Dan-Adrian Petre
The God of philosophers, or the God of classical theism, is a perfect being. Following Anselm’s argument, philosophers describe God as “something than which no greater is conceivable.”1 God’s perfection is a fixed and absolute state that does not accept new experiences. With such a definitional assumption, it is easy to read into the Bible the same static and settled condition when, for example, Jesus Christ commands us “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48).2 As a result, biblical perfection would mean attaining a definite plateau where no change is possible.
Fortunately, the God of philosophers is not the God portrayed in the Bible. Of course, this does not mean that God is not perfect or does not desire perfection from human beings. But any claim about God should correspond to what the Bible affirms about God and his activity.3 As such, any discussion about Christian perfection must start with the biblical testimony.
As illustrated in the second part of this chapter, the range of Adventist understandings of perfection today includes a view that better represents biblical testimony and a position that amounts to human perfectionism. In a broad sense, human perfectionism refers to “any form of theological falsification or religious distortion of the Biblical concept of perfection.”4 Hence, perfectionism has various phenomenal forms and each form is best understood within its historical context.5 While perfection is God’s plan for his people, perfectionism is a poor human substitute for the divine plan. To understand what perfection is and its role in the great controversy between Christ and Satan, this chapter starts where the Bible begins, with the creation of humans and their environment. It then explores the concept of perfection in the OT and NT. A brief look at the views in contemporary Adventist theology, using the last generation theology’s stance as an illustration, follows. Finally, the chapter ends with a synthesis of the concept and a conclusion.6
When God created the first human beings, they reflected the imago Dei (Gen 1:27). They were to administer the creation that was entrusted to them (Gen 1:26) and create a community that would reflect the divine order (Gen 1:28). In addition, the existence of the tree of good and evil (Gen 2:9) indicated the core principles of God’s rule.7 These later reveal a broader cosmic context of God’s creative activity. It appears that the creation of humans is part of God’s answer to a cosmic controversy regarding his character.8
The imago Dei has structural, relational, and functional aspects in Genesis 1–2.9 In the beginning, human beings were perfect structurally, relationally, and functionally. This perfection was not static but dynamic: the divine plan for Adam and Eve was to grow in all three areas mentioned. Also, it was relative to their faithful obedience to God’s commandment (Gen 2:16–17).
The serpent tempted Eve to focus on her own actions, not God’s, in an attempt to transcend the creaturely limits that God set (Gen 3:1, 4–5). As such, the temptation for Eve was to reject God’s commandment, a reflection of his law, and set a new standard of authority, leaving the divine order imperfect. In addition, the serpent tempted Eve to embrace a self-centeredness that focused on being divine in a static, abstract manner, forgetting her relationship with God. She was deceived and became a tempter for Adam, who transgressed God’s commandment (1 Tim 2:14; Rom 5:14). The entrance of sin into the human world defaced the image of God in humans but did not destroy it. Relationally, the human beings were now separated from God (Eph 2:3; Col 1:21). Structurally, they had a sinful nature, with a bend toward evil (Ps 51:5; Rom 7:17). Functionally, they were now prone to commit sinful acts (Isa 64:6; Rom 3:9–18).
Yet, God would not abandon his creation. God’s plan of restoring the imago Dei centered on his actions “to save humanity from inside, from within our very own genetic realm, from the strategic position of a ‘Son of God’ who will be born within Adam’s lineage in order to redeem Adam’s fall.”10 As “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), Jesus Christ is both Savior (2 Tim 1:10; 1 John 4:14) and example (Eph 5:1–2; 1 Pet 2:21). He is the image of the new restored humanity (Col 3:9–11; 2 Cor 5:17). As the one who was made “perfect through suffering” (Heb 2:10; cf. 5:9; 7:28), Jesus is able to make us perfect (Heb 10:14; cf. 10:1). His power, like in Paul’s case, “is made perfect” (2 Cor 12:9) in human weakness. Given that God’s plan of restoring his imago Dei is closely connected to the concept of perfection, one needs to explore the idea of perfection as the biblical narrative portrays it to understand the divine restorative impetus.
Perfection in the Old Testament
Different words from the OT and the NT reflect the concept of perfection in relation to God or humans. In the OT, terms like tāmım (“complete, perfect, whole, blameless, having integrity, without fault or blemish, sound”), tām (“decent, sound, blameless, having integrity”), and šālēm (“whole, fully devoted, complete, perfect”) are most often used.11 Several occurrences refer to God. In his song, Moses contrasts divine covenantal faithfulness with human corruption. God’s work is “perfect [tāmım], and all his ways are just,” writes Moses, “a faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he” (Deut 32:4). Echoing Moses’s praise of God’s covenantal faithfulness, David indicates why God’s “way is perfect [tāmım]”: “the promise of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all who take refuge in him” (2 Sam 22:31; cf. Ps 18:30). God’s law, reflecting his covenantal lovingkindness, “is perfect [tāmım], reviving the soul” (Ps 19:7), just like the sun is all-encompassing over the earth.12 God’s perfection thus refers to his actions as they reveal his will to fulfill the covenant with Israel.13 None of the above terms apply abstractly to God’s nature but to his humanity-related activities.14
The same dynamic meaning surfaces when the terms occur in reference to humans. For example, the Bible presents Noah as “blameless [tāmım?] in his generation” (Gen 6:9). Job is also described three times as “blameless [tām] and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1; cf. 1:8; 2:3). God instructs Abram to “walk before” him “and be blameless [tāmı m]” (Gen 17:1). In the same narrative, God tells Abimelech to return Sarah to her husband, even if Abimelech acted in “the integrity” [tām] of his heart (Gen 20:6). Moses commands Israel that, after they enter the promised land, they should remove any abhorrent practices to “remain completely loyal [tāmım?]” to God (Deut 18:13). Joshua adjures Israel to “revere the Lord, and serve him in sincerity [tāmım?] and in faithfulness” removing all foreign gods from them (Josh 24:14).
David appeals to God for judgment, to vindicate him, “according to my righteousness and according to the integrity [tām] that is in me” (Ps 7:8). His plea for vindication rests on God’s quality as a righteous judge: David is asking God to act “in a way consistent with” that quality.15 A similar plea for vindication occurs in Ps 26:1: “Vindicate me, O Lord, for I have walked in my integrity [tām], and I have trusted in the Lord without wavering.” Walking in integrity is idiomatic, describing his blameless life and motives.16 Such a life is not a product of one’s efforts. Instead, as David writes in another psalm, it is God’s perfect [tāmım] way (18:30), that is, his dynamic and lovingkindness covenantal actions (18:6–19), that makes David’s way perfect [tāmım; 18:32], or secure and straightforward for battle.17 A loving covenantal relationship with God (18:1, 50) guarantees God’s perfection in David’s life.
In the Psalter, God “knows the days of the blameless [tāmım]” (37:18) and “no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless [tāmım]” (84:11). There is no wonder that the psalmist is determined not only to “study the way that is blameless [tāmım]” but also to “walk with integrity [tām] of heart” (101:2), and praises “those whose way is blameless [tāmım], who walk in the law of the Lord” (119:1). Within God’s covenant, humans live a life of integrity with blameless affections and choices.18 Their continual desire is to have their hearts “blameless [tāmım]” in God’s statutes (119:80). Therefore, they aim at moral maturity by “progressive training in biblical wisdom.”19 The tāmım people are equated with the upright who will inherit the land in the book of Proverbs (Prov 2:21; 28:10). They keep their ways straight (11:5), and are a delight for the Lord (11:20). The “one who walks in integrity [tāmım] will be delivered” (28:18 ESV). In the context of these proverbs, tāmım characterizes a covenantal way of life.
In the historical books of Kings and Chronicles, the term šālēm refers primarily to one’s total commitment to God. David charged Solomon to know God “and serve him with a whole [šālēm] heart and with a willing mind” (1 Chr 28:9 ESV). David also prayed publicly to God to grant Solomon “a whole [šālēm] heart” (1 Chr 29:19 ESV) to keep God’s commandments and build the temple. At the dedication of the temple he built, Solomon directed the people to have their hearts “fully committed [šālēm] to the Lord our God to live by his decrees and obey his commands” (1 Kgs 8:61 NIV). Unfortunately, he did not follow this advice, and “his heart was not fully devoted [šālēm] to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been” (1 Kgs 11:4 NIV). Solomon set in motion a path followed by many of his descendants who sat on Judah’s throne. Abijah’s heart, for example, “was not fully devoted” [šālēm] to God, thus committing all the sins of Solomon’s son (1 Kgs 15:3). On the other hand, Abijah’s son, Asa, had his heart “fully committed [šālēm] to the Lord all his life” (1 Kgs 15:14 NIV), which meant that he “did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kgs 15:11).20 Yet, correct behavior does not necessarily reflect a completely true heart. Another king, Amaziah, “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, yet not with a whole [šālēm] heart” (2 Chr 25:2 ESV). Nevertheless, the behavior naturally follows when the heart is entirely dedicated to God. When another king, Hezekiah, prayed to God and had his life prolonged, he appealed to God, mentioning that “I have walked before you in faithfulness with a whole [šālēm] heart, and have done what is good in your sight” (2 Kgs 20:3; cf. Isa 38:3).
Looking at the above examples, we can conclude that, in the OT, God’s perfection refers to the dynamic covenantal relationship wherein he manifests his inner faithfulness toward his chosen people. When the terms usually translated with “perfect” in the English versions of the Bible refer to humans, they encompass one’s motives and an inner orientation, together with the ensuing behavior in obedience to God’s law. These are part of one’s covenantal relationship with God and spring from God’s perfect way of interacting with his covenant people. Within the covenant, God vindicates his people, as David’s example reveals.
Perfection in the New Testament
In the NT, terms like teleioō (“to complete, to finish, to bring to an end”), teleios (“perfect, mature, fully developed”), epiteleō (“ to finish, to complete, to fulfill”), teleiotēs (“perfection, completeness, maturity”), or amōmos (“unblemished, blameless”) are most often used to convey the concept of perfection.21 Several occurrences refer to God. Probably the most known is in Matt 5:48: “Be perfect [teleios], therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect [teleios].”22 In the context of the 5:43–48 pericope, God is merciful and compassionate (cf. Luke 6:36), manifesting kindness over the evil and the good indiscriminately (Matt 5:45). This divine lovingkindness is what makes God perfect. He sets an example for his followers, who emulate this lovingkindness—rather than any societal norms—in relation to others (Matt 5:46–47). The genuine followers of God look beyond any rules of conduct to God’s character. As a result, their behavior is not limited to such rules; “the demand of the kingdom of heaven has no such limit or rather its limit is perfection, the perfection of God himself.”23 As Rom 12:2 points out, when humans conform to the divine pattern, they can “test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect [teleios] will” (NIV), thus experiencing the life God has in store for them.24 The mature person, perfected through endurance (Jas 1:4), receives the “perfect [teleios] gift” of wisdom from God to handle every difficult situation.25 Another gift that James mentions is “the perfect [teleios] law, the law of liberty” (1:25).26 This gift is experientially actualized when humans act upon it, just as in Ps 18:8, the law of God revives one’s soul.
The concept of perfection also occurs in relation to Jesus and his activity in the books of John and Hebrews. During his earthly mission, Jesus declared that his food was to do God’s will and “to complete [teleioō] his work” (John 4:34). His work was fulfilled by doing “the works that the Father has given me to complete [teleioō]” (5:36). Just before his crucifixion, Christ declared proleptically that he glorified the Father “by finishing the work” (17:4) entrusted to him.27
In the book of Hebrews, the concept is applied four times to Jesus. God made Christ, the pioneer of human salvation, “perfect [teleioō] through sufferings” (Heb 2:10). In the previous verse, Jesus is crowned “with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (2:9), indicating that Christ’s death on the cross was the core suffering referred in v. 10. Hebrews 12:2 confirms it. Jesus is also presented as “the pioneer and perfecter [teleiōtēs] of faith” (NIV). “For the sake of the joy that was set before him,” Christ “endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God” (12:2). Christ’s death was the means to “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (2:14).28 Yet, by using the plural (“sufferings”) in Heb 2:10, the author reminds the readers that Christ “learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8), that is, through “all the temptations and trials that Jesus suffered as a human being” (cf. 5:7).29 These sufferings climaxed with Christ’s death. “Having been made perfect [teleioō]” through his sufferings that culminated with his sacrifice, Jesus “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (5:9). In Heb 7:28, the writer connects Christ’s perfection with his inauguration as a high priest: “the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect [teleioō] forever.” As a divine-human high priest, Jesus mediates salvation for his followers (2:14–18 and 14:14–16).
The use of teleioō about Jesus does not have a moral-ethical meaning, as Jesus was “without sin” (Heb 4:15) and “without blemish [amōmos]” (9:14; cf. 1 Pet 1:9).30 Christ was in a filial relationship with God during incarnation (3:6; 5:8), indicative of his learning to submit as a son to his father’s discipline (5:7) and will (10:5–10).31 Yet, his learning was not from disobedience to obedience, as humans learn. Rather, he perfectly submitted to God and was obedient until death (5:7).32 The term teleioō as applied to Christ refers to this dynamic experience of faithful submission (2:13; 3:2).33 He thus inaugurates the human faith experience and also perfects it (12:2). Furthermore, after Christ was made perfect (7:28), he was enthroned as the royal son of God,34 inaugurating his heavenly ministry.35 Due to his earthly and heavenly ministries, Christ qualifies “to save completely [pantelēs] those who come to God through him” (7:25 NIV), bridging the relational gap between God and humans, thus restoring the relational facet of imago Dei in humans.
In addition to the references to God or Christ mentioned above, all other occurrences reflecting the concept of perfection—via the terms indicated—concern humans. Christ’s desideratum from Matt 5:48 overshadows all other occurrences of the concept. In its context, the teleios from v. 48a centers on love as the orientation of one’s life.36 This orientation is not fixed but open to new and broader horizons. When a wealthy young man asked Jesus what he could do to have eternal life, Jesus pointed to the Decalogue (19:17), especially to the commandments related to human interactions (19:18–19). Nevertheless, the rich man felt that this was not enough (19:20). “If you wish to be perfect [teleios],” answered Jesus, “go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (19:21). For the rich young man, perfection was beyond his fixed interpretation of God’s moral principles—it was found in discipleship.37
Only in unity with Jesus can the disciples “become completely [teleioō] one” (John 17:23). In the Johannine writings, the synoptic perfectionlove connection deepens. The divine love in one’s life is not declarative but experiential (i.e., law-abiding; John 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12; 1 John 2:3-4; 3:22–24; 5:2-3; 2 John 6), a practical manifestation of love toward others: “whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection [teleioō]” (1 John 2:5). Only when “we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected [teleioō] in us” (4:12). Love is perfected in humans when they live in love (4:16 NIV), indicative of their abiding in God: “whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected [teleioō] with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment” (4:16–17 ESV). Love reaches perfection “when it produces children in whom God dwells.”38 The love relationship with God and fellow humans results in confidence in judgment. There is no fear of judgment, as “perfect [teleios] love drives out fear… . The one who fears is not made perfect [teleioō] in love” (4:18 NIV).
In the Pauline epistles, the terms reflecting the concept of perfection convey spiritual maturity. Paul calls mature (teleios) those who spiritually discern God’s wisdom (1 Cor 2:6). They manifest a mature (teleios) thinking in contrast to one that is childish (1 Cor 14:20).39 Moreover, they remove “every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect [epiteleō] in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1). The change started by the Spirit continues under his guidance, without “trying to finish [epiteleō] by human effort” (Gal 3:3 NET) as some in Galatia did.
God’s plan for humanity is “to be holy and blameless [amōmos] before him in love” (Eph 1:4). Blamelessness is possible only in Christ (1:3) and according to Christ’s model. He is able to change the inner orientation from sin to righteousness, restoring the structural facet of imago Dei in humans. His exemplary unity of faith and knowledge is to be emulated by the body of believers on earth: “until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity [teleios], to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph 4:13). While there is a corporative focus here,40 the body cannot grow unless each member does (Eph 4:15–16). Christ prepares the church to “be holy and without blemish [amōmos]” (5:27; cf. Jude 24). While this has an apparent eschatological orientation, the church’s perfection also has a present dimension.41 It is vital to observe that, for the believers, be it in Ephesus or Philippi or elsewhere, present and future maturity results from God’s work within one’s life. As Paul notes in Phil 1:6, “the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion [epiteleō] by the day of Jesus Christ.” While “God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (2:13), believers should “continue to work out” their present salvation (2:12 NIV) without arguing or grumbling (cf. Jas 3:2), so that that they “may be blameless [amemptos] and innocent, children of God without blemish [amōmos] in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (2:15; cf. Col 4:12).
There is a delicate balance between divine action and the human answer. Paul’s example is eloquent. On the one hand, “as to righteousness under the law,” he describes himself as “blameless [amemptos]” (Phil 3:6). While this appears to represent a complete, perfect covenantal life, Paul acknowledges this as “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law” (3:9), amounting to human perfectionism.42 Nevertheless, he renounced his righteousness and regarded “everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ” (Phil 3:8). He further wrote, “Not that I have already obtained, or have already been perfected [teleioō]” (Phil 3:12, personal translation). In this context, being perfected explains the previous verb, thus referring to reaching his goal, that is, obtaining the complete eschatological knowledge of Christ.43 Paul did not acquire a perfect knowledge of Christ. Nevertheless, he was willing to grow toward this goal: “I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (3:12). His definition of perfection is continual growth in the experiential, personal knowledge of Christ. Therefore, “Let those of us then who are mature [teleios] be of the same mind,” Paul enjoins his audience (3:15). His mission of proclamation, admonishment, and teaching is to “present everyone mature [teleios] in Christ” (Col 1:18; cf. 1 Thess 2:19–20; 5:23). Maturity is thus future-oriented but also present. It entails belonging to Christ and becoming more and more like him in love, “which binds everything together in perfect harmony [teleiotēs]” (3:14). Such love is “a covenantal commitment to one another of presence and advocacy in the journey into Christoformity.”44
The book of Hebrews reveals the same “already/not yet” dynamic. On the one hand, by his blameless sacrifice, Christ “has perfected [teleioō] for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb 10:14), in contrast to the OT sacrifices that could not “make perfect [teleioō] those who approach” (10:1; cf. 9:9). Christ’s sacrifice opened the way for his heavenly enthronement and installment as high priest that inaugurated the new covenant. The readers and hearers of Hebrews are witnesses to all these events via God’s living word. Consequently, they have come together “to the spirits of the righteous made perfect [teleioō]” (12:23), “to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22), where all these events take place.45 The book of Hebrews becomes an exhortation for them to remain faithful and persevere46 in their current relationship with Christ, that is, in their present growth. Through Christ, the functional facet of imago Dei is restored in the believers, and they are able to “go on toward perfection [teleiotēs], leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation” (6:1). Hence, the believers are not yet perfect but in the process of becoming mature.47 In Heb 5:14, the teleioi are the mature, “whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” Thus, maturity is not just “an ideal or a distant goal but the norm expected of a believer,”48 as Heb 11 indicates. Each person’s faith reveals a mature relationship of complete obedience to God (cf. Jas 2:22). The norm expected from them is the same for the present believers. It is only through his grace and mercy that “God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect [teleioō]” (Heb 11:40 NIV). Hence, the fulfillment of God’s eschatological perfection (either at the first or the second coming of Christ) does not result from human performance but is an expression of divine grace (cf. Eph 5:26–27; Rev 19:8).
In the book of Revelation, the last generation, symbolically represented by the 144,000, is described as blameless (amōmos) in Rev 14:5, similar to the Lamb that they follow (cf. Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 1:19).49 Just as the OT people who walked blamelessly with God (Gen 6:9; 17:1), this group is loyal to Christ, following him everywhere (14:4). They washed their clothes—a symbol of good deeds (19:8)—“in the blood of the Lamb” (7:14) and are thus able to stand before the throne of God (7:15).50 The fulfillment of the eschatological promise is mediated by Christ’s sacrifice, not by human effort. Even if God may lead the last generation “to places where nobody has gone before,” observes Roy E. Gane, its faith is the same as that of the previous generations.51
Looking at the above examples, we can conclude that, in the NT, God’s perfection refers to the manifestation of his divine lovingkindness toward his people. In his life and death, Christ obeyed God through faith, opening the way to perfection for every human being. We have his example to emulate. Perfection is thus a loving and faithful submission to God as the main orientation of one’s life. Reflecting the overarching principle of love which is God’s character (1 John 4:8, 16) and the basis of his law (Matt 22:37–40), perfection is beyond any human set of moral principles—it is found in discipleship. Those who abide in God love their fellow human beings. This reveals their spiritual maturity. Such maturity is a continual growth in the experiential, personal knowledge of Christ. It is characterized by an “already/not yet” dynamic. This dynamic has past, present, and future dimensions. Through Christ’s sacrifice, all those who chose him were made perfect. The Scripture becomes an appeal for them to persevere in their faithful relationship with Christ, as maturity is God’s standard for them. Finally, the fulfillment of God’s eschatological perfection does not result from human performance but is an expression of divine grace made possible only through Christ’s sacrifice.
Biblical perfection is part of the Adventist doctrinal identity. Reflecting the biblical language, the “Fundamental Beliefs” of the Seventh-day Adventist Church provide several examples.52 Fundamental Belief 4 points out that Christ’s life “perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God.” As such, his life was “of perfect obedience to God’s will” (9, “The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ”). His sacrifice is perfect (24, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary”), and this “perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God’s law and the graciousness of His character” (9, “The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ”). Furthermore, Christ’s ministry in heaven, and especially the “second and last phase of His atoning ministry,” that is, the investigative judgment, “vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus” (24, “Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary”).
Due to Satan’s rebellion and human sin, “all humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, his law, and his sovereignty over the universe” (8, “The Great Controversy”). As a result, “this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated” (8, “The Great Controversy”). Believers “are called to grow into the likeness of his character” individually (11, “Growing in Christ”). Obedience to God “develops Christian character” and also “demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness” (19, “The Law of God”). In addition, through the exercise of spiritual gifts—especially the pastoral, evangelistic, and teaching gifts—the church is built up “to spiritual maturity” (17, “Spiritual Gifts and Ministries”). The remnant church “announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent,” a mission that coincides “with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth” (13, “The Remnant and Its Mission).
While the formulation of these beliefs accurately reflects the biblical text, there are various discussions within Adventism regarding perfection and perfectionism. For some, perfectionism is associated with the so-called “last generation theology” (LGT).53 The difference between LGT and non-LGT proponents hinges on three interrelated concepts:54 (a) the definition of sin (and, as a corollary, the nature of Christ), (b) the definition of perfection, and (c) the role the last generation plays in the great controversy between good and evil. While it is not the purpose of this chapter to detail the perspectives on sin55 or the role of the last generation56 but rather to focus on the definition of perfection, several comments are necessary to better understand the LGT and non-LGT positions.
Two Perspectives of Sin
Portrayed as a distortion of the biblical view of perfection, LGT defines sin as actual deliberate sin57 and considers that the role of God’s people in the end time is to vindicate God’s character by showing that humans can keep the law perfectly, like Jesus did, without actual sin.58 Sin refers only to guilt-incurring acts resulting from personal choice.59 Inadvertent sins—or sins of ignorance—result “either from a conscious choice of rebellion, or a failure to choose preventative measures—a choice to ignore the problem.”60 All sins of ignorance and the effects of sin—“such as illness, physical or mental defects, and deterioration leading to death”—are covered by Christ’s atonement and do not incur guilt or condemnation upon humans.61 Furthermore, LGT theologians distinguish between tendencies to sin—“tendency is virtually equal to habit”—and promptings to sin, “the temptation that arises out of one’s deformed nature.”62 Both are held under control in union with Christ.63 Consequently, the focus is on human nature’s functional and relational facets. Hence, when humans stop committing ethically or morally wrong actions, they reach the perfection required by God—sinless perfection.64 Sinlessness refers here to character perfection, not to a physical state in which humans cannot sin or absolute perfection.65 When reaching this state of a restored imago Dei, the believers vindicate God from the accusation that his law cannot be kept and are ready for translation.66
Non-LGT theologians point out that the Bible defines sin as a broken relationship resulting from rebellion against God that leads to sinful actions confining humanity in a sinful state characterized by inclinations to evil.67 Consequently, in addition to the functional and relational damage created by sin, human nature is structurally infected and affected by sin. Therefore, whereas “being a human in itself is not sinful, human beings are born with a sinful nature, and consequently born as sinners separated from God and in need of salvation.”68 In agreement with LGT, non-LGT proponents indicate that “humans are not culpable for this sinful tendency and propensity to sin rooted in their nature,” but, in disagreement with LGT, “this fact places them under condemnation and alienation toward God (John 3:36; Eph. 2:1–3).”69 Whereas sin’s condemnation is removed from humans through justification, “the weaknesses of our bodies and minds still allow us to commit unconscious sins (or make mistakes) and to neglect to do the good through sins of omission. True sinlessness and perfection would be free from such problems.”70 In the growth process, believers discover the depths of their self-confidence and spiritual inability, becoming increasingly aware of their sinfulness yet learning “to grow in wisdom, in refinement, in humility, and in Christlikeness” until the parousia.71 Only at the second coming of Christ will human nature be transformed and the presence of sin be removed. Meanwhile, each generation, including the last one, has a missiological role: proclaiming—through words and actions reflective of God’s law, hence of his character—what Christ did and does to save us and prepare the world for the second coming.72
Two Perspectives on the Role of the Last Generation
Reflecting M. L. Andreasen’s understanding,73 the LGT proponents claim that the last generation reaches “sinless perfection prior to glorification” to vindicate God’s character.74 Several key ideas are central to the LGT argument, mainly derived from selective citations of Ellen G. White’s writings.75 One frequently referred passage occurs in Christ’s Object Lessons. This is part of an explanation of Jesus’s parable from Mark 4:26–29: “Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.”76 Based on this passage and its context, Herbert E. Douglass developed the so-called “harvest principle.”77 According to this principle, God waits “until the gospel seed has produced a sizable and significant group of mature Christians in the last generation.”78
Another passage cited from Ellen G. White’s writings is from The Great Controversy. According to White, the last generation will “stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil.” This is the result of “a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth” that parallels the preadvent investigative judgment in heaven. “When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing.”79 The proponents of LGT point to this passage and others similar to it80 to support the idea that God expects believers to “achieve harvest-ready character perfection” that is sufficient “for translation, for standing through the time of trouble, for being alive on the earth when Jesus comes.”81
Furthermore, LGT proponents indicate a third passage from White’s writings, from Desire of Ages. She wrote, “The very image of God is to be reproduced in humanity. The honor of God, the honor of Christ, is involved in the perfection of the character of His people.”82 In an LGT reading, this passage refers to the divine desire for a generation that perfectly reflects Christ’s image. While Christ vindicated God’s character, ordinary humans must demonstrate that they can live sinless lives, countering Satan’s accusations that this is impossible. This last generation will prove that humans “with fallen human nature can live without sinning. This demonstration will complete the vindication of God’s character and government and will settle the question of His justice and mercy forever.”83
For non-LGT proponents, the perfect reflection of Christ’s character in his followers refers to the personal “reproduction of Christ’s character in the believer, that it may be reproduced in others,”84 having a missiological focus. Therefore, when believers reflect the divine love in their characters, their mission is successful, and God’s plan is fulfilled.85 Furthermore, it is not a requirement for a future final generation after the close of probation. Instead, “perfect obedience must be demonstrated before probation closes and the time of trouble begins.”86 Hence, the passage talks about a continuous personal growth process describing every generation: “It is our loving missionary witness that God wants with longing desire, not that He needs us to get Him off the hook of Satan’s charges.”87
Regarding the second quotation of Ellen G. White from The Great Controversy, the non-LGT proponents indicate that in the same book, White states, “it is needful for them [the last generation] to be placed in the furnace of fire; their earthliness must be consumed, that the image of Christ may be perfectly reflected.”88 The fact that there is “earthliness” lingering in the last generation points to a “process of development after the close of probation.”89 Consequently, one cannot describe the last generation’s perfection as the culmination of a growth process before the time of trouble; rather, the focus is on the growth process itself, that continues even after the close of probation. Non-LGT proponents recognize that the “translation faith” of the last generation will prepare believers to face “the most terrible crisis in the history of the world.”90 Nevertheless, this faith is of the same nature as the faith of the previous generations. The only difference is that the last generation “will witness one last manifestation of satanic evil, especially as a cruel and unjust death decree spreads around the world.”91
Non-LGT theologians vehemently reject that the last generation cosmically vindicates God’s character. For example, pointing to the biblical idea—also reflected by Ellen G. White—that only “Christ’s death vindicated God’s character and refuted Satan’s claims,”92 Jiří Moskala states that the idea of a last generation defeating Satan and “that by living perfect lives” it will “vindicate God and cause the finishing of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary” is foreign to the Bible and Ellen G. White’s writings.93 Ángel M. Rodríguez notes that, for Ellen G. White, the vindication of God’s honor—in close relation to the divine law—“has always been the responsibility of God’s servants on earth,” not just of the last generation.94 As Gane points out, “God vindicates Himself by what He does for us, in us, and through us.”95 Vindicating God is not a prerogative of the last generation but a privilege of all generations.
Two Perspectives on Perfection
The two views of sin and the role of the last generation find their denouement in the two views of perfection. Last generation theologians reject as misrepresentation the perfectionistic tag.96 Instead, many theologians associated with LGT describe perfection as relative and dynamic. In Perfection: The Impossible Possibility, Herbert E. Douglass, Edward Heppenstall, Hans K. LaRondelle, and C. Mervyn Maxwell present two distinct positions regarding LGT, with Douglass and Maxwell on one side, and Heppenstall and LaRondelle on the other.97
Douglass writes that perfection refers to “the dynamic life pattern of a person who reflects the life of Jesus” and not to perfectionism, which is “an absolute point beyond which there can be no further development.”98 Maxwell accepts the expression “sinless perfection” but redefines it not as “absolute perfection” but as “true sinless perfection, true perfection of character.”99 This refers to perfection “that triumphs over every sinful prompting of human nature and dynamically emulates the virtues of Jesus Christ.”100
More recently, another exponent of LGT, Larry Kirkpatrick, echoes the same line of thought. He distinguishes between “two different kinds of perfection: character surrender and character maturity.” The latter “is attained and maintained throughout our Christian lives if we persist in character surrender.”101 He also distinguishes between perfection—which “is an unbroken exercise of faith which keeps the soul pure from every stain of sin or disloyalty to God,” thus referring to “the dynamic, growing lifestyle of the person who reflects the life of Jesus”—and perfectionism, understood as “an absolute point beyond which there can be no further development.”102
Those who reject LGT also define perfection as dynamic and relative. Heppenstall agrees that perfection is attainable103 and describes it as “the perfecting of a right relationship to God, full commitment, a mature and unshakable allegiance to Jesus Christ,” arguing that “the word perfect does not envision sinlessness within the use of the word itself.”104 Hence, for Heppenstall, “it is spiritual maturity and stability that is possible in this life, not sinless perfection.”105 The dynamic that Heppenstall describes is complex. As Christians mature, they discover the depths of their sinful natures, with “hidden motives and self-centered intentions.” Yet, this “dissatisfaction with our moral and spiritual state at any point along the way” results from “stronger aspirations and more spiritual desires.” For Heppenstall, “this is the Bible position on Christian growth until Christ returns.”106
LaRondelle defines human perfection as “a religious-moral walk” with God that “is manifested in wholehearted, holy love for all fellowmen.”107 As such, humans do not have perfection in themselves. Rather, “in himself[,] the true Christian feels increasingly imperfect and unworthy while beholding more and more of Christ’s all-sufficient glory and mercy” with the result that only when “Christ reproduces His own image in the soul” can humans walk “in true perfection” with God and other humans.108 Hence, biblical perfection focuses not on human nature but on humanity’s “perfect relationship with God” and other humans in the present and future.109 A more recent critic of LGT, Denis Fortin, defines perfection as progressive and focusing on “character and the maturity of one’s relationship with God and others, not behavior.”110 In Fortin’s view, “Jesus’ example will never completely be reproduced in our lives. The closer we get to Him, the more sinful we see ourselves. By faith and union with Christ, power to live a life of obedience is given to those who surrender their lives to God.”111
Evaluating the Last Generation Theology’s View of Perfection
All the above definitions have several elements in common, also reflected in the biblical canon. First, they all assume that God’s plan is connected somehow to perfection. Second, they describe perfection as a dynamic growth process—character perfection—, exclusive of nature perfection, recognizing that God does not remove sinful tendencies and propensities. Third, they emphasize the divine perfection model, as Christ illustrated. Fourth, they agree that perfection is mediated by Christ and also involves human volition. Yet, there are two significant differences.112
First, for LGT representatives, one’s relationship with sin is profiled in the foreground, while in the background is one’s relationship with Christ. Hence, all definitions of perfection focus on how to conquer sin. As one representative, Kevin Paulson, writes, “through the same divine power used by Jesus while on earth, human beings in this life can live without sinning.”113 Although recognizing that Christian perfection is not “a static perfectionism” but a “dynamic relationship with God that will never cease developing its likeness to Jesus,” LGT ambiguously presents the reaching of “a point in the growth pattern when the Christian has conquered every known sin; his behavior is predictably loving, unselfish, and Christlike.”114 Consequently, LGT describes perfection as a punctual state and focuses on human performance. This alters the biblical testimony regarding perfection as continual growth and the emphasis on divine performance. The NT emphasizes an “already/not yet” dynamic. Given the focus on the last generation, LGT practically depicts perfection as an “already,” overlooking the “not yet” facet. As a result, by making one’s relationship with sin prominent, LGT tends to be one-sided in its approach to perfection. Those rejecting LGT have one’s relationship with Christ in the foreground and the relationship with sin in the background. They define perfection as a durative state and focus on Christ’s performance. As Whidden observes, perfection has several facets and does not reach its peak in the last generation’s experience.115 While we can attain character perfection, “that is, a mature disposition of unselfish love for God and others,” argues Peckham, “genuine obedience and the overcoming of sinful actions can be accomplished only by a work of God in us that we embrace by faith.”116 Such faithfulness is best described as loyalty to Christ. As Gane puts it, “all I need to do is follow Him where He wants to take me, including to perfection of character.”117
Second, the goal of perfection for LGT is the vindication of God’s character. In agreement with other LGT proponents, Dennis Priebe contends that the last generation, reflecting the image of Christ fully, “will be the wonder of the whole universe. Through them Satan will be forever defeated, and every question that could be raised against the law of God, such as whether humanity could keep it, will be forever answered.”118 This approach is rightly criticized as perfectionist by other Adventist authors.119 They echo the biblical focus on God’s faithfulness in his relationship with humans. Where humans fail, God does not. In addition, the scriptural evidence reveals that God is the active agent in vindicating his character. As the NT indicates, Christ’s performance is in the foreground. Focusing on human perfection in relation to divine vindication is misleading. As the Bible concentrates on past, present, and future human loyalty to God—not human achievement—, emphasizing the role of the last generation in vindicating God’s character is not biblical.120 It entails a double standard: one for the last generation—whose performance will supersede all previous efforts—and one for all previous ages.121 Yet, the Bible has only one standard and repeatedly urges perfection, not in the distant future but today. As such, God’s current standard is not different from the past one. And for all generations, this standard is fulfilled only in Christ and through Christ’s mediation.
Within the spectrum of Adventist views on perfection, this chapter indicates that any claim should correspond to what the Bible states about the concept. After analyzing the concept in the OT and the NT, several features of perfection emerged. First, God defines perfection. In the OT, his covenantal faithfulness is the model to mirror. In the NT, Christ models perfection through loving and faithful submission to God’s plan. Second, perfection is a dynamic growth process in love and steadfast submission to God as one’s primary orientation. Third, perfection is God’s plan of restoring the imago Dei in humanity through Christ. He restores our relationship with God through his faithfulness, transforms our inner orientation toward God, and enables us to act lovingly toward others. Fourth, perfection does not result from human performance. Fifth, perfection is mediated by Christ. Sixth, perfection has an “already/not yet” character, encompassing the past, the present, and the future. As such, it is open to further developments and discoveries without being constrained to a fixed set of behavioral rules.
In light of this multifaceted perspective, one can analyze the current discussions in Adventism. In this chapter, I chose as an illustration LGT. After presenting a contextual discussional background regarding the views on sin and the role of the last generation, I explored the ideas on perfection. Indicating the areas of agreement, I pointed out two significant differences between LGT and the biblically-based depiction of perfection. First, by making one’s conquering of sin prominent in the last generation, LGT depicts perfection as a punctual, eschatological “already,” relatively more static than dynamic. Second, LGT portrays the human performance of the last generation as a means of vindicating God’s character to precipitate the second coming of Christ. As indicated above, these two aspects distort the biblical testimony, profiling human perfectionism instead of Christian perfection. Moreover, such an approach does not reflect the “already/not yet” dynamic that focuses on the continual dependence on Christ for continual character growth. As the psalmist wrote, “I have seen a limit to all perfection, but your commandment is exceedingly broad” (Ps 119:96). Truly, in the light of God’s law, one discerns a depth of perfection that shatters human perfectionism.
__________
1. Yujin Nagasawa, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 7. For a short description of classical theism, see John W. Cooper, Panentheism—The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present (2006; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 14–17.
2. Unless otherwise stated, the version of the Bible used here is NRSV.
3. John C. Peckham, Divine Attributes: Knowing the Covenantal God of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), 27.
4. Hans K. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism: A Dogmatic-Ethical Study of Biblical Perfection and Phenomenal Perfectionism, Andrews University Monographs Studies in Religion 3 (1971; repr., Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1979), 246.
5. Hans K. LaRondelle identifies six stripes of phenomenal perfectionism: “apocalyptic perfectionism (the Qumran community; Montanism; Joachim of Floris); moralisticascetic perfectionism (the Encratites; Pelagianism); ecclesiological perfectionism (Novatianism); Neoplatonic-ascetic perfectionism (the Alexandrian theologians); monastic-contemplative perfectionism; ethico-philosophical perfectionism (Wesleyan Methodism).” LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, 326.
6. Due to limited space, the view of Ellen G. White and that of other influential Adventist figures like E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, M. L. Andreasen, are not included here. For White’s view, see Woodrow W. Whidden II, Ellen White on Salvation: A Chronological Study (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1995). For Waggoner, see Woodrow W. Whidden II, E. J. Waggoner: From the Physician of Good News to the Agent of Division, Adventist Pioneer Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), esp. 345–374. For Jones, see George R. Knight, A. T. Jones: Point Man on Adventism’s Charismatic Frontier, Adventist Pioneer Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2011). For Andreasen, see Paul M. Evans, “A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2010). Useful works are also Eric Claude Webster, Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology, AUSTR 6 (New York: Lang, 1984) and Cyril Marshall, “An Analysis of the Use of the Writings of Ellen G. White in the Views of Herbert Douglass and Woodrow Whidden on the Human Nature of Christ” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2022).
7. Sigve K. Tonstad, “The Message of the Trees in the Midst of the Garden,” JATS 19.1–2 (2008): 86.
8. Christ was chosen to be the medium of salvation of the humans that were not yet created (Eph 1:4–6). Furthermore, in addition to human salvation, the plan of salvation has cosmic dimensions, “to gather up (Gr. anakephalaioō) all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:10). By using the term anakephalaioō, “most likely Paul intends a sense of complete cosmic unity accomplished in Christ” Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 107. Cf. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1–3, AB 34 (1974; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 91–92. The divine plans laid out before creation to redeem and restore were “to reveal to the universe God’s love and expose the kind of evil being Satan is.” Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: God as Trinity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2011), 294.
9. Richard M. Davidson, “The Nature of the Human Being From the Beginning: Genesis 1–11,” in “What Are Human Beings That You Remember Them?”: Proceedings of the Third International Bible Conference, Nof Ginosar and Jerusalem, June 11–21, 2012, ed. Clinton Wahlen (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015), 22.
10. Ty Gibson, The Sonship of Christ: Exploring the Covenant Identity of God and Man (2018; repr., Madrid: Safeliz, 2019), 36.
11. For details, see DCH 8, s.vv. “
I,” “
I,” “
.” Cf. Nola J. Opperwall, “Perfect, Make Perfect; Perfection,” ISBE 3:764. The word tāmım is mainly used in cultic settings, to describe an animal without blemish brought for sacrifice (Klaus Koch, “
,” TLOT 3:1426). The present research does not discuss this context. Space is to limited to explore the purpose of the OT laws in relation to moral maturity. For this, see Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), esp. 197–218.
12. Rolf A. Jacobson, “Psalm 19: Tune My Heart to Sing Your Praise,” in The Book of Psalms, ed. Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 210.
13. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, 39.
14. Jean Zurcher, Desăvârșirea creștină [Christian Perfection], trans. Nelu Dumitrescu (București: Viaţă și Sănătate, 2004), 19. For a brief overview of God’s covenantal actions, see Peckham, Divine Attributes, 1–17.
15. Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament, JSOT-Sup 357 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 37.
16. Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 (1–41), Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2011), 611.
17. Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading Through Metaphor, BibInt 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 143.
18. Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 3 (90–150), Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2016), 200.
19. Gane, Old Testament Law, 199.
20. Nevertheless, one’s choice to remain in the covenant with God needs to be continually maintained. In Asa’s case, a prophet told him that “the eyes of the Lord range throughout the entire earth, to strengthen those whose heart is true [šālēm] to him” (2 Chr 16:9). Asa’s reaction revealed a weakened dedication to God (2 Chr 16:10–14).
21. For details, see BDAG, s.vv. “τέλειος,” “τελειόω,” “ἐπιτελέω,” “τελειότης,” “ἄμωμος.” Other words also have the meaning of “perfect, complete, blameless” in certain contexts, like agathos (Titus 2:10), amemptos (e.g., Luke 1:6; Phil 2:15; 3:6; 1 Thess 3:13), amemptōs (1 Thess 2:10; 5:23), amōmētos (2 Pet 3:14); anegklētos (1 Cor 1:8; Col 1:22), katartisis (2 Cor 13:9), katartizō (Luke 6:40, 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 5:10), pantelēs (Heb 7:25), plēroō (Rev 3:2), teleiōsis (Heb 7:11), or teleiōtēs (Heb 12:2). Cf. Nola J. Opperwall, “Perfect, Make Perfect; Perfection,” ISBE 3:764–765.
22. As Nolland notes, Christ’s wording, although future (“you will be perfect”), has the force of an imperative, probably echoing Lev 19:2. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 270–271.
23. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 228. Nolland notes that “the call is to go all the way with the will of God, now seen with fresh clarity,” emulating Christ’s own example (Nolland, Matthew, 270; cf. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976–1992], 8:161).
24. Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 923–924.
25. Scot McKnight notes that “what James has in mind throughout this section is the economic stresses on the messianic community,” for which the divine gift of wisdom under trial is most appropriate. Scot McKnight, The Letter of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 126. Also Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 88.
26. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 37A (1974; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 209.
27. D. A. Carson notes that Christ includes in his work his death, resurrection, and ascension. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 557. Cf. Luke 12:32, which implies that Christ’s death is connected to the finishing of his work (“on the third day I finish [teleioō] my work”).
28. Félix H. Cortez notes that “Hebrews describes Jesus’s warfare with and victory over the devil (Heb 2:14–16) as part of a narrative substructure that justifies and supports Jesus’s kingship over the world and, therefore, a strong reason for encouragement.” Félix H. Cortez, Within the Veil: The Ascension of the Son in the Letter to the Hebrews, Studies in Jewish and Christian Literature (Dallas: Fontes, 2020), 185.
29. Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 138.
30. John Scholer, Proleptic Priests: Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNTSup 49 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 187–188.
31. Cortez, Within the Veil, 179.
32. Cockerill, Hebrews, 247–248.
33. As Gilbert Bilezikian observes, “Obedience was a new experience for him, something he had to learn.” Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” JETS 40.1 (1997): 60.
34. Kenneth Schenck, “Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews,” JSNT 19.66 (1997): 99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064x9701906606.
35. Scholer, Proleptic Priests, 197–198; David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 329–331; Cockerill, Hebrews, 250; Cortez, Within the Veil, 216–217.
36. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 135; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (1988–1997; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2003–2004), 1:562–563.
37. As France notes, “the essence of Jesus’ demand is not disinvestment but discipleship” (France, Matthew, 735). Cf. Luke 1:6, where Zechariah and Elizabeth have a life characterized by covenantal faithfulness: “Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly [amemptos] according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.”
38. Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (1982; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 527.
39. As Kenneth Grayston observes, “It is clear from the various words used to describe those who heard Paul’s instruction—teleioi, pneumatikoi, psychikoi, sarkikoi (1 Cor 2:6, 13–15; 3:1, 3)—that no fixed terminology was in mind. The controlling image is of maturity and immaturity.” Kenneth Grayston, Dying, We Live: A New Enquiry into the Death of Christ in the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 25, emphasis supplied.
40. Cohick notes that this passage focuses on “the whole church, not on individuals who make up the body” (Cohick, Ephesians, 272).
41. Markus Barth, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 4–6, AB 34A (1974; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 628–629.
42. As John Reumann argues, Paul’s statement “can be ‘ethical,’ righteous deeds from doing what the Law commands.” John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 494. Contra Reumann, Jeannine K. Brown argues against the reconstruction of a “perfectionistic group” in Philippi. Jeannine K. Brown, Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 2/11 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 188.
43. Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 344–345. Fee writes that Paul’s goal is “the eschatological consummation of what is ‘already’ his in Christ” (Fee, Philippians, 347). For this reason, translations like NRSV or NIV choose to translate ēdē teteleiōmai in Phil 3:12 as “have already reached the goal” (NRSV) or “have already arrived at my goal” (NIV) instead of “am already perfected” (NKJV) or “am already perfect” (ESV). Cf. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, 2nd ed., WBC 43 (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 206–207. See also 1 Cor 13:12, “Now I can know only imperfectly; but then I shall know just as fully as I am myself known” (NJB). Paul’s goal is the knowledge that “occurs in a full personal sense only at the eschaton in the context of God’s knowing his people.” Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 1070.
44. Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 323.
45. Cortez, Within the Veil, 296–297.
46. Cortez, Within the Veil, 300.
47. The maturity here refers to “maturity of insight and commitment that Hebrews attempts to inculcate in the addressees.” Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 162–163.
48. Cockerill, Hebrews, 262.
49. Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 450. Cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 747; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 269.
50. Craig R. Koester notes that the washing of clothes is “an evocative image for the repentance and faith through which people receive the benefits of Christ’s death— something that Revelation depicts as both a singular and ongoing action.” Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 38A (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2014), 430.
51. Roy E. Gane, The Sanctuary and Salvation: The Practical Significance of Christ’s Sacrifice and Priesthood, Seeds of Hope (Madrid: Safeliz, 2019), 302.
52. “Official Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,” Adventist.org, 2020, https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/. The following citations are taken from this source.
53. John C. Peckham, “Great Controversy Issues,” in God’s Character and the Last Generation, ed. Jiří Moskala and John C. Peckham (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018), 17. Cf. Woodrow W. Whidden II, The Judgment and Assurance: The Dynamics of Personal Salvation, Library of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2011), 146.
54. I am aware that, in the space of this chapter, other aspects are left outside of the discussion. In relation to the definition of sin is the perspective on Christ’s nature and activity. For the LGT position as represented by Herbert Douglass’s Christology including an evaluation, see Webster, Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology, 347–428. For support of the position of a postlapsarian human nature of Christ, see Jean R. Zurcher, Touched with Our Feelings: A Historical Survey of Adventist Thought on the Human Nature of Christ (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1999) and Ralph S. Larson, The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology, 1852–1952 (Cherry Valley, CA: Cherrystone Press, 1986). For a non-LGT position, see Edward Heppenstall, The Man Who is God: A Study of the Person and Nature of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1977), 107–188 and Woodrow W. Whidden II, Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ: A Chronological Study (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997).
55. The present chapter does not explore the concept of sin in the Bible or history. For the former, see John M. Fowler, “Sin,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 233–258. For the latter, see Darius W. Jankiewicz, “Sin and Human Nature: Historical Background,” in Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology, ed. Martin F. Hanna, Darius W. Jankiewicz, and John W. Reeve (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2018), 91–117.
56. A helpful study is Marvin Moore, The 144,000 and the Nearness of Christ’s Return (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2020). See also Moore’s The Close of Probation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2014), chs. 19–22.
57. Kevin D. Paulson, What Is … Last Generation Theology? (Ukiah, CA: Last Generation for Christ, 2021), 5; Larry Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close: Last Generation Theology in Fourteen Points (Philippians Two Five, 2019), 22–32.
58. Herbert E. Douglass, “Men of Faith—The Showcase of God’s Grace,” in Perfection: The Impossible Possibility, by Herbert E. Douglass, Edward Heppenstall, Hans K. LaRondelle, and C. Mervyn Maxwell, Anvil (Nashville: Southern, 1975), 52–56.
59. “If the consent of the will is necessary in order for sin to exist in the heart,” notes Paulson, “no newborn baby can qualify as a sinner” (Paulson, What Is, 18).
60. Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 26. Consequently, true inadvertent sins are those resulting from a “personal lack of understanding or general religious misunderstanding” (Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 27).
61. Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 27. Therefore, continues Kirkpatrick, “the evil in my nature requires healing—not forgiveness” (p. 29).
62. C. Mervyn Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” in Douglass et al., Perfection: The Impossible Possibility, 167–168.
63. Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 169.
64. As Paulson notes, “the Bible is very clear that through God’s imparted strength, it is possible for men and women to cease committing sin” (Paulson, What Is, 25).
65. Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 170–171.
66. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 53.
67. George R. Knight, Sin and Salvation: God’s Work for and in Us, 2nd ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2008), 186–188; Jiří Moskala, “Origin of Sin and Salvation according to Genesis 3: A Theology of Sin,” in Hanna, Jankiewicz, and Reeve, Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology, 127–131.
68. Moskala, “Origin of Sin and Salvation,” 129.
69. Moskala, “Origin of Sin and Salvation,” 130. Cf. Martin F. Hanna, “What Shall We Say about Sin? A Study of Hamartia in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 50–51.
70. Knight, Sin and Salvation, 182.
71. Edward Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” in Douglass et al., Perfection: The Impossible Possibility, 80.
72. Peckham, “Great Controversy Issues,” 16.
73. Andreasen argues that humans “are to follow His [Christ’s] example and prove that what God did in Christ, He can do in every human being who submits to Him. The world is awaiting this demonstration (Rom. 8:19). When it has been accomplished, the end will come. God will have fulfilled His plan. He will have shown Himself true and Satan a liar. His government will stand vindicated.” M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, 2nd ed. (1947; repr., Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1969), 299. For more details on Andreasen’s understanding of the last generation, see Evans, “A Historical-Contextual Analysis,” 206–224.
74. Alberto R. Timm, “The Salvation Process: Diverging Emphases,” in Theology, Philosophy, Hermeneutics, and Mission: Essays in Honor of Kwabena Donkor on His Retirement, ed. Daniel K. Bediako and Martha O. D. Duah ([Accra] Ghana: Advent Press, 2022), 71. Cf. the following quotes: “It is matured character that vindicates Him” (Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 46–47); “in the victory of God’s saints over evil, God Himself is vindicated” (Paulson, What Is, 35).
75. Only three popular passages are presented here. For other passages, see Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 46–51. That the concept of God’s vindication is based on a particular reading of Ellen G. White is evident from the line of argument presented in Paulson, What Is, 35–42. Kirkpatrick attempts to build a biblical argument for God’s vindication. Nevertheless, in key points, he either paraphrases Ellen G. White’s citations in a personal reading (e.g., Cleanse and Close, 119; cf. Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons [Review and Herald, 1900], 69) or borrows Herbert E. Douglass’s harvest principle (Cleanse and Close, 115–118; cf. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 18–34).
76. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 69. Cf. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 14, 18, 21, 46; Paulson, What Is, 33; Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 119.
77. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 18.
78. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 19.
79. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 425. Cf. Paulson, What Is, 33–34.
80. For White, Enoch’s character “represents the state of holiness which must be attained by those who shall be ‘redeemed from the earth’ (Revelation 14:3) at the time of Christ’s second advent.” This last generation “will seek for purity of heart and conformity to His will, until they shall reflect the likeness of Christ.” Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, or The Great Conflict between Good and Evil as Illustrated in the Lives of Holy Men of Old (Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1890), 88.
81. Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 193.
82. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1898), 671.
83. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 53.
84. Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1900), 67.
85. Cf. Knight, Sin and Salvation, 176. Cf. John C. Peckham, “The Triumph of God’s Love,” in Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 279.
86. Whidden II, Ellen White on Salvation, 140, emphasis original. See note 2 on page 142 in Whidden’s book for several of Ellen G. White’s references that support his statement.
87. Woodrow W. Whidden II, “The Vindication of God and the Harvest Principle,” Ministry, October 1994, 45.
88. White, The Great Controversy, 621.
89. Ranko Stefanovic, “What Is the State of the Last Generation?,” in Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 231. Cf. Whidden II, Ellen White on Salvation, 154–155.
90. Whidden II, Judgment and Assurance, 136.
91. Whidden II, Judgment and Assurance, 143.
92. Jiří Moskala, “The Significance, Meaning, and Role of Christ’s Atonement,” in Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 196. Cf. Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Theology of the Last Generation and the Vindication of the Character of God: Overview and Evaluation,” in The Word: Searching, Living, Teaching, ed. Artur A. Stele, 2 vols. (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2015, 2022), 1:215–218.
93. Moskala, “The Significance,” 216.
94. Rodríguez, “Theology of the Last Generation,” 1:221.
95. Gane, Sanctuary and Salvation, 308.
96. See, for example, Larry Kirkpatrick, “New Books, Old Error” (paper presented at the God’s Character and the Last Generation Symposium, Sacramento, CA, 22–23 March 2019), 2–13, https://greatcontroversy.org/resources/gclg/newbooksolderror-ver1.09.pdf.
97. The chapters are as follows: Herbert E. Douglass, “Men of Faith—The Showcase of God’s Grace,” 9–56; Edward Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” 57–88; Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Biblical Idea of Perfection,” 89–136; C. Mervyn Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 137–200.
98. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 13n2. In a more recent book, Douglass defines perfection as “the dynamic life pattern of persons who increasingly reflect the life of Jesus.” Herbert E. Douglass, A Fork in the Road: “Questions on Doctrine,” the Historical Adventist Divide of 1957 (Coldwater, MI: Remnant, 2008), 143. Emphasis original.
99. Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 174.
100. Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 171.
101. Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 45.
102. Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 46.
103. Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” 61–62.
104. Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” 64.
105. Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” 67.
106. Heppenstall, “‘Let Us Go on to Perfection,’” 81.
107. LaRondelle, “The Biblical Idea of Perfection,” 136.
108. LaRondelle, “The Biblical Idea of Perfection,” 136.
109. LaRondelle, Perfection and Perfectionism, 327.
110. Denis Fortin, “Sanctification and Perfection are the Work of a Lifetime,” in Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 117.
111. Fortin, “Sanctification and Perfection,” 117.
112. The differences revolving around the concept of perfection are analyzed here. There are other differences, especially in the area of hamartiology and Christology, as mentioned above, that are not evaluated in this chapter.
113. Paulson, What Is, 5.
114. Douglass, “Men of Faith,” 51.
115. Whidden notes six facets of perfection. First, when humans are justified, they are declared perfect. Second, when they dynamically grow in grace, they are perfect. Third, when all known or deliberate sins are absent in their lives, they are perfect. Fourth, they are perfect when they fully submit to Christ by faith during the eschatological time of trouble. Fifth, when they are glorified, they are made perfect. Sixth, when their character continually grows in eternity, they are perfect. For details, see Whidden II, Judgment and Assurance, 86–93. Cf. Gane, Old Testament Law, 403. Maxwell recognizes the last phase of character development in eternity (Maxwell, “Ready for His Appearing,” 171). Nevertheless, this aspect is not prominent in LGT proponents’ writings.
116. Peckham, “The Triumph of God’s Love,” 274, emphasis original.
117. Gane, Sanctuary and Salvation, 303.
118. Dennis Priebe, “God at Risk,” Dennis Priebe Ministries, https://www.dennispriebe.com/free-documents/god-at-risk/. Cf. Kirkpatrick, Cleanse and Close, 130 and Paulson, What Is, 5.
119. In addition to Moskala and Peckham, eds., God’s Character and the Last Generation, see Rodríguez, “Theology of the Last Generation,” 1:205–228; Reinder Bruinsma, In All Humility: Saying No to Last Generation Theology (Westlake Village, CA: Oak & Acorn, 2018); and George R. Knight, End-Time Events and the Last Generation: The Explosive 1950s (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2018).
120. While the present chapter does not deal with sanctuary typology, it is essential to note here that during the Day of Atonement—symbolizing the post-1844 period— “ceremonies are performed by the high priest alone, except that assistants lead Azazel’s goat into the wilderness and dispose of the purification-offering carcasses. The rest of the people play no ritual role” except for manifesting loyalty. Roy E. Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 310.
121. Cf. Jiří Moskala, “The Significance, Meaning, and Role of Christ’s Atonement,” Moskala and Peckham, God’s Character and the Last Generation, 199.