1. Robert M. Seltzer, Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History (New York: MacMillan, 1980) 216.
Josephus relates that [the Sadducees and the Pharisees] disagreed on the principle of immortal life, the Sadducees rejecting the belief that the soul survived death and the Pharisees holding that the soul of the good after death passes into another body. They also had different views on fate and free will, the Sadducees denying that there was a determinative fate and the Pharisees affirming fate and free will. (By fate Josephus may have meant divine providence.)
This quote about Josephus’ description of the Pharisees and the Sadducees reminded me of a couple of things I read in the writings of Ellen G. White, the prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism. She was probably using Josephus in some of her works.
In Christ’s Object Lessons, Ellen White discusses Jesus’ parables. In her discussion of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), White appeals to first century Jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife. The parable poses a challenge to Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine, for it presents the rich man going to hell immediately after his death, while his brothers are still alive. Seventh-Day Adventists maintain, however, that the dead are unconscious until the resurrection, which is when the wicked will go to hell. As Ellen White affirms, “In the grave he has no power to choose anything, be it good or evil; for in the day when a man dies, his thoughts perish. (Ps. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6.)” (270).
So how does Ellen White address the parable of Lazarus and the rich man? The answer somewhat took me aback:
In this parable Christ was meeting the people on their own ground. The doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection was held by many of those who were listening to Christ’s words. The Saviour knew of their ideas, and He framed His parable so as to inculcate important truths through these preconceived opinions. He held up before His hearers a mirror wherein they might see themselves in their true relation to God. He used the prevailing opinion to convey the idea He wished to make prominent to all–that no man is valued for his possessions; for all he has belongs to him only as lent by the Lord. A misuse of these gifts will place him below the poorest and most afflicted man who loves God and trusts in Him. (p. 263)
Ellen White essentially says that Christ was assuming an untrue opinion of his day (namely, “a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection”) in order to communicate an important spiritual truth. Christ was “meeting people on their own ground.”
Others have made this sort of argument for other issues. Peter Enns says that the Bible reflects its ancient Near Eastern mileau because God’s word was made incarnate in human culture. That would explain the similarities between Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Enuma Elish, or those between the Pentateuch and the Code of Hammurapi, etc. God was speaking to people through their culture. Many have argued that this is why we shouldn’t treat Genesis 1-2 as a literal account of creation, for God was speaking to Israel in light of the science of their day, which has since been discredited.
Believe it or not, Seventh-Day Adventism is not rigidly fundamentalist, for it holds that God spoke through the personalities of the Bible’s human authors. I’ve heard Adventists say that the Bible is “thought-inspired, not word inspired.” At the same time, it’s very conservative in certain areas. Modern-day young earth creationism practically originated with the Adventists, for the Adventist George McReady Price came up with “flood geology.” And, as far as I know, many Adventists believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But why can’t they treat these issues as Ellen White approaches the parable of Lazarus and the rich man: God speaks to people in light of their cultural presuppositions?
People have pointed out to me problems with this approach. Some say it assumes that God is telling us a white lie by acting as if a cultural presupposition is true, when actually it is not. Some may contend that one cannot separate the ethics of the Bible from its cultural mindset. Conservatives fear a “pick and choose” Christianity, in which people can label the parts of the Bible they like “an eternal principle,” while relegating the parts they dislike to the merely “cultural.”
These are valid concerns, in my opinion. But something appeals to me about God meeting us where we are, while also taking us beyond our current location.
In Desire of Ages, Ellen White’s book on the life of Christ, White says the following about the Sadducees’ rejection of fate and divine providence:
Their ideas of God molded their own character. As in their view He had no interest in man, so they had little regard for one another; there was little union among them. Refusing to acknowledge the influence of the Holy Spirit upon human action, they lacked His power in their lives. Like the rest of the Jews, they boasted much of their birthright as children of Abraham, and of their strict adherence to the requirements of the law; but of the true spirit of the law and the faith and benevolence of Abraham, they were destitute. Their natural sympathies were brought within a narrow compass. They believed it possible for all men to secure the comforts and blessings of life; and their hearts were not touched by the wants and sufferings of others. They lived for themselves. (pp. 604-605)
For White, the Sadducees’ rejection of fate and providence meant they believed that God was uninterested in human affairs, which inspired them to be similarly unconcerned. It also contributed to a proto-Republican notion that anyone can pull himself up by his own bootstraps, meaning the poor and the suffering were responsible for their own misery (which was nonsense, because many people worked, but so much of their income was eaten up by taxes, and not everyone was politically well-connected enough to avoid that kind of misery). Free will can have bad implications, but, in my opinion, so can a belief in providence, since the latter can lead to the conclusion that God wishes the poor to be in their miserable condition. I think a middle ground is best, one that says God is at work in the world and wants us to join him in helping others.
2. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961) 201.
Pseudo-Philo dates to the first-second centuries C.E. According to Vermes, the story in Genesis 22 of Abraham getting ready to sacrifice his son (called the “Akedah” in Jewish tradition) conveyed a point for Pseudo-Philo: that the Akedah confirmed God’s choice of humanity to be the heir of creation (Genesis 1; Psalm 8). When God created man, Jewish tradition narrates, many angels were criticizing his decision to make man and give him dominion, for they foresaw that man would be moral scum. At the Akedah, however, Abraham vindicated humanity as worthy to be the heir, for Abraham and Isaac sacrificed their own desires for the glory and honor of God.
There are many Star Trek episodes like this. Perhaps one can add the Planet of the Apes movies to the mix. An advanced race thinks that humans are barbaric and tests them to see how they will act, and the humans end up surprising them by showing courage and love for their fellow man. The advanced race’s initial belief about humanity had merit, for there are plenty of wars and evil on its record. But the view seems to be that humans have some good that can enable them to redeem themselves and create a better world, if only they will choose righteousness!
Many would argue that this view is not biblical, for Christianity says that God must change corrupt humanity and dramatically intervene in human events at the end of time in order for disaster to be averted. This view is biblical. Yet, there are times when people in the Bible show virtue, as Abraham and Isaac did at the Akedah (though some may view that act as barbaric). And yet, as Jonathan Edwards asks in Original Sin, why is it that human “goodness” doesn’t last?