Introduction
It is a joy and a privilege for me to submit this chapter in honor of the
pioneering mission work of Jerald Whitehouse. From the moment we rst
met I have been intrigued by his creativity and felt the conviction that he
was led by God. at conviction was grounded on two things; the witness
of his own life and walk with God, and the testimony of the Scriptures that
I had been studying long before we met. When read in its context, the Bible
oers many statements and examples that show God’s approval for methods
of mission that may go against the grain of our comfortable practices. Broad
reading and the clear texts of the Bible (Paulien 2004:83-85) suggest that
God is more open and creative than we are. If that is the case, we should not
be quick to condemn that which is dierent or uncomfortable.
Gods ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa
55:8-9).
1
We must keep this reality in mind as we seek to avoid the dangers
1
“Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
THE UNPREDICTABLE GOD: CREATIVE
MISSION AND THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY
By John Paulien
8
86 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
of religious syncretism. While syncretism is a grave danger to mission (see
Owens 2007:74-80) its equal and opposite danger is the tendency to bind
up outreach work in ways that limit God’s freedom of action in the name of
doctrinal and lifestyle purity. e Bible is full of examples where God acted
in ways that orthodox believers would not have expected or allowed. To use
the words of Joshua Massey, “His ways are not our orthodoxy” (2004a:296).
I will list some OT examples in canonical order, and then do the same with
the New Testament.
The Unpredictable God in the Old Testament
In Genesis 22:2 God asks Abraham to sacrice his son, creating a major
test of Abraham’s faithfulness. If I were God, I wouldn’t have done that. Aer
all, according to Jeremiah 32:35, sacricing one’s son or daughter is taken for
granted to be a detestable and sinful act.
If I were God I would have chosen Joseph rather than Judah to father
the line of the Messiah. Not only did Judah sleep with his daughter-in-
law Tamar, but that action produced a son who would be an ancestor of
the Messiah (Gen 38:13-30; cf. Matt 1:3). e messianic line also includes
Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho, and Bathsheba, the adulterous wife of
Uriah (Matt 1:5-6). God is more tolerant and forgiving than we are, and does
not avoid guilt by association.
One of the many challenges of 2 Samuel is the way God related to David’s
family. In one text (2 Sam 12:8) it is implied that polygamy was God’s will
for David. Rebuking David for seducing Bathsheba, God says, “I gave
2
. . .
your master’s [Sauls] wives into your arms.”
3
We would not expect to hear
God asserting that he “gave” David more than one wife. Aer all, the grand
ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa 55:6-9 ESV). e specic context here is that
God’s compassion and his willingness to pardon extends to people we would not expect. He reaches
out in compassion to those who are “wicked” and “unrighteous.” How much more will he be willing to
pardon and include those who follow him with all their hearts, even though their knowledge of him is
limited?
2
e term translated “gave” here has the strong and active meaning of “handed over” (see Keil and Del-
itzsch 1973:389-390).
3
2 Sam 12:7-9, NIV: “en Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! is is what the LORD, the God of
Israel, says: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s
house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all
this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the LORD by
doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be
your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites’” (emphasis mine).
The Unpredictable God 87
biblical principle is clearly stated in Genesis 2:24. It is two that become one
esh, not three or four. Yet God did not rebuke David or even the patriarchs
for their multiple wives, a practice with tragic consequences for family life in
both instances. Whatever we make of 2 Samuel 12, God proved himself well
able to work with people involved in a marital system contrary to his ideal.
It took time for God’s original ideal in marriage to be restored.
Another startling story is found in 2 Kings 5. Naaman, military chief
of sta to the Syrian king, is aicted with leprosy. Upon the advice of an
Israelite servant girl he goes to Israel to nd healing. Aer washing seven
times in the Jordan at the instruction of Elisha, he is healed and returns
to the prophet with a strange request for two mule-loads of earth from
Elisha’s property. He then declares his intention to worship no other God
but Yahweh while asking for an exception. Would it be all right for him to
bow down in the temple of Rimmon when he escorts the king of Syria there?
“Go in peace,” is Elisha’s surprising reply.
ere is a connection between the two mule-loads of earth and ancient
religious beliefs. In all of known human history the era of the most radical
religious change occurred in the rst millennium B.C. (see Ellen White’s
interesting comments on this historical period in White 1898:31-38). During
this period people in general moved from a devotion to what we would call
heathen religions, where religion was associated with the land and the forces
of nature (Cogan and Tadmor 1988:11:67), to the philosophical or world
religions we are familiar with today. All the great world religions of today
either had their origin between 800-200 B.C. (Judaism, Zoroastrianism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism) or are directly
dependant on those that did (Christianity, Islam, Sikhism). ese religions
have largely displaced the primal religions although the primal religions
still have inuence below the surface in many parts of the world (Geering
1978:215-223).
For the primal religions of Naaman’s day, all gods were associated with one
land or another (Cogan and Tadmor 1988:11:67; Montgomery 1951:377).
4
at meant that Naaman could not worship Yahweh, the God of Israel, in
Syria unless he brought with him Israelite dirt to spread in his garden. When
he wanted to worship Yahweh, he would kneel on the Israelite soil (Cogan
4
See note on 5:17 in Montgomery 1951: “In [regard to] the transfer of the holy soil enius notes this as
the earliest known example of a widespread custom; he cites the report of Benjamin of Tudela that the
Jewish synagogue in Persian Nehardea was composed wholly of earth and stone brought from Jerusalem;
the empress Helena similarly transported the holy soil to Rome.”
88 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
and Tadmor 1988:67; Montgomery 1951:375).
5
When he entered the temple
of Rimmon with the king, he would bow his head but not his heart. Elisha
agrees with this arrangement, somewhat to our surprise (Montgomery
1951:375; but see some equivocation on this in Nichol 1955:2:878).
God uses Esther to accomplish his purpose (Esth 2:10, 14-17) in spite of
the fact that she had not practiced her Jewish faith for years (Paton 1908:175,
179, 180; Clarke 1831:688).
6
No matter how familiar we may be with Scripture
we cannot totally predict how God will act in any given circumstance.
ings get really bizarre at times in the prophets of the Old Testament.
God told Isaiah to wander the streets of the city naked for three years
proclaiming a message of doom for the allies of Judah (Isa 20:2-4).
7
Would
we want to work with a mission partner who claimed God had told him
to preach naked for three years? is command was not calculated to
enhance Isaiah’s reputation (or even God’s reputation) among the people,
yet this extreme action served God’s revelatory purpose to get the people’s
attention (Wright 1964:61). While Isaiah must have been embarrassed by
this command, Micah became even more of a laughingstock. He not only
walked around naked, he was howling like a jackal and moaning like an owl
(Mic 1:8)!
8
5
Note the concept of “holy land” in Zech 2:12. “Although Naaman had recognized the fact that outside
of Israel there was no God, he had not entirely divested himself of the view that the God of Israel was in
some special way attached to the land of Israel, and in his own country he wanted to worship that God on
Israelite soil” (Nichol 1955:2:878).
6
e reason Haman and the king did not realize they were betraying the king’s wife was because they did
not know she was a Jew. at would not have been possible had she been living according to the Torah!
Sabbath keeping and kosher eating are pretty hard to hide, especially in a marriage. On top of that, Esther
2 in the Hebrew makes it clear that Esther and the other candidates for queen le “the house of the
virgins” to spend the night with the king, and then went to the “house of the concubines.” Translations
usually gloss over that aspect of Esther’s behavior. Clearly something more than a beauty contest was
occurring here. e story of the book of Esther is less about Esther’s faithfulness in a crisis than it is about
God’s faithfulness in spite of human faithlessness. Esther’s obedience to her cousin and courage in a mo-
ment of crisis are denitely commendable. But we miss the deeper story of God’s character when we gloss
over the aws in the human characters of the story.
7
“At that time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go, and loose the sackcloth from your
waist and take o your sandals from your feet,’ and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. en the
LORD said, ‘As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent
against Egypt and Cush, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite
exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt’”
(Isa 20:2-4, ESV). While the Hebrew words in this passage normally have the meaning of absolutely
naked, they are sometimes used for “half clad,” naked from the genitals to the feet, like wearing only a T-
shirt. is would be appropriate to verse 4, where the Egyptian and Cushite peoples are led into captivity.
Such captives were oen dressed in a way to expose the genitals and lower half of the body. Either way was
an embarrassing experience for Isaiah, especially since the Hebrew implies that his action is not explained
to the people until the end of the three years (see Gray 1912:345, 346)!
8
“Because of this I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked. I will howl like a jackal and
The Unpredictable God 89
God asks Ezekiel to deliberately dele himself by eating food cooked
over human excrement (Cooke 1936:55 and Greenberg 1983:99), and when
Ezekiel protests, God allows him to use animal dung for fuel instead (Ezek
4:12-15) (Nichol 1955 4:591).
9
Each of God’s actions above is a surprise when
read in the context of God’s larger principles written elsewhere in the Bible.
e story of Daniel 2 is widely known and appreciated, yet its implications
for our thesis are oen missed. Before God ever approaches the faithful
Hebrew Daniel with a vision, he gave one to Nebuchadnezzar the pagan king,
the enemy of God and his people. A careful look at the Aramaic of Daniel 2
and 7 makes clear how radical this action was. Most readers of Daniel think
Nebuchadnezzar had a “dream” in chapter 2 and Daniel had a “vision” in
chapter 7. But the Aramaic of Daniel 2:28 and 7:1 is essentially identical
(Stefanovic 2007:248). Both men saw a “dream and visions of (their) head as
(they) lay in bed.” Whatever it was that Daniel experienced, Nebuchadnezzar
also experienced.
10
In other words, God treated a pagan king, who did not
believe in him and warred against his people, as an object of revelation on
the same terms as a Hebrew prophet, and “the mode of revelation in these
two cases was the same” (Shea 1996:155). is is hardly the kind of behavior
most of us would have expected from God. His ways are not our ways.
ese Old Testament references help us to see that while God never
contradicts himself, he is never totally predictable either. We can oen
t his words and actions into our understanding only with a great deal
of discomfort.
11
is has led me to a much more open mind in regard to
creative approaches to God’s mission.
12
Just when I think I have God gured
out, he does or says something that surprises me. e unpredictable God is
likely to be at work in our world in the places where we would least expect it.
moan like an owl” (Mic 1:8, NIV). As with Isaiah, the words here can express total nakedness or the half
clad variety which still exposes the genitals. See notes on Isaiah 20 above and Smith 1911:38.
9
Deut 23:13 warns the Israelites to take great care in avoiding contact with human excrement (see Keil
and Delitzsch 1973:1:415). Leviticus 5:3 and 7:21 are not clear on what they mean by “human unclean-
ness,” but it likely concerns human excretions, which should not come in contact with food (see Keil and
Delitzsch 1973:9:81, 82). Delement occurred in OT times when a person touched something unclean.
Food would be deled when it touched anything unclean or when someone touched something unclean
and then touched the food (see Keil and Delitzsch 1973:1:310-311, 325-326). If human excrement was
considered unclean in the context of food, it would be understood that it could not be used for fuel when
cooking food.
10
Lucas notes one point of dierence between the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel. Nebuchad-
nezzar was a passive observer of the vision, a mere spectator, while Daniel (Dan 7:16) participates in his
vision by speaking with a member of the heavenly court (see Lucas 2002:20:177).
11
I am indebted for the basic ideas above to Massey 2000:5, 6. According to Montgomery 1951:375, this
text in 2 Kgs 5 has been a stumbling block to many orthodox scribes and scholars through the centuries.
12
Traditionally, Adventism has tended to evangelize on a single-method principle. I have addressed the
inadequacies of that approach in earlier works (see Paulien 1993 and 2008). I direct readers there for
practical consequences in the Western context of the approach taken in this chapter.
90 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
The Unpredictable God in the New Testament
Some might argue that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is
fragmentary and distorted by the primitive nature of Israel’s response to
God there. It is true that the New Testament provides the clearest revelation
of God’s way through the incarnation and earthly ministry of Christ. But the
clarity of the revelation in Christ only highlights the unpredictability of God
as something essential and inherent to his character. Several New Testament
texts that bear on this issue will be examined below in canonical order.
John 1:1
It is felt in some circles that the Christian use of Allah as a name for God is
a mark of syncretism. And there is a certain appeal and logic to this position
or few Christians would hold to it. Guilt by association, right or wrong, is
a major way that people negotiate their way through the various spiritual
options available to them. Christian apologetic literature, therefore, notes
the associations of the term Allah with the paganism and polytheism of pre-
Islamic Arabia to draw the conclusion that both Christian and Islamic use of
the term is unacceptable. But the unpredictable God of the New Testament
seems less concerned with guilt by association than most Christians are. An
example of this is found in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word (logos),
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (theos).”
By the time the Gospel of John was written, pagan philosophers such as
Heraclitus and Plato had long used the Greek term logos (Word) as a name
or title for a “second god” who functioned as the creator and sustainer of
the world and then as a mediator between the great God (theos) and the
created, material world. Philo, a Jewish philosopher in Alexandria and a
contemporary of Jesus, sought to make Greek philosophy palatable to the
Jews and the Old Testament palatable to the Greeks. He applied this Greek
term logos to the God of the Old Testament, the One who gave the law on
Mount Sinai. For Philo the Word was a “second God,” the high priest in the
heavenly sanctuary, an intercessor with God, the lawgiver, the mediator of
creation, the mediator of revelation, and the sustainer of the universe. Philo
also called him God’s rstborn, his eldest son, the image of God, and the
second Adam.
ere are strong parallels between Philo and Plato, on the one hand, and
the New Testament descriptions of Jesus, on the other. When John called
Jesus “the Word,” readers of the Gospel who had been inuenced by Greek
philosophy would have recognized the term as expressing everything they
The Unpredictable God 91
knew about Jesus. John, a disciple of Jesus (John 21:24), had no problem
using this Greek term in order to communicate important truths about
Jesus. John was contextualizing the message and actions of Jesus in terms
that made sense in the Greco-Roman environment.
13
John=s reference to
logos is explicit and unmistakable.
14
In a more general way the same pattern occurs with the biblical use of
the Greek term for God, theos. In the pagan environment the term theos
was used to denote a polytheistic totality of gods. Zeus was the father of the
gods as well as the human race. One might expect that the God of the New
Testament would encourage his people to stay as far away from this term as
possible. Nevertheless, New Testament writers used that term for the true
God some 1,300 times (Massey 2004b:285). e Muslim and Christian use
of Allah may have some unfortunate associations in the Arabic language, but
Muslims never use it in a polytheistic sense, it is only used with reference
to the one true God (Massey 2004b:284). Even the English term “God” has
plenty of associations with the paganism and polytheism of pre-Christian
Europe.
15
Human language is an imprecise and problematic tool, but it is the tool
God has chosen to reveal himself to the human race. e unpredictable God
seems less concerned with “guilt by association” than many of his followers
are.
John 16:12
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear” (John
16:12). is startling saying of Jesus makes it clear that it is not syncretism
to say less than you know in a given situation. Jesus is clearly aware that
there are many aspects of his message that his listeners “can’t handle now”
(my translation). In the sharing of truth there needs to be great sensitivity
to the standpoint of the listener at a given time. Truths that may be sweet
at a later time can provoke unnecessary opposition when given before the
13
For more on this see Paulien 1995:39-41; Beasley-Murray 1987:liv, lv.
14
In saying this I do not mean to imply that John was dependant on the Greek concepts for his picture
of Jesus. His world is still a Jewish world. But that did not prevent him from using this charged Greek
concept (logos) to connect with his non-Jewish readers (see Keener 2003:341-347).
15
e Islamic world is not the only place where the choice of words for “God” is a challenge. Whenever a
new language or culture is approached, a decision has to be made regarding what to call “God” in that cul-
ture. One has to choose between local words for God with all of their local connotations and bringing in
an unfamiliar name for God, which brands genuine Christian faith as foreign or colonial in that culture.
As noted in the main text, even the English word for God has pagan origins and connotations (see e
Oxford English Dictionary 1961:4b:267).
92 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
listeners are ready. In a hostile environment, particularly, it is wise to begin
with things held in common and move to controversial topics only aer a
heart connection with another has been established. In the Gospel of John,
Jesus knows what is inside others even before they speak (John 2:23-25). But
the knowledge of what is inside another is available to us only aer careful
listening. To put it another way, we must begin outreach to any community
with careful exegesis of their customs, beliefs, and practices. It is equally
necessary to love the other the way God loves them. Jerald Whitehouse has
pointed out that every spiritual person has an argument need and a spiritual
need. When we trigger the argument need by raising or responding to
controversial issues between us and another, we may each feel good about
“defending the faith” but no one will change for the better. When we avoid
the argument need and supply something to the other’s spiritual need,
a heart connection can develop, opening the way for spiritual growth in
both directions. In John 16:12, Jesus recognized that there were truths the
disciples were not ready for.
16
He did not take them one step faster than they
were ready to go.
Religious people oen feel a strong incentive to give a “straight
testimony,” telling people in no uncertain terms the truth exactly as they see
it. In the process they damage many relationships and little spiritual good is
accomplished. e unpredictable God revealed in Jesus Christ meets people
where they are, not where we think they should be.
Acts 9 and 10
Chapters 9 and 10 in Acts are particularly relevant to the issue of whether
a timetable for transitioning an insider movement to a standard church
context is advisable.
17
In Saul of Tarsus and Cornelius, the church had
evangelistic prospects that stretched the limits. As a member of the very
Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus and prosecuted the disciples and as one
who had murdered believers, Saul of Tarsus would be a challenging addition
to any rst-century Christian congregation. As a Roman centurion, like the
man who crucied Jesus, and a Gentile, Cornelius’ entry into the church
16
ere is an interesting tension between John 16:12 and John 15:15, where Jesus tells them that he shared
with them everything his Father had told him. In mission as in John there is a tension between openness
and authenticity on the one hand, and sensitivity to what the audience can handle on the other (see Brown
1966:714; Beasley-Murray 1987:282, 283).
17
By “insider movement” I am referring to the result of eorts to build faith in non-Christian contexts
where traditional evangelism is not possible or advisable.
The Unpredictable God 93
would also involve signicant adjustments on the part of the church.
What is interesting about these stories (Acts 9:11; 10:7-8, 24-25) is that
both Saul and Cornelius were quite willing in their response to the heavenly
visions (see Munck 1967:82; Nichol 1955:6:232, 251; Fitzmyer 1998:448, 461).
is is in contrast with the diculties God had in convincing both Ananias
and Peter to overcome their fears and prejudices (Bruce 1988:187; Munck
1967:95, 96). James Park suggests: “e angel’s command to Cornelius,
the revelation to Peter, the Spirit’s command to him and the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles in Cornelius’ houseCall were necessary
for the baptism of the rst Gentiles” (2010:15). Ananias is quite willing to
respond to whatever the Lord might ask him (Acts 9:10) until he learns
what the mission is (Acts 9:11-12). Instead of trusting that God knows what
he is doing, Ananias argues with God (Acts 9:13-14) on the basis of Saul’s
reputation. “Ananias recoils from the implied command. His obedient but
human spirit balks at the thought of ministering to one with Saul’s dreadful
reputation. He respectfully remonstrates with the Lord (Nichol 1955:6:232).
Only when God gives him a forceful command along with some explanation
does he obey (Acts 9:15-16).
In Acts 10:9-20 the Lord had to startle Peter with a shocking vision,
while carefully arranging the timing of that vision with the arrival of the
envoys from Cornelius and the Spirit’s insistence that Peter go and meet with
them. Only then was Peter convinced to comply with the request. Peter’s
“resistance was because of conscience. Peter had not yet learned that the
distinction between Jew and Gentile was done away in Christ (Gal 3:28-29).
at Peter failed to learn this fully even aer this vision is shown by his later
dissembling at Antioch, for which Paul so frankly rebuked him (Gal 2:9-
21)” (Nichol 1955:6:249). Although Peter does not seem to have raised an
objection to going with Cornelius’ men (Acts 9:29), he is clearly out of his
comfort zone (Acts 10:28) and only went because God had intervened (Bruce
1988:210; Park 2010:15). Ellen White says that “it was a trying command,
and it was with reluctance at every step that he undertook the duty laid upon
him; but he dared not disobey” (1911:137).
In both cases the new believers, Saul and Cornelius, were more willing to
connect with the church than the church leaders were to connect with them.
e apostles did not expect that God would ask them to relate dierently
to Gentiles than their Israelite ancestors had done, they needed a special
revelation to grasp that (Acts 10:28; 11:1-18), and even then it took time to
sink in (Nichol 1955:6:249).
In the Roadmap for Mission adopted by the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists (Roadmap for Mission 2009), workers are advised
94 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
to set a timetable for bringing “special anity groups” into traditional
churches.
18
is is wise counsel in general, but Acts 9 and 10 illustrate how
problematic such a plan can prove in some circumstances, particularly on
the side of the church. Four direct revelations from the Lord were needed
to accomplish that task in Acts. And the two apostles were more reluctant
to receive those revelations than were the new believers. Rather than setting
timetables to bring murderers and Gentiles into the church, the apostles
needed divine intervention to even begin to take up the challenge. So unless
the idea of timetables is handled with great wisdom and exibility today
(being sensitive to the Lord’s timing) it could cause us to lag behind the
Lord.
Acts 15
e early church faced a similar issue in Acts 15. Leadership was pressured
to choose between structural unity and pragmatic diversity. Structural unity
could easily have been achieved had the church remained a sect within
Judaism. All Gentile converts would have had to become Jews in order to
receive Jesus. e end result would have been a unied church that would
have had little impact on the massive Gentile world.
ere were many in the church who wanted to go in that direction.
Representatives of that group went to Antioch and insisted that salvation
was dependant on circumcision according to the laws of Moses (Acts 15:1-
2). At the Jerusalem Conference as recorded in Acts 15, Christian Pharisees
insisted not only on circumcision but entire adherence to the law of Moses
(Acts 15:5) (Fitzmyer 1998:539, 540). In essence, Gentile Christians were to
be treated the same as Jewish proselytes. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas argued
against this position on the grounds of God’s acceptance of Gentiles through
the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8), the role of grace in salvation (Acts 15:11), and
the abundant evidence that God was working miracles in response to the
Gentile mission (Acts 15:12) (Fitzmyer [1998:539-540] considers Acts 15
18
Adopted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists on October 13, 2009. I particularly have
in mind point 5 under section 20 15 in the Roadmap for Mission document: “Transitional Groups—In
some situations, Seventh-day Adventist mission may include the formation of transitional groups (usually
termed Special Anity Groups) that lead the people from a non-Christian religion into the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. In forming such groups, a clear plan that emphasizes the end result should be followed.
ese groups should be established and nurtured only with the endorsement and collaboration of church
administration. Although some situations may require an extended period of time to complete the transi-
tion, leaders of these groups should make every eort to lead the people into membership in the Seventh
day Adventist Church within a deliberate time plan” (see also B 10 28 and B 10 30, emphasis mine).
The Unpredictable God 95
to be the same event as that recorded in Gal 2:9-20, but see also Munck
1967:139 and Martyn 1997:200).
James added to these arguments the sense that the Gentile mission was
a fulllment of prophecy (Acts 15:13-18). He argued that Amos 9:11-12
predicted a time when a descendant of David would create circumstances in
which large numbers of Gentiles would seek the Lord (Fitzmyer 1998:553,
555, 556; Nichol 1955:6:309). If that prophecy was being fullled in the
mission of Paul and Barnabas, then the church should put no unnecessary
barriers in the way of Gentiles receiving Jesus: “It is my judgment, therefore,
that we should not make it dicult for the Gentiles who are turning to God”
(Acts 15:19; see also Dutch 2000:17-18). e strictures of Acts 15:20-21 were
designed to make fellowship possible between Jewish and Gentile Christians
(Fitzmyer 1998:556-557; Munck 1967:140; Nichol 1955:6:310-313). So unity
in diversity was preserved.
In other words, the fundamental issue addressed at the council described
in Acts 15 was less theological than a matter of community identity (Dutch
2000:18). Many agents of change in the Muslim world see God’s mighty
hand in the outpouring of Muslim interest in Jesus. ey feel that the church
today needs to make accommodations similar to those of Acts 15 in relation
to this new work of God.
Perhaps we could apply the situation of Acts 15 to the current situation in
the following way. e issue of Acts 15 was: Does a Gentile have to become
a Jew in order to become a Christian? e early church leaders answered,
“No.” e issue today could be expressed: Does a Muslim have to become a
“Christian” in order to become a Seventh-day Adventist? When becoming
a “Christian” in the Islamic world includes eating pork, drinking alcohol,
dressing immodestly, and having a lax attitude toward obedience, what
does becoming a “Christian” have to do with Adventist faith? I believe
the unpredictable God would encourage us to be creative in relation to
movements we could not have imagined y years ago.
Acts 19:37
“You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed
temples nor blasphemed our goddess” (Acts 19:37). Paul and his companions
began their work in Ephesus in the synagogue and later in the lecture hall
of Tyrranus (Acts 19:8-10). rough miracles and exorcisms the gospel
impacted the Ephesians with great power (Acts 19:11-22). e resulting
downturn in sales of religious cras provoked a riot (19:23-34) against the
followers of Jesus.
96 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
What is signicant for our purpose is the speech of the city clerk, who
quiets the disturbance (Acts 19:35-41). He notes that the Christians “have
neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess.” One might expect
that Paul would have spoken out publically against such idolatry, and to not
have done so might have le him open to charges of “syncretism!” Yet Paul
seems to have acted with sensitivity to the local culture and sentiments.
19
To
quote Dutch, he chose “his battles wisely” (2000:21).
Once again, the temptation to give a “straight testimony” is present for all
who have convictions based on their study of sacred texts. ere is the feeling
that if we do not deliver “the whole counsel of God” we will somehow have
compromised our mission to a people group. But Paul was very sensitive to
meeting people where they were (1 Cor 9:19-23) and building on the things
he had in common with them. Like Jesus (John 16:12), he did not push them
beyond what they could handle in the time allotted to him. At times in our
zeal to deliver the truth, we make God over into our own image, which
chafes at every misunderstanding or misrepresentation of our position. e
unpredictable God seems well able to tolerate the misguided worship of him
by those who do not yet know better.
1 Corinthians 7:17-20
Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned
to him and to which God has called him. is is the rule I lay down in all the
churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not
become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He
should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing. Keeping Gods commands is what counts. Each one should remain in
the situation which he was in when God called him. (1 Cor 7:17-20, emphasis
mine)
e immediate context of this statement is the issue of marriage and
divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16) with particular emphasis on mixed marriages
between believers and unbelievers (Barrett 1968:167). Paul moves, however,
from a particular situation to a more general principle when he states that
new believers should “remain in the situation” they were in when God called
19
“e language of Paul and his companions had been chosen with care when they had spoken about the
special worship of Ephesus. ey had inculcated the great principles that gods made with hands were
not gods, and had allowed that statement to do its work (v. 26). Paul put the same restraint on himself at
Athens, though he was greatly moved when he saw ‘the city wholly given to idolatry’ (ch. 17:16)” (Nichol
1955:6:383).
The Unpredictable God 97
them (Keener 2005:66). While verses 17-24 are related to what comes before,
they do read like a digression from the ongoing point (Orr and Walther
1976:216; Robertson and Plummer 1911:145).
20
is digression is triggered
by the missionary implications of verse 16, where a believing wife who stays
with her husband can be the means of his salvation (Barrett 1968:167).
Paul’s point seems to be that we are not to put unnecessary barriers in
the way of people accepting the gospel. To leave the marriage (assuming
there is no abuse or danger to the wife) is to abandon the husband in a
lost condition. Leaving the marriage on account of the gospel would place
a barrier in the way of the husband’s accepting the gospel.
21
On the other
hand, remaining in a less than ideal situation could be a means of saving
another. So while the context of verses 17-21 is marriage, Paul is stating
a much broader principle:“is is the rule I lay down in all the churches”
(Barrett 1968:168; Keener 2003:66; Orr and Walther 1976:216).
In verse 18 Paul moves from marriage to circumcision to illustrate his
general principle, and slavery and freedom further illustrate the principle in
verse 21. Circumcision was a big deal in Old Testament times as well as in
Paul’s day (Fee 1987:313). It was the decisive marker setting o Jews from
Gentiles. Yet Paul makes the radical statement, “Circumcision is nothing
and uncircumcision is nothing” To the Jew this statement would have
seemed absurd for circumcision was one of God’s commandments in the Old
Testament (Barrett 1968:169). Circumcision becoming nothing could only
be true in relation to the gospel. e gospel is so critical that circumcision is
not to stand in the way of someone receiving the gospel. Likewise, “A man
who was circumcised before his conversion is not to eace the signs of his
Judaism” (Robertson and Plummer 1911:146). e gospel missionary is not
to put unnecessary barriers in the way of the gospel.
is principle addresses the kinds of community that might result from
the preaching of the gospel. ere were at least two distinct branches of
the early church, a Palestinian Jewish branch and a Gentile branch.
22
It was
more than a matter of taste or culture. To truly be a Jew one had to separate
20
According to Grosheide, the topic shis here from marriage to vocation (Grosheide 1953:168). However,
as Bruce himself notes (1988:174), the chapter returns to the topic of marriage in verse 25, so verses 17-24
are more of a digression than a change of topic.
21
e concept of “call” in verse 17 and following is the equivalent of conversion (see Fee 1987:310).
22
Scholars have debated the degree to which there was a dierence between Palestinian Judaism and the
Judaism of the Diaspora. Traditionally, it was assumed that Diaspora Judaism (in places like Egypt, Asia
Minor, and Rome) was far more open and syncretistic than that of Roman Palestine, but recent research
has suggested that the lines of distinction should not be drawn so sharply. Hellenism had widely impacted
Palestinian Judaism by the rst century, particularly in Galilee, but also in Judea and Jerusalem, as evi-
denced in the early chapters of Acts (see Hengel 1981).
98 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
oneself from “unclean” Gentiles. Paul clearly understood the need to work
dierently in the two environments (Gal 2:7-9). Among the Jews he used
Scripture and kept feasts and even temple rituals (Acts 13:16-41; 17:2-4;
18:21; 20:16; 21:20-26). Among the Gentiles he spoke on the basis of general
revelation and quoted Greek poets and philosophers (Acts 14:14-17; 17:22-
29). Compared to the pagan writings Paul quoted from,
23
use of the Qur’an
in outreach does not seem a stretch.
In 1 Cor 7 Paul considers the distinction between Jews and Gentiles to
be signicant, even among followers of Jesus (Robertson and Plummer
1911:146-148). While the cross brings the two into a spiritual unity (Eph
2:11-16), they are to remain distinct for the sake of mission. ere is no
deception involved here, rather the recognition that God was working in
two distinct environments. Rather than force an institutional unity, Paul
preferred to maintain the distinction as part of his missionary strategy
(1 Cor 9:19-23). Just as it was necessary to conduct two distinct missions
in the rst century, it may also be advisable at times for believing Muslims
and Jews today to maintain some distance from traditional Christian
communities.
24
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
ough I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone,
to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.
To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am
not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the
law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from Gods law
but am under Christs law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I
became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by
all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that
I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor 9:19-23, emphasis mine)
is passage contains Paul’s clearest mandate for an outreach that
accommodates itself to a variety of cultures and backgrounds. e more the
23
Acts 17:28 (two quotes: from Epimenides, Cretica and Aratus, Phainomena 5); Acts 26:14 (from Aeschy-
lus, Agamemnon 1624), 1 Cor 15:33 (one quote found in two sources: Euripedes, Aiolos and Menander,
ais), and Titus 1:12 (also two sources: Epimenides, Cretica and Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus). See
Nichol 1955:6:353-354; 6:808-809; 7:362; Fitzmyer 1998:758. A good summary of these quotations can
also be found at http://freelancetheology.com/2007/09/12/pagan quotes in the new testament/
24
ese two paragraphs are based in part on Jameson and Scazlevich 2000:35, 36. See also Parshall
2004:290.
The Unpredictable God 99
gospel worker enters into the life and culture of the recipients, the greater
the success of the outreach.
25
In so doing, Paul is taking risks with his own
spiritual experience (1 Cor 9:24-27). Paul is even willing to risk being
misunderstood.
26
I have written on this passage at some length elsewhere
(Paulien 1993:23-27; Paulien 2008:13-18).
A fascinating point comes into play in verse 20. To the Jew Paul “became”
(a Greek aorist) like a Jew. But Paul already was a Jew. Yet there was a sense
in which his Judaism had been altered by the gospel. Judaism was something
he could re-adopt for the sake of the gospel (Barrett 1968:211; Grosheide
1953:212, 213). e use of “became” with the article suggests that Paul was
referring to a specic occasion, perhaps that of Timothy’s circumcision or an
incident like the one mentioned in Acts 21:23-26 (Barrett 1968:211).
In verse 22 Paul sums up saying he has become “all things to all,” with
the nal “all” being the sum total of Jews, under the law, apart from law, and
weak that he had described in verses 20-22 (Barrett 1968:215, 216). ere
is a driving principle in all of Paul’s mission actions: place no unnecessary
barriers in the way of those who need to hear the gospel. It is the obligation
of the one presenting the gospel to cross the divide between the presenter
and those who need to hear the gospel. It is not the obligation of the hearer
to bridge that gap.
For example, “To the weak I became weak.” e term weak here is not used
in the physical sense, it had to do with people who were over-scrupulous
in spiritual matters. Rather than condemning their scruples, Paul abstained
from things they thought were wrong even though he did not consider
doing them to be wrong (Grosheide 1953:213, 214; Robertson and Plummer
1911:192). He did not allow his freedom in Christ to get in the way of the
“weak” coming to understand the gospel (1 Cor 8:4-13), which is the only
way the “weak” could become “strong” anyway.
e passage suggests that we accommodate those who need to hear the
gospel even to the point of seeming to become just like them. What the
passage does not address is the extent to which resulting communities of
believers can deviate from the accepted custom among Christian churches.
Paul has already dealt with that point in 1 Cor 7:17-24, whereas in 1 Cor
9:19-23 he is focused on methods of outreach.
25
C4 and C5 missionaries tend to read “to the Muslim become like a Muslim” quite dierently. Both use
the text to validate their positions (Parshall 2004:290; see also Keener 2003:80, 81).
26
e rst couple of chapters in 2 Cor make it clear that Paul’s exibility in mission led to considerable
tension with the church in Corinth. e Corinthians seem to be asking how they can trust someone who
is constantly “changing his mind” (2 Cor 1:12-20), whose “yes” is really “no” and vice versa (see Barrett
1973:75-84; Keener 2003:159, 160).
100 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and
to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win
the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
(1 ess 4:11-12)
It has been said that knowledge is caught rather than taught. at certainly
seems to be the case with regard to the gospel. In Paul’s day the church at
essalonica had a number of members who used their Christian faith
as an excuse to “freeload” o of pagan neighbors.
27
is apparently made
the church the object of disgust and derision in essalonica. e stated
principle in this passage is also applicable today. As far as possible, we are to
live our faith in such a way as to gain the respect of outsiders and avoid being
disruptive of the social context in which a spiritual community is placed.
28
Wanamaker calls it “maintaining a low prole” (1990:163).
In a Muslim society good relationships with neighbors are valued at
least as much as truth, honesty, and wealth. When Christians ignore family
and social responsibilities in order to “witness” for Christ they unwittingly
communicate irresponsibility and social disdain in the Muslim environment.
Paul would argue here that the rst work of the follower of Jesus is to upli
family and community responsibilities. In that context the witness to Jesus
has credibility.
When a person is converted to the Adventist faith in the developing
world our rst tendency is oen to pull them out of their family and their
environment and send them o to school to learn how to be an itinerant
pastor. Such an action may make perfect sense in terms of building up the
church as an institution. But the consequent impact on family life can do
great harm in terms of the credibility of the church in the Muslim community.
Would an unpredictable God prefer short-term results at the cost of long-
term hits to the church’s reputation?
2 Timothy 2:24-26
And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to
everyone, able to teach, not resentful. ose who oppose him he must gently
27
is was contrary to Paul’s own practice of working for a living even while preaching the gospel (Bruce
1982:91; Malherbe 1987:13; Wanamaker 1990:164, 281, 282).
28
Paul’s counsel is interesting, exercising “ambition” to live a quiet life apart from politics and popular
social aairs (Malherbe 2000:247).
The Unpredictable God 101
instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a
knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape
from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Tim
2:24-26)
Paul’s use of the phrase “the Lord’s servant” implies that followers of Jesus
will teach others in the way that Jesus did (Nichol 1955:7:339). e words
“gently instruct” are based on the Greek word for meekness (Matt 5:5). To
quarrel is the opposite of meekness. e basis for a kind, teachable, and
meek approach is the recognition that those in the trap of the devil cannot
be freed by human coercion or cunning. ey can only be freed by the power
of God. at power is best brought to bear by a Christ-like spirit.
is text leads me to think it is unfortunate when confrontational styles
of mission are held up as models and more passive ones lead to a charge
of syncretism. e appropriate approach is the one that has the best long-
term eect on mission. Paul here, contrary to his reputation, seems to side
with the “laid-back” approach that shows respect to others, even when one
perceives that they may have become captives to the Devil.
1 Peter 2:17; 3:15-16
Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear
God, honor the king. But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be
prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear
conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in
Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Pet 2:17; 3:15-16)
1 Peter 2:17 is a summary of the previous four verses (13-16) (Johnston
1995:81). Peter here essentially oers the same strategy for mission that Paul
does in 1 ess 4:11-12. He encourages believers to show sensitivity and
respect toward the civil authorities and toward those who believe dierently,
even when the strength of their pagan views provokes them to slander. In
principle, Christians are free from the bonds of society, the social order pales
in value next to Christ. Yet Christians are to show respect for the sake of the
gospel, and to avoid behavior that could be criticized by outsiders (Reicke
1964:95). Not only so, Peter wants Christians, as far as possible, to behave
in ways that the pagan society would regard as praiseworthy, although their
ultimate loyalty is to God (Johnston 1995:78, 81, 82). 1 Peter 3:15-16 repeats
many things already said in chapter 2 (Johnston 1995:92). If advice like this
can be oered in the pagan environment of ancient Rome, it is certainly
102 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
appropriate in the monotheistic Muslim societies of today (Dutch 2000:21).
is underlines a point made above under John 16:12. When truth is
presented in an argumentative manner it loses its attractiveness. e object
of truth is to make people more like Jesus, to share such truth in an unChrist-
like manner is counter-productive (Nichol 1955:7:573). e key word here
is respect. To approach others as if they know nothing of God, as if we are
inherently superior to them, is to show disrespect and incline them to reject
our message. But an open, respectful, teachable spirit is winsome and can
bring people to conviction.
Conclusion
ere is a natural human tendency to believe what we want to believe.
at means that there is almost always a tension between what we believe
about the Bible and what the Bible actually teaches. We get accustomed to
certain conclusions based on “sound bites” drawn from familiar texts, while
the vast reservoir of biblical truth is largely untapped. e goal of this brief
article was to draw attention to overlooked texts and incidents in the Bible
that have serious implications for the way we do mission to Muslims and
other faith traditions. ese texts suggest that God is more open-minded
than I am. If I am serious about aligning my life with Scripture, I cannot
ignore the picture of an unpredictable God who does things I would least
expect on the basis of my comfortable selection of proof texts.
In sum, the above texts suggest a God who meets people where they
are and is not limited by the reluctance of his own people to change. ere
will be many challenges in mission where the best course forward is not
certain and it will be tempting to avoid change and favor the status quo. I
believe the unpredictable God would urge us to take the risk of erring on
the side of the people
29
rather than plowing ahead on traditional grounds
no matter the cost to those on the ground. is is the kind of approach Dr.
Whitehouse has always taken. I honor him for his fearless action in service
of an unpredictable God.
30
29
“In reforms we would better come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And if there
is error at all, let it be on the side next to the people” (White 1948:21).
30
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me be clear that I am not suggesting we throw o all restraint and do
whatever we want in mission. While the Bible teaches that God is unpredictable, it also teaches that he is
consistent, which is one of the bases for predictive prophecy. For a fuller development of this biblical ten-
sion between a God who is consistent and yet is unpredictable see Paulien 1994:43-64; Paulien 2004:33-61.
We need to strike a balance between building mission on sound and consistent principles and striking out
in creative directions to meet unusual situations. e fervor of this article is grounded in my conviction
that in recent years we have gone too far in the direction of the former at the expense of the latter.
The Unpredictable God 103
Works Cited
Barrett, C. K. 1968. A Commentary on e First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper=s
New Testament Commentaries. Gen. ed. Henry Chadwick. New York:
Harper and Row.
________. 1973. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s
New Testament Commentaries. Gen. ed. Henry Chadwick. New York:
Harper and Row.
Beasley-Murray, George R. 1987. John. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 36. Ed.
David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books.
Brown, Raymond E. 1966. e Gospel According to John. e Anchor Bible. Vol. 29A.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bruce, F. F. 1982. 1 & 2 essalonians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 45. Ed. David
A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, Texas: Word Books.
________. 1988. e Book of Acts. e New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Gen. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Clarke, Adam. 1831. Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible. Vol. 3. New York:
Methodist Episcopal Church.
Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. 1988. II Kings: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary. e Anchor Bible. Vol 11. Gen. eds. William
Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Cooke, G. A. 1936. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. e
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark.
Dutch, Bernard. 2000. Should Muslims Become “Christians?” International Journal
of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (Spring): 15-21.
Fee, Gordon D. 1987. e First Epistle to the Corinthians. e New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Gen. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1998. Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. e Anchor Bible. Vol 31. Ed. William Foxwell Albright
and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Geering, Lloyd. 1978. Secularization and Religion. In Religious Studies in the Pacic,
ed. J. Hinchcli, 215-223. Auckland, New Zealand: Colloquium Publishers.
Gray, George Buchanan. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Isaiah. e International Critical Commentary. Ed. Samuel Rolles Driver,
Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T
Clark.
Greenberg, Moshe. 1983. Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. e Anchor Bible. Vol. 22. Ed. William Foxwell Albright and
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Grosheide, F. W. 1953. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. e New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Gen. ed. F. F. Bruce.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
104 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
Hengel, Martin. 1981. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine
during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated from the German by John
Bowden. One-volume edition. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Jameson, Richard, and Nick Scalevich. 2000. First-Century Jews and Twentieth-
Century Muslims. International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1
(Spring): 35-36.
Johnston, Robert M. 1995. Peter and Jude: Living in Dangerous Times. e Abundant
Life Bible Amplier. Gen. ed. George R. Knight. Boise, ID: Pacic Press.
Keener, Craig S. 2003. e Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA:
Hendricksen Publishers.
________. 2005. 1-2 Corinthians. e New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Gen. ed.
Ben Witherington III. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Keil, C. F. 1973. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes: Ezekiel, Daniel.
Vol. 9. Translated from the German by James Martin. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. 1973. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes.
Trans. James Martin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Lucas, Ernest C. 2002. Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Vol. 20. Ed.
David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Leicester, England: Apollos.
Malherbe, Abraham J. 1987. Paul and the essalonians: e Philosophic Tradition of
Pastoral Care. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
________. 2000. e Letters to the essalonians. e Anchor Bible. Vol. 32B.
Ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday.
Martyn, J. Louis. 1997. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. e Anchor Bible. Ed. William Foxwell Albright and David
Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Massey, Joshua. 2000. God=s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ.
International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (Spring): 5-6.
________. 2004a. Misunderstanding C5: His Ways Are Not Our Orthodoxy.
Evangelical Missions Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July): 296-304.
________. 2004b. Should Christians Use “Allah” in Bible Translation? Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July): 284-285.
Montgomery, James A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Kings. e International Critical Commentary. Ed. Henry Snyder Gehman.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Munck, Johannes. 1967. e Acts of the Apostles. e Anchor Bible. Vol. 31. Rev.,
William F. Albright and C. S. Mann. New York: Doubleday.
Nichol, Francis D., ed. 1955. e Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: e
Holy Bible with Exegetical and Expository Comment in Seven Volumes.
Washington, DC: Review and Herald.
Orr, William F., and James Arthur Walther. 1976. 1 Corinthians. e Anchor Bible.
Vol. 32. Gen. ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New
York: Doubleday.
The Unpredictable God 105
Owens, Larry. 2007. Syncretism and the Scriptures. Evangelical Missions Quarterly
43, no. 1:74-80.
Oxford English Dictionary. 1961. Reprint of the 1933 ed. Oxford, England: e
Clarendon Press.
Park, James H. 2010. Breaking Down Barriers: e “Conversion” of Ananias and
Peter in Acts 9 and 10. Adventist Review, May 27, 15.
Parshall, Phil. 2004. Liing the Fatwa. Evangelical Missions Quarterly 40, no. 3 (July):
288-293.
Paton, Lewis Bayles. 1908. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Esther. e International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, Scotland: T &
T Clark.
Paulien, Jon. 1993. Present Truth in the Real World: e Adventist Struggle to Keep
and Share Faith in a Secular Society. Boise, ID: Pacic Press.
________. 1994. What the Bible Says About the End-Time. Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald.
________. 1995. John: Jesus Gives Life to a New Generation. e Abundant Life Bible
Amplier. Gen. ed. George Knight. Boise, ID: Pacic Press.
________. 2004. e Deep ings of God: An Insiders Guide to the Book of Revelation.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
________. 2008. Everlasting Gospel, Ever-Changing World: Introducing Jesus to a
Skeptical Generation. Nampa, ID: Pacic Press.
Reicke, Bo. 1964. e Epistles of James, Peter and Jude. e Anchor Bible. Vol. 32.
Gen. ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday.
Roadmap for Mission. 2009. http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other documents/
roadmap.html (accessed December 2, 2010).
Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. 1911. I Corinthians. e International
Critical Commentary. Ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer and
Charles Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark.
Shea, William H. 1996. Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History. e Abundant Life Bible
Amplier. Gen. ed. George R. Knight. Boise, ID: Pacic Press.
Smith, John Merlin Powis. 1911. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, et
al. e International Critical Commentary. Ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred
Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark.
Stefanovic, Zdravko. 2007. Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the Book of
Daniel. Nampa, ID: Pacic Press.
Wanamaker, Charles A. 1990. e Epistles to the essalonians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Vol. 1. Gen.
ed. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
White, Ellen G. 1898. e Desire of Ages: e Conict of the Ages Illustrated in the Life
of Christ. Mountain View, CA: Pacic Press.
________. 1911. e Acts of the Apostles: In the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. Mountain View, CA: Pacic Press.
106 Festschrift: Jerald Whitehouse
________. 1948. Testimonies for the Church. Vol. 3. Mountain View, CA: Pacic
Press.
Wright, G. Ernest. 1964. Isaiah, Layman=s Bible Commentaries. London: SCM Press.
