (Lewis, 1999, p. 129). Therefore Isaiah prophesized Christ’s meaning as a sign in the sense of a ‘banner’ (to nes in Isaiah 11: 10, cf footnote 22, as well). 42
The typologically motivated criticism of literalism aims at the same goal as John’s Jesus (cf. especially John 6): “The unbelieving Jews refused to see any except the most literal meaning of the Saviour’s word. […] Christ did not soften down His symbolical representation. […] They affected to understand His words in the same literal sense as did Nicodemus when he asked, ‘How can a man be born again when he is old?’.” (White, 1898, pp. 390 and 389).
22
the everyday ‘light’, ‘life’, ‘love’ and ‘spirit’. Although the above-mentioned
concepts and symbols have much in common with one another, especially in
John’s Gospel, we want to bear in mind with Paul Ricoeur that “the symbol is
not concealing any secret doctrines which one must merely discover and then
the image veiling it will fall away.”43 Because the unbroken transference of the
religious symbolism into an abstract philosophical language to which we have so
accustomed ourselves in regulating the course of our lives in our technical
everyday life is not successful, there only remains for the addressee one
interpretation of sense, named ‘creative’ by Ricoeur again, according to the
motto, “The symbol gives us cause to think”.
Our understanding is blocked by our own guilt. The cycle of grace
however functions eschatological, i.e., the deed committed in the past is now
no longer thought of by God after the forgiveness of the sin.44 Nevertheless
even the most clever and most pious can only pass on what they have received.
The source of the apocalyptical language is not to be newly invented, but again
rediscovered only step by step by all of us standing firm against concurring
grammars and allowing ourselves to be led by Christ’s use of the language.
Should there nevertheless be a doctrine of John then it would read for all the
following generations that we can recognize Christ anew in trusting in the
presence of the Holy Spirit in the written Word. Therefore we must again listen
43
Ricoeur, p. 396. 44
The final justification of the sinner, rendered possible through the allsufficient offering on Golgotha, nevertheless lies in the future. Hence a Christian flees from his past sin and flees to the Lord. Concerning the dynamic tension in the assurance of salvation cf. Hans K. LaRondelle, Assurance of Salvation (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1999), p. 99: “The grace of God reigns not only now but also in the last judgement for those who are in Jesus” with LaRondelle 1971, pp. 184f. and 190: “But, like the cultus of the old covenant, the ethos of holiness remains conditioned and motivated by the cultic Christological redemption. […] This does not mean that the Christian ethos is determined by fear of the final judgement, but by the ethical responsibility to abide in moral union with Christ.” The remaining tension compels the believer and regulates his actions till the end of history: “This situation creates therefore a tension between the indicative of what we are in Christ and the imperative of what we are to reveal to the world.” (Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our Salvation. What God does for Us and in Us, Sarasota, Fl.: First Impressions [1980] 1998, p. 71.
23
and look more scrupulously as with the consumption of nourishment in a
contaminated environment:
As we must eat for ourselves in order to receive nourishment, so we must receive the Word for ourselves. We are not to obtain it merely through the medium of another’s mind. We should carefully study the Bible, asking God for the aid of the Holy Spirit, that we may understand His Word. We should take one verse, and concentrate the mind on the task of ascertaining the thought which God has put in that verse for us. We should dwell upon the thought until it becomes our own, and we know ‘what saith the Lord’.45
It is also the moral purpose of the signs to provoke a decision – whether
it is an acceptance or a rejection of the Divine offer. And the Biblical narratives
are to teach us what kind of faith is required in order to reach the point at
which it will appear that the promise is true – that point at which it will be said,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him and He will save us. This is the
Lord; we have waited for Him; we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
(Isaiah 15: 9). Only through our readiness to tread on God’s paths and to
wander in them, can a sign be experienced in its dynamical fullness. By
reckoning with miracles, however, we may also learn to cooperate with our
merciful Redeemer instead of only counting on ourselves. Only then may we
encounter our readiness for God’s overwhelming help. “Faith is releasing the
safety catch, it is a step out of the area of the calculable into the zone of Divine
surprises.”46
45
White, 1898, p. 390. 46
Art. „Glaube“ (‘Faith’) by Ralf Luther, Neutestamentliches Wörterbuch. Eine Einführung in Sprache and Sinn der urchristlichen Schriften (A New Testament Dictionary. An Introduction into the Language and Meaning of the Early Christian Scriptures), (Metzingen/Württ.: Franz, [1931] 2003), p. 92.