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.