The West and the Rest (of the World)

All around us we see an increasingly multicultural world. The differences are created by the various sets of values embraced by each culture. For example, for a Westerner time is linear. But this is due to a linear fundamental and abstract logic, also called propositional or formal logic (Kraft 2008:153; Nisbett 2003:25). “The principle of noncontradiction lies at the base of propositional logic Logic is applied by stripping away the meaning of statements and leaving only the formal structure intact” (Nisbett 2003:25-26). Most Western languages contain opposite words or antonyms that are used to separate the wrong from the right and make sure that the flow of arguments remains linear. Based on this binary logic, generalizations are made. Binary logic also separates sacred space from common space, and the supernatural is clearly separated from the natural, rationalists rejecting any possibility that the divine can affect the natural world. The modernist worldview requires “a fundamental distinction between supernatural and natural realities” (Hiebert 2008:94). However, the rest of the world uses a contextual logic. “They see each event encased in a context that is different from any other context. The uniqueness of each context, then, makes each event unique and difficult to generalize from” (Kraft 2008:153). An interesting twist is evident in East Asia where people “are more likely to set logic aside in favor of typicality and plausibility of conclusions. They are also more likely to set logic aside in favor of the desirability of conclusions” (Nisbett 2003:171).

In contrast to the Western individualistic worldview, the rest of the world tends to be more communally oriented. Non-Westerners tend to have a dyadic personality, where the identity is provided by the group or extended family, not by the achievements of the individual. In the communal cultures it is more important who you are and what is the status of your family than what you do or what your achievements are. Social relationships are always more important than the abstract notion of efficiency. Quality is rarely measured in terms of quantity. The primary social value of community-based cultures is harmony. The leaders represent the group, and the group stands behind the leaders (pars pro toto).

When looking at the rest of the world, Westerners complain that either people are lazy or have no sense of time. For people in the West, “time is an active, physical commodity that they think they can control in some way” (Moreau, Campbell & Greener 2014:142). However, there are different ways to measure time other than dividing it by seconds, minutes, days, years, centuries or millennia. A meeting begins only when the important people have arrived, and important people never come on time. The more important and higher on the social scale people are, the more they should delay their arrival. Only servants, who cannot claim honor, come “on time.” The meeting ends only when proper ritual takes place, regardless of how long it takes. Time used in expectation is important time, often used to make sure the honoring rituals to follow will not glitch. Both the guest and the host know this delay is necessary. The emphasis is on the quality of relationships during the events, rather than on the quantity of time. Most of the world also lives by a sequence of events, often based on cyclic, oscillating, or spiraling patterns. The seasons, the weather, the moon cycles and other natural events mark the passing of time. In many religions people also experience sacred time, where physical time seems to disappear for a while. Prophets often experienced sacred time when receiving visions or dreams. Humans experience time in a personal and subjective way. Traditional cultures are past-oriented, making sure previous life lessons provide stability for today. Open cultures have high expectations of the future, forecasting changes or even complete chaos that is considered good. Most Western contemporary cultures, however, focus on the present according to the carpe diem philosophy. It should be noted that the way people perceive time influences how they understand history and the future.

Space is also perceived in relation to other universals. If the focus in worship is on preaching, and the main actor is the pastor, as in most Western societies, most of the space in church will be filled with benches or chairs. If there is a larger space provided at the front of the church, it is for the officiating personnel’s movement, and unavailable to worshippers. As passive congregants, people are expecting the illumination and revelation to come through the preacher and choir. The direction of worship is from heaven to earth, and the sacred space is organized accordingly. However, the communal dimension of the rest of the world requires plenty of space for the worshippers to move around. Eastern Orthodox churches provide only few chairs by the side of the narthex for the elderly, most other worshippers roaming freely in the empty space. Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic worship places also allow for free movement inside the temples. The direction is mainly from earth to heaven, worship consisting in what worshippers offer the divinity. The concept of sacred space is strongly influenced by the cosmology and theological concepts shared by the congregants. We may organize the space in rectangular shapes, as most Westerners do, or in round shapes as traditional African, Asian, or Pacific societies do. Individualistic societies divide the space in small rooms, making sure privacy is ensured, while communal societies prefer to live in one large space. The communal focus is on relationships and closeness. Territory and property in the West is acquired by purchase, but most land in the rest of the world is inherited from the parents, the extended family, or is part of the tribe/clan’s territory. However, the rest of the world assigns special significance to land and property that has been blessed or cursed. Spiritual value is attached to material possessions.

The most important value for the rest of the world is honor. Face is the outward appearance of honor. If the West values laws, principles, truth, and honesty, the rest of the world is more preoccupied with maintaining a high level of honor and an honorable face. Flanders contends that “wherever there is human culture, there face also exists. . . . Whether recognized explicitly or designated by a specific appellation, face, it seems, pervades all human relationality and culture” (Flanders 2011:79). He also notes that in many East Asian cultures, “the ratification of face and face-related needs lies at the very heart of communication” and that it is both “complex and dynamic” at the same time (Flanders 2011:79, 84). Speaking in a Chinese context, Wu notes that, socially, face is both achieved and ascribed. He observed that “theologically, Western Christians have overwhelmingly constricted their attention to the narrower question of achieved face” (Wu 2013:175). However, a Chinese’s “primary goal is to get, maintain, and protect face” by also associating with important people and getting ascribed face, by sharing “the face of those with whom they identify” (Wu 2013:175-176). November concludes that “Jesus showed that true face is not gained; it is given” especially in the process of offering righteousness and grace (November 2017:52).

For communal societies, lying and cheating are not primarily moral issues. One can say an obvious lie without being sanctioned, because everyone understands the need to save face and avoid shame. In fact, in such cultures sin is never defined as breaking a law but rather as being ashamed for not being worthy. For the rest of the world, sin is defined in terms of shame and fear. When it is necessary to communicate an unpleasant message, indirect communication is always used, as it helps to avoid being ashamed. The rest of the world values and masterfully uses narratives, parables, stories, and metaphors. Muller asserts that “honor is demonstrated by silence, and speaking only wise and careful things. Often the speech of wise people is full of proverbs and parables. The more proverbs a person knows, the wiser he appears in the eyes of others” (Muller 2001:49). Conflict is always solved through mediators or third parties. Respect and hierarchy are mandatory, with honor and status given based on age, rank, title, or social order. Obedience is important because it brings honor and merit. Risks are not encouraged. Non-Western societies have developed various mechanisms of saving, maintaining, or restoring face, such as covering up, gossip, or revenge taking.

The Bible as a Mediterranean Document

Many Bible translations focused on the text, exegeting the meaning of words, analyzing grammar and syntax. Other modern versions tried to make sense of the text in the contemporary context. However, very few translations paid attention to the cultural context of the text, the so-called “exegetical contextualization” (Wu 2015:16). Marvin Newell is convinced that “the Bible serves as a textbook on cultural comprehension, teaching us how to understand cultural origins, multicultural development, and unique cultural expressions” (Newell 2016:266).

The Bible was written in the Mediterranean context, “in Egypt, Syro-Palestine, and Mesopotamia, the territory which anthropologists are asserting was and is dominated by shame and honor cultures” (Moskala 2014:23). The cultural environment, the logic people used, and the unspoken assumptions during the time of writing, left a strong imprint on the text. Nisbett states that “by the first millennium A.D. there were essentially no traces of a [Western] logical approach to understand the world. Instead, there was a trust in sense impressions and common sense” (Nisbett 2003:167). As De Silva noted, when we “divorce the texts from the original cultural context—those basic values and scripts that shaped the world of the original authors and hearers—we will miss much of the instruction that the texts wish to give and add much that the texts do not wish to say” (De Silva 2000:19). Unfortunately, Western scholars are tributary to the worldview shared by their cultures, and as a result their reading and interpretation of the sacred text is conditioned by the Western worldview. In Richards’ and O’Brian’s words, “some of the habits that we readers from the West . . . bring to the Bible can blind us to the interpretations that the original audience and readers in other cultures see quite naturally. . . . Presuppositions we carry to the Bible influence the way we read” (Richards and O’Brien 2012:15).

As Werner Mischke noted, the Bible is no longer “our” book (Mischke 2015:35). The meaning of the words derives from the “general social system of the speakers of the language” (Malina 1993:2). “Words take their meaning from a social system” (Neyrey and Stewart 2008:xxi). We do not live in the time and are not part of the culture of the biblical writers. The value systems of these writers are different than ours in the 21st century, especially in the Western world. The Western Christian church “has become a culturally disenfranchised church in neo-pagan culture,” as Michael Goheen describes it (Goheen 2016:6). In addition to these major differences, there are many unwritten assumptions that are lost in space and time translation. There is a lot of indirect communication in Scripture, that was typically dependent on the context to be correctly understood. Dean Flemming notes how Paul varies the writing in his pastoral letters, speaking “to fresh and challenging circumstances in context-sensitive ways Paul enables the abiding word of the gospel to come to life in fresh ways that address the worldviews, felt needs, and misperceptions” of his listeners (Flemming 2016:234).

Mediterranean cultures of the past were not individualistic; most of the direct communication toward an individual need to be interpreted with the person as part of the group. Representatives of a group are often addressed, but the message is for the entire group. For example, the communication in Rev 1-3 is directed to the angels of the churches, but the messages are for those specified groups (pars pro toto). The communal nature of the issues is unavoidable. It is not only “that woman, Jezebel” that is the problem, but the entire community is advised to act (Rev 2:20-24). The Nicolaitans may practice an abomination (Rev 2:6), but the entire church may be perceived as apostate if no action is taken. Although contending that there is no clear definition of a shame and honor Mediterranean culture, Moskala notes four basic characteristics: community (vs an individual); the reputation, worth, and status of a person in society; cultural norms of honor; and the compliance of a person to those norms (Moskala 2014:23).

The entire Scripture exudes communal values, such as face and honor. The history of the universe known to us begins with God’s honor being challenged and the harmony upset, and continues until God’s honor and the celestial harmony will be restored. Human history begins with an honorable God creating honorable human beings in an honorable environment. However, humanity dishonors God and in the process loses its given honor. The rest of history is a continuous cycle of ups and downs, of alternating episodes of shame and restoration of honor based on God’s grace. The good news of the gospel is that God provided a solution for restoration of our honor before the very fall. The entire Scripture calls humans to give “glory to God in the highest heavens” (Luke 2:14) and “fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come” (Rev 14:7). In John 17, Jesus’s prayer is centered on honor: “I have glorified you on earth” (17:4); “I have manifested your name to the people” (17:6, 26, where the name of God is honorable); “I have given them the words that you gave me” (17:8, where obedience in mission honors the divine sender); “I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost” (17:12, where Jesus’s honorable actions bring glory to the Father); and culminating with “The glory that you have given me I have given them” (17:22). The statements of this prayer will later be echoed in the last book of the Bible, in eschatological context. In Revelation, God’s shaming through judgment is “a means of vindicating God’s renown and glory (Rev 15:1-4) and creating a new heaven marked by honor and glory (Rev 5:13; 19:7-8; 21:23-27),” as Georges and Baker describe it (2016:89).

The time vision of successive empires in Dan 2 and 7 is often read by Western scholars in a linear manner. They see a clear direction from point A to point B in time, from the beginning to the end. However, when read from a Mediterranean perspective, the emphasis of visions and dreams is less on the advancement of history and exact dates, and more on the repeated cycles of rising and falling of empires. The key to interpret the vision time wise was given by Daniel himself in 2:21 and 2:44. “He deposes kings and raises up others” (2:21) stands in stark contrast to “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people” (2:44). The everlasting kingdom brought by God has no end, and from that moment on the linear timeline becomes useless. The same pattern is seen in the book of Judges where repeated cycles of apostasy and reformation call for God’s setting up Samuel as a prophet and judge. The periods or amounts of time are not the essence for the biblical writers, as it is the case of the generations in Judges, but the message that, regardless of how long people should wait, God is in control and will intervene and rescue them if they repent. Repeated time and event cycles contribute to the growing tension that asks for a conclusion, as Daniel points out in 2:44-45. In Revelation, the souls under the altar (Rev 6:10) ask God “how long” would it take him to judge the world and restore their honor? The answer puzzles any Western reader, but makes perfect sense to the rest of the world: “each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been” (Rev 6:11). While the white robe stands as a symbol of “victory and purity” and honor (Newell 2016:267), in contrast to the dark accusations and vile deeds of their oppressors, there is only a vague time answer. And why should more of their “brothers and sisters” have to be killed? This does not make sense to the Western logic. However, blood is the only detergent that washes away shame and restores honor, so the rest of the world understands the answer. Time is subsequent in importance to the events leading to the final restoration of honor.

William Miller and early Adventist pioneers used prophetic charts and timelines to calculate prophetic times and periods. In their time and culture, people were attracted to these calculations because it made sense. However, the Millerites’ emphasis was on the glorious events leading to meeting Jesus. Every time when they focused too much on linear interpretation of time, they reached dead ends. A renewed focus on the meaning of events broke the deadlocks and saved the movement. We should credit them with “prophetic honesty” to admit mistakes in their calculation based only on timelines. However, the question still remains: after 1844, how long is it until Christ returns? Linear timelines and logic no longer help.

The sacred space of the Sanctuary supports and complements the eschatological interpretation of time. In fact, most of Daniel’s visions deal with entities and symbols related to the Sanctuary. The next section will look closely to eschatology as it is portrayed by the sacred space where God was to be worshipped and honored. The key to understand time periods, communal identities, contextual logic, and restoration of honor resides in the architecture of the sacred space of the Sanctuary.

The Sanctuary as an Eschatological Parable

When linear timelines end, one needs to go back to the big picture of Scripture. Eschatology begins early in human history with the promise of a redeemer (Gen 3:15), symbolized later in the structure and the elements of the tabernacle and the Temple. These were intended as pedagogical devices to teach the message of salvation. The main lesson was about the basic problem of humanity— sin—and how God was going to take care of it—through blood. However, animal blood sacrifices were not created at the time the Sanctuary service was launched. The promise of the redeemer in Gen 3 was followed by God sacrificing animals and providing the first humans with skin clothes. The connection between the blood of animals and the blood of the Lamb is identified in Isaiah 53. However, most of the Western traditional understanding of the sanctuary uses a forensic approach. One struggles to make sense of all the blood shed at the Sanctuary simply because it does not address primarily the law or the breaking of the law. There is no (Western) logic in punishing an animal for the sin of a human being. No wonder why certain theologians and scholars reject the need of blood in favor of a moral example and moral and ethical redress. However, the Bible is very clear that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb 9:22) and the rest of the world knows why: only blood can wash away the shame of sin.

The Last Generation Theology (LGT) developed because the role and the need of blood diminished in favor of an abstract moral standard. However, the “sinless” state claimed for the last generation ignores the fact that human nature remains shameful even after sinful acts or intentions cease to exist. The presence of Jesus in a person’s heart does not mean that judgment is forfeited, because the investigative judgment still needs to take place. It is interesting to note that LGT did not develop in the rest of the world but in the West where abstract concepts such as perfection can be detached from the reality of shame. The blood that washes away the shame of sin is the answer to LGT.

The Judgment(s) and Restoration of Honor

The heavenly temple is described as “the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven” (Rev 15:5). The testimony is not only part of the legal court proceedings, but it is a perfect device for saving face and restoring the honor lost. A testimony of an eyewitness can dispel the shameful suspicion that hangs on an otherwise innocent person. In many cultures, local honor courts deal with the shame of a conflict, bringing reconciliation, in order to avoid reaching the official legal court where legal shameful solutions and consequences may be pronounced. For the rest of the world, to end up in the legal court means failure and shame. Gypsies, who are scattered all over Europe, are a good example that illustrates how the East is dealing with shame. For them, tribal courts (Kris) are more important than official courts. It is more important how matters are settled among the group—where face needs to be saved— rather than an official pronouncement of the gadze (non-Gypsies, Gentiles) whom they do not perceive as honorable anyway. Every Gypsy is more concerned that the tribal court upholds their honor, even if they will later have to face the secular courts. Westerners, who are obsessed with courts and legal proceedings, may find two eschatological judgments being redundant, or even in contradiction. But the rest of the world hears good news when an investigative judgment is held to clear the names and save the face of those who chose to “follow the Lamb” (Rev 14:4), before the final judgment where the legal consequences are announced and implemented.

This approach to the eschatological judgment speaks better to Muslims, who may understand the principle behind the sacrifices at the Sanctuary in the light of their own sacrificing of animals at the end of the Hajj. They understand the role of the blood. A Hindu, who also sacrifices black goats at the temple of Shiva, has more chances to learn the power of the blood in washing away the shame of sin. Mercy and justice need to be portrayed not by an “either/or” Western logic but through a “both” approach for the rest of the world embraces complementarity and knows how to live with paradoxes. There is no better biblical description of God’s balanced character than the Sanctuary, where “love and faithfulness meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other” (Ps 85:10), and that makes perfect sense to the rest of the world.

The biblical judgment is a process of restoring honor to all parties involved. That is why Jesus said that whoever accepts his transforming power is no longer going to be judged. Jesus’s honor is counted in behalf of the previously shameful person. The investigative judgment’s purpose goes beyond proving who is right(eouss) and who is not. The black or white Western perspective becomes more nuanced when looked at with Eastern eyes. The three angels in Revelation 14 not only oppose two entities or categories, but announce different phases of judgment in relation to honor. The first angel invites people to honor God again (Rev 14:7). The second angel presents the shame of the fallen Babylon (Rev 14:8), while the third angel announces the consequences of choosing shame (Rev 14:9-11).

Communal Identity and God’s Extended Family

Unfortunately, the Jews did not share the beautiful message of salvation portrayed in the Sanctuary rituals (Heb 4:2); they circumcised people in order to make them Jews. They restricted the family of God to one “heir,” in spite of God declaring other nations as his children, too (Isa 19:23-25). The covenant was mainly described in terms of salvation, restricting access to it on ethnic grounds and portraying God as blessing and saving only the chosen people. Honor was channeled and assigned arbitrarily by the Jews, opposing God’s intentions. The very people chosen to honor God dishonored him repeatedly and finally rejected him in utter shame. Although God desires to save any Jew that will truly honor him, the Israelites as a nation are no longer his partner in restoring God’s honor before the nations. Jesus established the church as his new partner for restoration of honor, sending it to the ends of the world (Matt 28:18-20). The rest of the world understands very well the reason why God established a Sanctuary, covenants, messengers, and a church so the “mystery” of God’s way of restoring honor and face could be revealed. God’s honor is the most important issue in the universe. It was his mission (missio Dei) the reason he entered into the everlasting covenant, in order to restore the imago Dei. And for the rest of the world, honor and face are very important.

The nations were supposed to learn about God and his plan to restore honor. However, the centrifugal missionary aspect of the Sanctuary was lost when David dreamed of a fixed Temple. Instead of pointing forward and upward to the very prophetic events related to God’s honor, the Sanctuary and the Ark of the covenant were treated as magic power under the control of the Jews. In the story of the Ark being captured as a war trophy, the Philistines honored the ark more than the Jews did (1 Sam 5, 6). The Jews no longer presented the message of the Temple as what God wanted to offer, but emphasized what humans can provide in exchange for salvation. Instead of all humanity honoring God, the Jews emphasized what God did to honor them as a nation, and presented the Temple as their power house. No wonder why, during such a time, Hinduism and Buddhism flourished in Asia where people could not hear the revelation of God’s “mystery” because the appointed missionaries hid it for so long. God’s honor and face was gradually lost in the rest of the world. If Hinduism multiplied gods infinitely, Buddhism eliminated the idea of God completely. When God is missing from the picture, biblical eschatology becomes pointless. Even for Buddhist sects where the concept of God may exist, he is only assigned the executive role of keeping track of merit and an “enforcer of karma” (Dumitrescu 2017:51).

Mediation: Key for Restoration of Honor

The role of the priest was to mediate between humans and God. The priest would play a dual role, representing God before humans, and representing humans before God. As sinners, humans would be too defiled and too ashamed to face an honorable God, while God was too ashamed by his own people. If initially God spoke face to face to humans, he later used intermediaries, such as the prophets or judges, to convey his messages. God ordained that priests should go through a public ritual of cleansing and anointing for service, becoming qualified to represent the worshippers before God, being cleansed of shame and honored by anointing. The seriousness of the meaning of the ritual was to be impressed on the minds of people so “death was associated with non-compliance (Exod 30:17-21)” (Dumitrescu 2005:26). Although sinners themselves, the priests and Levites were chosen by God based on an attitude of obedience. When God was honored by humans, he honored them in exchange, as seen in the episode of choosing the tribe of Levi to restore God’s honor (Exod 32).

The entire sacrificial system pointed to the everlasting covenant. The priests could not solve the problem of sin, but they role played the reconciliation that was the core of atonement. The abundance of blood that soaked the Sanctuary premises pointed to the abundant grace promised by God and provided by Jesus. His blood would be sufficient for the shame of the entire humanity. He was the true mediator and intercessor, and humans were attracted to his ministry (Heb 4:16).

The Representation Principle (Synecdoche)

The individual often stood as a representative for the community (pars pro toto). There is no evidence in Scripture that women or children brought sacrifices at the Sanctuary or went through the atonement process. However, there are references that the head of the household brought sacrifices in behalf of the entire family (Job 1:5). Elcanah brought sacrifices in behalf of his wives and children (1 Sam 1:3-5), while Paul remembered baptizing the entire household of the person who repented (1 Cor 1:16). For Easterners, salvation is not focused on the individual but on the community; it is a community business.

The Contextual Logic of Shame and Honor

The description of the sanctuary in the letter to the Hebrews follows a contextual logic, while Western readers seem to be missing important contextual assumptions in their interpretation based on linear logic. The understanding of the book depends on basic assumptions mostly unknown to the modern reader and on intuitive and pragmatic rather than abstract linear binary thinking. While Westerners see the old covenant and the new covenant as opposites, the rest of the world sees them as complementary: one needs the other in order to be understood. Heaven and the universe are often perceived as capricious and unpredictable, in contrast to the Western view that heaven can be predicted based on immutable scientific laws.

The transfer of sin process that Westerners describe in forensic terms as guilt and responsibility, and the restoration of innocence is echoed by the Eastern understanding of liberation from shame and restoration of honor. There is nothing more important and vital for a Muslim or a Hindu than a confirmation that shame was taken care of and their honor and face restored. “God’s actions to defend his honor by shaming people are well understood by honor-based cultures. The permanent desire for honor and the avoidance of shame at any cost is the language they speak every moment of every day. It becomes clear that shame defiles and that simple forgiveness cannot wash away shame” (Dumitrescu 2014:230).

The advantage of describing the whole process in terms of shame and honor resides in the difference between guilt and shame. While guilt and innocence are Western abstract concepts pointing to what one does, shame and honor are ubiquitous in the life of Easterners pointing to who they are. An invisible God requiring abstract standards is not as powerful an image as the presence of the community around them who enforces a palpable code of honor. When sin is defined in terms of shame, Paul’s statement “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21) needs to be interpreted accordingly. To have no sin but be made sin for us in order to restore our righteousness means he knew no shame but took our shame in order to make us honorable again and reflect God’s honor. He not only took our judgment upon him (where did all those sins go?) but was and is able to take all our shameful sins because his own blood provides cleansing. Guilt is not less important than the shame of sin in the atonement process, but the value system of the rest of the world places communal face and honor above any other abstract moral value. If you want to be understood, you need to speak the language people speak. Shame speaks better to them than guilt.

Records of Honor and Shame

The books used in the judgment are not only books of justice, recording deeds, but also books of honor and shame. To clear a name means to restore its honor. The patriarchs received new names that reflected their experience and relationship with an honorable God. The book of Revelation points out that the redeemed will receive a new name, and this name will be known only by them because of their special relationship with Jesus. In Scripture, names carry special meanings. They can be shameful (Lo-Ami, Ichabod) or honorable (Abraham, Israel). The New Earth and the New Jerusalem are called new because in them there will be “nothing shameful” (Rev 21:27). In contrast, Babylon, the dragon, the prostitute, or the demonic triad all share shameful characteristics.

Judgment and Substitution

However, the Sanctuary illustrated not only the restoration of honor and face, but emphasized the seriousness of sin through judgment and the value and need of a substitute. Sin had consequences and the worshippers had to pay a high price for their sins. Each lamb sacrificed at the Sanctuary represented a high economic price to be paid as a result of sin. Often, the sacrificed lambs were the daily survival guarantee. Sin was expensive, and the high price was a permanent reminder of, and measure of prevention from, sin. Less wealth meant also less honor.

Restoration of honor implied judgment, but judgment liberated one from shame. The Xârâcùù men of the tribes of New Caledonia dutifully accept even today a number of lashes on their backs, assigned by the Grand Chief, because afterwards they can walk straight. Justice has been served and no one can accuse them of not paying the price for their mistakes or being shameful anymore. It is remarkable that anyone who is part of the tribe can offer to suffer the punishment for the sake of the evildoers, acting as replacements and substitutes. They will restore the honor of the accused and enhance their own honor at the same time. The meaning of the substitute is well understood by the rest of the world.

Summary

This enhanced message of the Sanctuary needs to be presented to the non-Western cultures. Adventist doctrinal statements need to reflect the values present both in the sacred text as well as the local cultures. The Day of Atonement portrayed not only the forensic aspects of salvation but touched on some of the most sensitive values of today’s world societies: community and honor. The book of Revelation does not only describe individuals being saved, but a “great multitude” made up of groups such as the 144,000. The final picture of heaven includes groups based on ethnicity, language, and tribal identity. Eschatology is about God who is gathering his extended family, where various groups of his adopted children come together to restore his honor.

An Eschatology for the Rest of Us

As the survey of the non-Western worldview indicated, and the reading of the biblical text in context revealed, eschatology needs to be presented to the rest of the world based on a different set of values than Western Christianity is used to. Effective communication, desired by all theologians and missionaries, requires a contextualization of this important truth. As Timothy Keller stated, “Contextualization is giving the people the Bible answers to questions about life that people in their particular time and place are asking, in language and forms they can comprehend, and through appeals and arguments with force they can feel” (Keller 2012:89). Such an effective communication “is like building a bridge from the Scripture to the contemporary world. Proper contextualization is the act of bringing sound biblical doctrine all the way over the bridge by re-expressing it in terms coherent to a particular culture” (Keller 2012:101). Here are some suggestions to contextualize eschatology for the rest of the world.

Contextual Logic and Textual Interpretation

Western scholars search for the exact interpretation of the text, employing exegesis. The rest of the world allows for multiple interpretations of the same passage or symbol. Adventists have been interested to identify the characters and the exact time of the events mentioned in prophetic and eschatological passages. They wanted to know precisely what to expect in the future. Countless scenarios have been developed by Western Christians, and by Adventists in particular, regarding the fulfillment of eschatological prophecies. Easterners prefer the vagueness of the language, allowing for flexibility in interpretation. When you ask for directions in the Philippines, passers-by will never say no. They will approve whatever option you choose, even if you end up going in the wrong direction. They want to make sure that, if the interpretation does not match reality, they don’t lose face. A precise identification of actors in the drama is an unwelcome risk. However, Easterners categorize with certainty who or what brings honor or shame. Wisdom is rather expressed through ambiguity than by precision. This is how eschatological passages are also read and interpreted.

The Hebrew language is a contextual language. It contains consonants, and the context decides the vowels to be attached in order to make sense of the text in the context. In the East, open ended parables or stories are the norm. The audience is offered choices. The rest can live with paradoxes that for the West are always a challenge. The parable of the master who entrusts talents to the servants (Matt 25:15-30), only to return unannounced and call for an evaluation is interpreted through an honor perspective. While the West feels that the servant who received ten talents is superior to the ones who received five and one, the East notices that both the first and the second servant honor their master regardless of the amount of talents received. The problem of the servant who received one talent is not the small amount, but the attitude of disrespect and dishonor toward the master. In the parable of the wedding garment, it is not the different coat that is the main problem, but the rejection of the Master’s hospitality shown through a gift (Matt 22:11-14). The older brother is equally invited to the celebration on behalf of his younger sibling as all other guests, but he cannot honor his brother and treats even his father with contempt, shaming him (Luke 15).

Time vs. Events

The prophetic timeline is often presented from a purely Western perspective, in a linear way with a beginning and an end. But most of the world’s cultures perceive time in a cyclic or a spiral way. The succession of empires in Daniel 2 and 7, however, could also be comprehended from a non-linear perspective. Each empire rises and falls, and, in a way, history repeats itself. But the focus is less on the future in this case and more on the person behind the rise and fall of empires. Daniel is very clear that God is the focus of the prophecy, he “deposes kings and raise up others” (Dan 2:21). In fact, Middle Easterners are not so much interested to measure time by years, decades, centuries, or millennia; they are focusing on the nature of the events. The fear of the future is often allayed by the good news that in the end the most honorable God will triumph and his kingdom will be established. The wise men of the East were searching the sky for the sign of Messiah’s birth. For them the event was extremely important, and they travelled a long way, probably for weeks or months, in order to pay homage and honor to a king that was only a helpless baby, having poor parents, and growing amidst shameful animals.

It is significant to notice that the Scripture provides the reader not only with an eschatological timeline based on figures and numbers of years, but Jesus emphasizes the signs that precede and announce the great event. For a Westerner it is difficult to understand how one can “delay” or “hasten” God’s sovereignly established coming, but for the rest of the world this is not a problem. In fact, from a missiological perspective, the sooner the earth hears about the honorable offer of Jesus, the sooner his coming may happen. Jesus’s statement that “about that day or hour [of his coming] no one knows” (Matt 24:36) may create confusion and uncertainty for Westerners. However, the statement is not about the mystery enshrouding the time, but about the Father, the highest authority, the most honorable, trusted and respected, who knows the time and is in control of it. It is his attribute to decide when to share with humans the honor of the return. This makes perfect sense to the non-Westerner.

Habakkuk was instructed that the eschatological “revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay” (Hab 2:3). For a Westerner, if it “lingers” it automatically means a delay; but for the rest of the world, “lingering” is announcing an event that is sure to happen. The same apparent paradox is echoed in Heb 10:37, where the reader is assured that “In just a little while, he who is coming will come and will not delay.” The hastening of the second coming (2 Pet 3:12) is possible by proclaiming the good news of God’s kingdom and the invitation to accept his offer.

The Bible ends with a similar reminder, “I am coming quickly” (Rev 22:20). But how is “quickly” perceived in societies where time is flexible and stretching, and where events are more important than the speed of time? In contrast with the Western obsession of date setting, the Easterners appreciate the event as equally important as the readiness for it. The event is not surprising for them; they were given the honor of knowing about it and plenty of time to prepare. The second coming of Jesus is without doubt a glorious and honorable event, and he honors the community of the redeemed and the extended family of his adopted children.

In the rest of the world no one comes at an abstract and arbitrary time, but only when everyone was given plenty of time for preparation and enough warning. What honor can one get if the wedding begins at the announced time but nobody is ready? Some may counter this view with the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25); however, the emphasis in the parable is not on the exact time of the groom’s arrival but on the honorable moment created by his arrival after allowing enough time for preparation. It is about the honor of being able to honor the groom. The verdict of “I don’t know you,” is a direct consequence of treating the groom carelessly, a clear attitude of disrespect. Kenneth Bailey comments from an Eastern perspective: “speculation regarding the hour is pointless. The enormous amount of energy that in certain Christian circles is poured into such speculation is here declared misguided” (Bailey 2008:275). When the master sent his servants to gather people from ways and byways, he made a public statement shaming those who claimed to be honorable but refused his invitation (Matt 22:2-10). Instead, he chose to honor those who could not claim such a privilege. He illustrated repeatedly that it is not those who say “Lord, Lord” that honor him, but those who are obedient (Matt 7:21). It was not the son who promised to work in the vineyard and did not go that honored him, but the one who initially refused to go but ended obeying and honoring his father (Matt 21:28-31).

For the rest of the world, the later a person shows up for an event, the more important and honorable that person is. Statements like “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Pet 3:8; see also Ps 90:4) may not only describe the ontological difference between divinity and humanity but also the non-Western perception of time. God is not subject to time, but time is subject to God. An event-based eschatology built on grace and justice is more appropriate for the rest of the world than exact periods of time. No view should exclude the other, but both should be used depending on the missiological context.

Space

Western worldviews perceive the divine realm completely separated from or above the level inhabited by humans. However, many cultures provide visible illustrations of the divine in the forms of idols, statues, pictures, and symbols. The desire of the majority world is to have the gods live among them. It is worthy to note that the Bible describes the Creator’s desire to live with his creatures. Jesus’s prophetic name was Immanuel, reflecting his desire for incarnation. Western Adventist evangelists tend to present the Great Controversy as happening in the universe, above our heads. But the rest of the world perceives the cosmic conflict as happening here and now. It is not only an abstract and remote confrontation that the Bible speaks about; the war in heaven (Rev 12:17) happens on this very planet. God’s presence filled the Holy of Holies that was placed at the core of the Sanctuary that was placed in the middle of the Israelite camp that was located at the crossroads of the continents. This spatial arrangement assured people that God was in control at the command center, and that he could offer protection and victory.

Eschatological events announced by the prophets were not supposed to happen somewhere, far from them, but most events were related to familiar landmarks. Gehenna, Meggido (the Armaggedon), or frequent references to the temple made eschatology happen in their present time and proximal space. The reinterpretation of the symbols used in prophecy might not be easy but necessary. As an example, dragons or nagas in Buddhism, Confucianism, or Shintoism are not negative creatures, but are often found defending temples and places of worship. The symbols used in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation, especially related to sacred spaces, need to be checked against the meanings assigned by the local communities.

Honor as the Most Important Value

Eschatology does not have to be frightening. In spite of wars, persecution, or killings, the way the Bible describes the manner of the second coming is in itself less scary and more reassuring – all the signs are glorious, out of proportion, indicating an important event and person appearing “with power and great glory” (Mat 24:27-30), as a “victor” leading heavenly armies on a white horse (Rev 19:11-16). The event is not so much a surprise because it was not announced, but because people refused to believe the message and thus shamed both the messengers and the authority sending the message. The comparison with the times of Noah is pertinent (Matt 24:38, 39).

The focus of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision was not so much the cataclysmic destruction of earth’s empires but the glory and honor of the kingdom established by the stone (Dan 7:14), without any shameful or sinful human interaction. Nebuchadnezzar was assured that glory and honor will prevail in spite of the degradation of each empire following his. However, he wanted to make sure no honor would be lost, so he built an entire statue of gold (Dan 3:1).

Eschatological symbols are very important, and the Bible mentions signs and omens (Rev 12:1, 3; 15:1). These symbols help people recognize the true Messiah from the fakes. “The sign of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:3, 30) is clearly intended for such a purpose, marking without a doubt the true coming of Jesus. However, the enemy of God set up his own “mark” or sign that is enforced on the heads and hands of those who refuse to honor God (Rev 13:16-18; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20). The redeemed are identified as those who refused to accept the dishonorable mark on their hands and foreheads (Rev 20:4). They chose to honor God with the price of their lives.

Immortality is God’s way of restoring humanity’s honor. It is conditional on humans’ honoring God by their obedience. Death meant separation of God’s breath and dust. Dust is dirty and shameful. There is no honor in the dirt under our feet. Lifeless wax figures of important people exposed at Madam Tussaud’s have no honor. The resurrection is just the instrument through which the shame of sin is removed. It is the hope of glory and honor. The first death is a consequence of our shameful nature. The second death, however, is the result of a shameful choice. Eternal life is given as a sign of glorification. The only corner of the universe that was defective and shamed God is now restored. The final scenes in the book of Revelation describe a world without anything shameful in it, no tears, no pain, no suffering. The atmosphere is full of healing from the wounds of shame. Every person honors the others in the group and all together honor the Creator God.

Resurrection, as the glorious hope of humanity, is exceedingly good news in a context where the ancestors are very important and revered. The aim of the event is to offer honorable rewards, or make sure revenge is taking place for restoring face and honor. The resurrected are restored and glorified, as a reminder that nothing shameful will enter heaven. They are called “supremely blessed” which can be also translated as “honored” (Rev 20:5, 6). The rest of the world is looking forward to see their blessed ancestors, whom they honored, being honored by God, too.

The efforts of Western missionaries to establish the certainty of the second coming of Christ may not be necessary. For the rest of the world, when a “voice” certifies a future event, people have no problem believing it is going to happen. For them, words are important, having the value of contracts. For Non-Westerners, there is no need to insist on the certainty of the second coming because several world religions expect a “coming,” such as of Maytreya in Buddhism.

What needs to be emphasized is the possible reactions of people during the eschatological events: depending on how “hospitable” they were to the “voice” who pleaded with them to honor Him by being obedient, there may be joy or desperation. The redeemer is not to be received only by a special group of people, but by the entire population who chose to honor him regardless of consequences. However, there may be differences because of the roles each fulfills in the big picture. There is always joy in a family reunion with the Father, and with Jesus, the older brother—they bring honor and identity to the family by rewarding the obedient (1 Cor 15:52). The redeemed loved Him, in spite of temptations—love was often a tough decision that brought shame from their own communities. God’s children will be restored to the original life, with permanent access to the tree of life. Everything corruptible or shameful is removed and replaced with honorable and incorruptible (1 Cor 15:53).

The judgment (Jude 14, 15) is indeed good news, based on choice between shame (ungodly) or honor (godly). The choice was expressed through a covenant “by sacrifice” (Ps 50:3-5). There is no surprise for the ungodly that punishment is enacted, and they know they deserve it because of the shame they brought on the king of the universe. They are described as running to the elements of creation to “cover their faces” and hide their shameful beings (Rev 6:16, 17; see also Esther 7:8).

For an Easterner, both the investigative and the final judgment evaluate the attitude of honoring or shaming the Creator. In fact, the investigative judgment is easily seen as a court of honor. The two women of Revelation are praised or condemned based on their attitude: honor, or dishonor. The seven churches are praised or rebuked based on how honorable or shameful their conduct is. The final reward is not arbitrary, but it is a natural consequence of the entity’s attitude and character.

Sin can and needs to be defined as honor misguided: instead of honoring the creator, creatures demand honor for themselves. This is the case of Lucifer (Eze 28) and the story of humanity’s fall (Gen 3). When the West emphasizes lawlessness as the current problem in society, the East identifies shamelessness and dishonor as the cause for moral degradation. Lawlessness is translated as disobedience, and disobedience is a clear sign of shame. Rev 13 presents a dynamic of honor demanded and offered, as well as honor restored. Conformity by force is the equivalent of honor demanded. In the prophetic timeline, the little horn wants to get all honor. He uproots kings, makes the daily to cease, in order to force the entire universe, if possible, to worship and honor him (Dan 7 and 8).

The messages of the three angels of Rev 14 speak undeniably about shame and honor. The first messenger announces God’s judgment and reward, and calls people to restore God’s honor because he is the creator and the authority and honor belongs by right to him (14:6, 7). The second angel calls for a choice of obedience between the shameful Babylon, the symbol of rebellion, and the honorable God. The third angel announces the ultimate consequences of humans’ choice. During the time of trouble, God will intervene to restore the honor of his obedient children who chose to honor him.

Group Identity

The book of Revelation describes the redeemed through different images: sometimes as a great multitude, other times as a group identified through numerical size (Rev 7). Westerners had a hard time reconciling the two groups and deciding on their identity. The 144,000 seems to be a group too small to fit God’s grace, and often shifts the focus from God to the human beings and their state of perfection necessary to join the group. But Easterners are less interested to know who these people or groups are; instead, they focus on these people’s characteristics. As pure people, they are able to reflect the King’s honor. It is not their honor that matters, but the Sovereign’s honor is at the center. It was not by their own efforts that they joined the group, but it was God’s unmerited gift. It is not an individual(istic) effort, but a group identity. As a result, they bow down before the celestial throne, take off their crowns placing them at the King’s feet, and sing a song in which all the honor is ascribed to the Lord of the Universe. The cosmic conflict is about honor: God’s honor challenged and God’s honor restored. Eschatology deals with the latter.

The millennium is a special time when all the questions that may trigger feelings of shame should be answered. It is the healing time, an opportunity to restore God’s glory and honor. It is a time of homecoming, the gathering of the extended family. People will meet unknown family members and the group identity will be restored. It will be a time to relearn how to live honorably, as heavenly princes and princesses. The second resurrection will only show the stark contrast between the redeemed and the rest: honor and shame. No condemnation is needed, the incompatibility of the shameful with the honorable kingdom is more than evident. All Satan’s accusations receive answers and there is no trace of doubt that there is no trace of honor left in him. The earth needs to be cleansed of sin and its shame.

The final cleansing of planet Earth restores its intended honor. The city is described in the most honorable terms, with streets of gold and precious stones all around its gates. The very name of the city reflects its honor: the New Jerusalem, the city of true peace. Peace does not mean the absence of conflict, but a desire to serve and honor others. This will be the ideal place for God’s family reunion. A loving God that decided to honor us even when we were utterly shameful and did not deserve it. He loved us in spite of our shamelessness.

For the rest of the world, eschatology is more than a timeline of events; it is a dynamic process leading to the restoration of honor and the removing of shame, and to the restoration of identity. The new names will reflect the experience of face and honor restored. It will reflect the relationship with the most honored ancestor, the Ancient of Days.

Conclusion

The survey of the above eschatological passages read from a non-Western perspective show the difficulty Western missiologists and theologians have in order to articulate the good news as good news for the rest of the world. Time, space, contextual logic, communal identity, and shame and honor are only a few factors where the rest of the world has a different hermeneutical matrix. In order to avoid the danger of syncretism, efforts must be made to understand non-Western values and worldviews and restate the wonderful biblical doctrines Adventists value in the logic and context of the local people. The rest of the world is waiting for it.

Bibliography

*Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2008.

Bauer, Bruce L., ed. Shame & Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes in Shame & Honor Contexts. Berrien Springs, MI: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2014.

*DeSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 2000.

*Dumitrescu, Cristian. “Shame and Honor: Biblical Understandings and Islamic Cultural Reflections.” Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (2005), 14-39.

*Dumitrescu, Cristian. “The Gospel of Shame and Honor: Atonement Through Asian Eyes.” In Shame & Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes in Shame & Honor Contexts, edited by Bruce L. Bauer. Berrien Springs, MI: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2014.

*Dumitrescu, Cristian. “The ‘Karma’ of the Old Testament as a Bridge to Communicate Grace to Karmic Communities.” In Gift and Duty: Where Grace and Merit Meet, edited by Paul H. De Neui. SEANET series, vol. 14. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2017.

*Flanders, Christopher L. About Face: Rethinking Face for 21st-century Mission. Vol. 9 of American society of missiology monograph series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.

*Flemming, Dean. “A Missional Reading of Colossians.” In Reading the Bible Missionally, edited by Michael Goheen. The Gospel and our culture series. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

*Georges, Jayson, and Mark D. Baker. Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures: Biblical Foundations and Practical Essentials. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016.

*Goheen, Michael. “A History and Introduction to a Missional Reading of the Bible.” In Reading the Bible Missionally, edited by Michael Goheen. The Gospel and our culture series. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2016.

*Hiebert, Paul G. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.

Hiebert, Paul G., and Eloise H. Meneses. Incarnational Ministry: Planting Churches in Band, Tribal, Peasant, and Urban Societies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.

Hiebert, Paul G., Daniel R. Shaw, and Tite Tienou. Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.

*Keller, Timothy. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

*Kraft, Charles H. Worldview for Christian Witness. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008.

*Malina, Bruce J. Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

*Mischke, Werner. The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World. Scottsdale, AZ: Mission One, 2015.

*Moreau, Scott A., Evy Hay Campbell, and Susan Greener. Effective Intercultural Communication: A Christian Perspective. Encountering mission series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014.

*Moskala, Jiri. “Reflections on the Concept of Shame and Honor in the Biblical Creation and Fall Narratives.” In Shame & Honor: Presenting Biblical Themes in Shame & Honor Contexts, edited by Bruce L. Bauer. Berrien Springs, MI: Department of World Mission, Andrews University, 2014.

*Muller, Roland. Honor and Shame: Unlocking the Door. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2001. Naugle, David K. Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.

*Newell, Marvin J. Crossing Cultures in Scripture: Biblical Principles for Mission Practice. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016.

*Neyrey, Jerome H., and Eric C. Stuart. The Social World of the New Testament: Insights and Models. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

*Nisbett, Richard E. The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently—and Why. New York: Free Press, 2003.

*November, Juliet. Honor/Shame Cultures: A Beginner’s Guide to Cross-Cultural Mission. Privately Published: 2007.

*Richards, Randolph E., and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012.

Wrogemann, Henning. Intercultural Hermeneutics: Intercultural Theology. Missiological Engagements series. Downers Grove: IVP, 2016.

*Wu, Jackson. One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2015.

*Wu, Jackson. Saving God’s Face. Evangelical Missiological Society Dissertation Series. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2013.

(Sources marked with an * are cited in the paper)