Introduction

Being central to New Testament ethics, the ethics of Jesus has been variously studied. Though the ethical teaching of Jesus has been discussed by Christians and non-Christians since the onset of the church age, discussions on the subject gained marked emphasis in the 19th century. During this period, scholars shifted attention from the "divinity" of Jesus to the relevance of His message to the moral life (McGrath, 2017: 238). The activities of exponents of protestant liberal theological viewpoints sparked discussion on the ethics of Jesus. Earlier exponents of Protestant liberalism regarded the moral teachings of Jesus as a present guide for moral living (Mabry, 2005: 181). For Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, an imitation of "Jesus' God-consciousness" was the ground for Christian salvation (cited in Wogaman, 2011: 175). Building on Schleiermacher's notion of the ethical role of Jesus, Albrecht Ritschl claimed that Jesus' "Godhead attribute" enabled believers to be reconciled to God (cited in Orr, 2016: 26, 27). Like Ritschl, Adolf von Harnack stated that the moral teachings of Jesus was best understood from a framework dictated by "an inner, present reality" (cited Witmer, 2014: 485). In contrast to the dominant view within the Protestant liberal tradition, Albert Schweitzer argued that it was impossible to separate Christian eschatology from the ethics of Jesus. According to him, Jesus was so much into the end of the world that his moral teachings described the Christian lifestyle just before the realization of the eschatological kingdom of God (Schwarz, 2005: 268-269).

This heightened interest in the systematic study of the ethics of Jesus was carried into the 20th century. This interest was sustained by the general quest of most scholars in the 20th century to identify the "meaning of Jesus and His message" to 20th century society (Spohn, 1995: 93, 94). Discussion on the moral teachings of Jesus centered around themes such as the practicality of the ethics of Jesus, the originality of the ethics of Jesus, the nature of the ethics of Jesus, eschatology and the ethics of Jesus, and the universalism of the ethics of Jesus (cf. Kennedy, 1909: 452; Case, 1935: 389; Evans, 1911: 419-420). Contrasting the altruistic-based ethics of Jesus with the egoistic-based ethics by scholars such as "Friedrich Nietzsche," Lyman Abbot argued that the practicality of the ethics of Jesus laid in some moral conceptions which are often misconstrued (Abbott, 1901: 256, 258). Consequently, many people fail to grasp the import of the ethics of Jesus simply because its standards are without comparison (Abbott, 1901: 264).

However, Nathaniel Schmidt doubted the novelty of the ethics of Jesus. Seeing a striking similarity between Jesus' Beatitudes and the Buddhist's Slavonic Enoch, Schmidt argued against the idea that the ethics of Jesus added new "doctrines" to aid humanity wrestle with the daily issues of life (Schmidt, 1912: 238). Clyde Weber Votaw saw the ethics of Jesus as an utmost moral standard that continues to bind humanity not only among the Jews but individuals and states in Europe (Votaw, 1915: 249). In this vein, Georgia Harkness adds that the ethics of Jesus offer basic directives for resolving concrete ethical problems in our present world (cited in Miles, 2010: 154; Harkness, 1974: 93, 142).

But Amos Niven Wilder argued that the motivation to live in accordance with the ethics of Jesus is derived from God's nature and activities and not some eschatological event like the "Judgment" (cited in Filson, 1951: 86). T. W. Manson's view may be understood in light of Wilder's argument. For Manson, the ethics of Jesus is a sort of disciplining ethics-it enjoins Christians to obey King Jesus and to imitate Him in all aspects of life (cited in Kucheman, 1961: 318). Scot McKnight divorces the ethics of Jesus from other ethical theories such as Aristotle's "Nichomachean ethics," "Kantian ethics," John Stuart Mill's "utilitarianism," and Rawls' "theory of justice" (Aristotle, 1140; Kain, 2010; Miller, 2010; Rawls, 1971). McKnight revives this argument by his claim that the ethics of Jesus is distinctively "Messianic" with a combination of "ethics from below;" "ethics from above," and "ethics from beyond" (McKnight, 2013: 8).¹

Based on a study of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, Thomas Jefferson described the ethics of Jesus as superior, universal, "pure and perfect" (cited in Federer, 2000: 332; Hovland, 2014: 21-22). William C. Spohn adds that the ethics of Jesus is the central point of convergence for all other ethical systems (Spohn, 1995: 102). In this vein, W. S. Vorster considers the ethics of Jesus as "a new value system" that provide an all-time "framework" for dealing with the issues of life (Vorster, 1991: 530, 531). However, David C. Sim has observed that the ethics of Jesus cannot be held in such high esteem. According to Him, Jesus' "anti-Pharisaic" and "vengeful" attitude, expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, causes Him to fall short of serving as an all-time universal moral ideal for Christians then and now (Sim, 2010: 3, 20). But Reinhold Niebuhr thinks otherwise. Couched within the notion that God is the ultimate reality, Niebuhr saw the ethics of Jesus as a derivative of God's nature. Just as God "transcends" His creation but still involves Himself in the activities of His creation, so the ethics of Jesus is beyond humanity's conception of morality; yet it addresses the "moral experience" of the present life (Niebuhr, 2012: 37).

In the 21st century, the ethics of Jesus is generally discussed around two dominant themes. These are the "authority" of Jesus' moral teachings to contemporary society and the connection between "eschatology" and the ethics of Jesus (Wilder, 2014: 9). The present study focuses on the latter theme. The burning issue in this study is the question as to what extent the eschatological ethos of the ethics of Jesus motivates present-day Christian living. This study builds on Niebuhr's view of "transcendental hedonism" (Niebuhr, 2012: 55). By this term, Niebuhr argues that belief in "ultimate rewards" is the sole motivating force in adhering to the ethics of Jesus (Niebuhr, 2012: 55). While the present study partially agrees with Niebuhr on this, it probes how an ethical system that relates to the holistic timeline of humanity would only have futuristic motivation. In light of this, the present study argues that the eschatological reward that motivates living in accordance with the ethics of Jesus in the present moral order has a dual application: adherents gain both in this world and in the world to come. The study is done from the Adventist perspective of eschatology and it seeks to determine ways in which Adventist eschatological teachings motivate moral living in the here-and-now. The ethics of Jesus, as used in this paper, refers to the moral resources derived from Jesus' way of life and teachings that ought to positively affect Christian decision-making.

Christian Eschatology and Christian Ethics

Christian eschatology generally connotes aspect of Christian theology that deals with end times. However, the Greek root 'ἔσχατος' and its cognates ἐσχάτη/ἔσχατον' ('eschatos/eschatē/eschaton;' 'last or uttermost'),² and 'λόγος' (logos; "word, study, reason") appropriately mean the study of final events or "last things" (Hanegraaff, 2007: 272; Menn, 2017: 3). Christian eschatology is built on an overarching theme that describes God's decisive activities in humanity's "ultimate future" (Grenz & Placher, 2003: 248; Stackhouse, 2007: 554; Haas, 2001: 325). Sub-themes within Christian eschatology include death, Christ's return, the millennium, resurrection, judgment, and rapture.

Conception of God's activities in the ultimate future of humanity in the New Testament (Acts 2:20; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10) finds its antecedent in the Old Testament's notion of the "day of the Lord" (Joel 1:15; 2: 31; Isa 2:12; 7:18-25; Ezek 13: 5; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:7-14; Zach 14:1; Mal 4:5). In the Old Testament, the notion of the "day of the Lord" had dual application- immediate and future. In the immediate context, the "day of the Lord" referred to an appeal to instant divine "judgment" at the occurrence of "some political or moral decline" either within the community of Israel or among the surrounding nations. In its future application, the notion of the "day of the Lord" referred to a period in the ultimate future of humanity when God will sit as Judge to "reward" the just and destroy the unjust (Bakon, 2010: 149, 156; Thiselton, 2010: 212).

In agreement with Leander E. Keck (Keck, 1996: 16), I have observed that New Testament authors appear to stress the futuristic application of the 'day of the Lord" more than its instantaneous application (1 Cor 15:19; 2 Pet 3:13). This is typified by the New Testament notion of the "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13; Rom 8:18; 2 Thess 2:18; Heb 9:28; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 21). In anticipation of this hope, biblical authors admonished Christian believers to live Christ-centered lifestyles in the here-and-now (1 Cor 4:9). By so doing, these believers will be beneficiaries of God's activities in the ultimate future of humanity (2 Pet 1:4; Eph 4:13, 24; Heb 12:10; 2 Pet 2:20; James 1:27).

Adventists' understanding of eschatology is shaped by the understanding of the daily and annual services performed in the sanctuary. The activities done in the sanctuary culminated into the "day of atonement" (Ministerial Association, 2005: 353). Based upon these rituals, Adventists have identified "three phases of God's final judgment" (Ministerial Association, 2005: 352). Phase one is termed "premillennial judgment/investigative judgment/pre-advent judgment. Major activities within this phase are the sifting of all humanity. It is symbolized by the expulsion of sin from the sanctuary (Ministerial Association, 2005: 354). While unbelievers will be condemned, God will endorse the "faith of true believers" (Holbrook, 1984: 19).

The second phase, "the millennial judgment," describes a twofold event. While the devil is chained for a thousand-year period, the "redeemed" will be in heaven, for the same period, engaged with the activity of understanding the fate of the unredeemed (1 Cor 6:2-3; Matt 19:28; Luke 12:29-32; 16:25; 2 Pet 3:10). This phase of the final judgment is typified by the ritual of "Azazel ("goat sent away"), embedded in the activity of "sanctuary" cleansing (Ministerial Association, 2005: 352, 353). Adventists believe that the second advent of Jesus will begin the one thousand-year period. Popularly referred to as the "millennium," this period spurns the period between the first resurrection of the just and the second resurrection of the unjust.

The second phase overlaps with the activities of the last phase, "the executive judgment." As the sending away of the "Azazel" culminates into the cleansing of the camp, so the "executive judgment" will renew the earth after unbelievers are destroyed by fire (Matt 25: 32-33; Rom 2:5; 14: 10; 2 Cor 5:10; Jude 6; Acts 17:31; Rev 20:1-15; 2 Pet 2:4). Major activities in this phase include the final destruction of the unjust and the ultimate purification of the earth.

From its Greek root ethike and Latin mos, ethics concerns itself with determining the "appropriateness" of a thought, behavior, or emotional expression within the context of the general good (Krantz, 2002: 1). In determining the appropriateness of human thoughts, behaviors, and feelings, ethics develops standards, values, and norms that stipulate that which ought to be done. In light of this, ethics addresses the "appropriateness" of the immediate pattern of personal and societal thoughts, behaviors, and feelings from the point of view of oughtness. In what is referred to as "the decisive elements of ethics," Max L. Stackhouse notes that three elements make any ethical system valid. He identifies these elements as a general code of conduct, relevance to the present societal concerns, and rewards and punishments (Stackhouse, 2007: 555). Stackhouse argues that it is the last element that enforces norms of any ethical system. This has been popularly referred to as "moral motivation" (Brandt, 1996: 290).

Christian ethics also seeks to determine appropriate pattern for human thoughts, behaviors, and feelings. However, Christian ethics determines this appropriateness from the perspective of Christian theology (Jones, 2013: 6). Its basic task is to apply God's prescription to the issues of life. But it also maintains that the realization of God's plans for humanity's ultimate future motivates moral living in the here-and-now (D’Souza, 2005: 291). This means that belief in God's activities in the ultimate future of humanity and desire to be part of that divine plan motivates Christian believers to live morally in the here-and-now (Bouma-Prediger, 2013: 18). This being the case, then, the eschatological emphasis of scripture permeates all aspects of belief and practice. It defines both individual activities as well as the activities of the "Church" within the immediate context of life (Epp-Tiessen, 2010: 89). In other words, eschatological consciousness makes Christian ethics "performative" in the here-and-now (Venter, 2014: 115).

In most part of Christian history, eschatological consciousness shaped moral values of the Christian faith and practice. Certainty of God's activities in the humanity's future induced ethical living in the present order. In accordance with eschatological emphasis, God's future plans for humanity were the sole ground for advocating ethical reforms in the society. This optimism motivates the Christian to modify ill patterns of thoughts, behaviors, and emotional expressions in ways that are consistent to God's requirements. But this established belief changed as some modern scholars attempted a separation between eschatology and Christian morality. Prominent scholars whose publication drove this conception include Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer. Generally, these scholars confined the moral teachings of Jesus to a system of Christian conduct that applies to a limited time just before Jesus returns. This has been referred to as an "interim ethic" (Evans, 2014: 565).

However, the separatist view of the relationship between eschatology and ethics is not without opposition. Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf Harnack as well as some modern scholars like Oliver O'Donovan, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Jurgen Moltmann favored the view that eschatology and ethics were intertwined. Moltmann, for example, believed Christian eschatology was the "medium of Christian faith" (cited in Mabry, 2005: 181). Altogether, these scholars believed that God's activities in humanity's ultimate future enjoined Christians to adopt distinctive Christ-like pattern of thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in the present moral order (Schwarz, 2000: 129).

But some have argued that eschatologically-focused morality will cause Christians to neglect the moral concerns of the present moral order (Orr, 1994: 62). The basis of such wanton disregard of the concerns of the present order, critics have argued, is the Christian belief that God will establish a new earth and heaven. Accordingly, the negligent Christian will see no reason for sustaining a world that has been earmarked for destruction. This attitude towards the moral concerns of the present order induces egoistic ethical lifestyles within the individuals in the society. Its sole concern, as Ludwig Feuerbach observed, is the self-preservation of the individual both in the present order and in humanity's ultimate future (cited in Bouma-Prediger, 2013: 15). Scholars have described such ethical system as "acosmic" or "escapist" (Daly, 1996: 206). On the contrary, an eschatologically-focused ethics is morally related to the issues of the present order (Viljoen, 2006: 524). Not only does it interact with current subjectivist and relativist moral ideals but it ultimately points to a higher standard of moral living determined by belief in God's activities in the 'eschaton' (2 Pet 3: 11-14).

The Ethics of Jesus

The ethical teachings of Jesus are dotted in the four gospels. This makes studying it relatively difficult. In light of this, some scholars have attempted classifying the ethics of Jesus (Harkness, 1957: 93). Amos wilder, for example, used a sanction-based approach to study the ethics of Jesus. In this approach, Wilder identified two major categories within the ethics of Jesus. These were "reward/penalty" based "sanctions" and non-reward/penalty (Wilder, 2014: 87). He observed that the former was grounded in "appeal to self-interest" and the latter was grounded in "appeal to moral discernment...conscience and reason of the hearer...scripture, speaker...the example of God, or Christ Himself" (Wilder, 2014: 87).

G. F. Moore's differentiation within the ethics of Jesus was based upon "motive" (cited in Wilder, 2014: 87). From this approach, Moore categorized the ethics of Jesus into "desire of reward, fear of punishment, love of good for its own sake, the fear of God, the love of God, the hallowing of the Name, the imitation of God" (cited in Wilder, 2014: 87). In the current study, I propose the ethical life orientation approach. By this approach, I intend to categorize the ethics of Jesus loosely into their respective relevance to aspects of civil life. Accordingly, the ethics of Jesus is discussed from five identified ethical life orientations. These are personal ethics, social ethics, political ethics, religious ethics, and financial ethics.

Personal Ethics

Some elements of the ethics of Jesus touch on personal virtues. One of these is the virtue of nonretaliation (Matt 5:39-42). This element of the ethics of Jesus intends to engender in the Christian opportunity to eschew bitterness, pain, and vindictiveness that are often associated with offences. The ethics of Jesus teaches the Christian divinely acceptable responses at the instance of offence. Specifically, the ethics of Jesus direct Christian responses in the event of personal assault, court suits, and general requests (Matt 5:38-42).

The virtue of love embedded within the ethics of Jesus is both local and universal (Matt 5:44-48; Luke 6: 27-36). It is expressed towards those in the immediate community as well as those in remote places (Luke 10:29-37). It is also non-discriminative. Fashioned upon the pattern of God's omnibenevolence, it is expressed towards both loved ones and enemies (John 13:34-35). John Piper has termed this type of love "enemy love" (Piper, 2012: 60-61). The principle of love directs Christians to ways by which their established attitudes will not be changed by evil. To forestall vindictiveness, Jesus instructs Christians to exhibit love both in deed and in words or intention. Christians are not only to "pray" and "bless" these enemies, they are to "do good unto them".

Humility in leadership is another virtue enjoined by the ethics of Jesus (Matt 20:25-28). Like Jesus' services in behalf of humanity, Christians are to be leaders who participate in activities with their followers. They are to act in good faith and in the public interest. This virtue flows directly from the submission of the Christian's will and purposes to God. There is also the principle of not-swearing in the ethics of Jesus (Matt 5:33-37; cf. 23:16-23). Contrary to the "nonconformist" view that this principle literally prohibits all forms of swearing and "oath" (Wierzbicka, 2001: 95), the ethics of Jesus enjoins Christians to be honest and faithful in all their imagination and actions (Matt 5: 33-37).

Other values that might fall into this category of the ethics of Jesus is derived from the Beatitudes (Edmiston, 2005: 18). In a specific sense, these eight values reveal Jesus' expectation about the feelings, thoughts, and actions of His believers. The "poor in spirit" notion within the ethics of Jesus directs Christians to the virtue of self-assessment (Matt 5:3; cf. Luke 18: 9-14). Those with this virtue are aware of their personal deprivation in terms of redeeming themselves from sin and its consequences. Also, the ethics of Jesus calls Christians to contrition ("mourn," Matt 5:4). Contrite individuals truly value their godly dignity, piety and "innocence" such that they cannot afford to lose them (Stott, 1998: 18).

Again, the ethics of Jesus calls Christians into a life of gentleness ("meekness," Matt 5:5; cf. 11:28-30). The gentle Christian maintains self-control in the face of adversity. This value is born out of correct self-estimation in God's presence and it shows in the form of positive regard towards all people. In addition, the ethics of Jesus focuses the attention of the Christian on heaven not on earth (Matt 5:6). The heavenly focus places the Christian's attention on righteousness (Matt 5:20). Righteous may be considered in threefold. These are "legal righteousness, moral righteousness, and social righteousness" (Stott, 1998: 20). Legal righteousness describes a state in which one has been reconciled with God.

Moral righteousness sparks within the Christian the desire to live a life pleasant to God. Social righteousness refers to the alliance between God and individuals to curtail the individual factors and social institutions that create and maintain oppression. The ethics of Jesus places premium on all these aspects of righteousness.

Further, the value of mercy within the ethics of Jesus makes the expression of care towards hurting people central to the Christian life (Matt 5:7). Moreover, the value of purity describes the new life of the redeemed (Matt 5:8). It is a value that keeps the outlook of the Christian comprehensively on Jesus (John 15:3). The outgrowth of it is "sincerity" (Stott, 1998: 21). The Christian is saved and the value of purity enjoins him or her to live a lifestyle that depicts the true character of the life of the redeemed (Mark 7:21-23). Lastly, peace is highly recommended as part of the life of the redeemed (Matt 5:9). The ethics of Jesus admonishes the Christian to ensure a social environment of peace (Mark 9:50; Luke 6:27-31). The ability to make peace is a mark of association with God. Without these values, all attempt to please God by imitating Christ will amount to nothing (Matt 11:29; John 12:26).

Social Ethics

The social ethical aspect of the ethics of Jesus offers guidelines on how an individual ought to interact with his or her social environment. Sub-categories of the social ethical component of the ethics of Jesus include marriage, sex, family, friendship, and the vulnerable. Jesus' participation in the marriage ceremony of Cana indicates His affirmation of marriage (John 2:1-11; 4:46). Apart from the controversial divorce clause in Matthew (5:31-32; 19:9), there is no doubt that Jesus expects His followers to keep the marital union permanent (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9, 11-12; Luke 16:18). On sexual issues, the ethics of Jesus affirmed the immorality of all sorts of sexual perversion (indicated by the biblical understanding of "πορνεία," "porneia") (Keller, 2006: 223; Mcnamara, 2014: 72). However, Jesus extended its meaning to include not only the illicit performance of 'πορνεία' but any mental or covert activity involving 'πορνεία' (Matt 5:27-29; 15:19; cf. Mark 7:20, 23).

Though an explicit statement about Jesus' expectation of believers concerning their friendly engagements is lacking, Jesus' attitude towards people is normative in this regard. He called his disciples friends (John 15:14-15; Luke 12:4). Elsewhere, Jesus referred to His believers as "brothers and sisters" (Matt 12:48-50; Mark 3:34). He kept close friendship with some of His disciples (Mark 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; John 13:33; 20:7, 20) as well as individuals of various social, ethnic, economic, religious, and gender backgrounds (Matt 8:2-3; 5-13; Luke 8:1-3; 17:11-18; John 4:7-42). The charge that Jesus associated indiscriminately (Luke 7:34) is indicative of His friendly attitude. The call to imitate Jesus includes the call to exhibit friendly attitudes in the society.

Again, the ethics of Jesus prescribes the attitude of the Christian towards the vulnerable in the society. People within the vulnerable category include "women/widows, children/orphans, the elderly, the poor, the sick" (Gill, 2012: 63). Contrary to the general treatment of women in the Jewish economy, Jesus had positive regard towards to feminine gender. Evidently, He treated them with dignity (Mark 12:40; John 4:27; 8:1-11). Even at the point of death, Jesus expressed concern for His mothers welfare (John 19:26). Again, Jesus' positive treatment of children ran contrary to the Jewish cultural prohibition of children in the company of adults in public. He openly allowed children to approach Him in public and blessed them (Matt 19:13-15). According to Matthew, Jesus referred to some positive attributes of children during His lessons about the kingdom of God (Matt 18:1-6). Also, the ethics of Jesus prohibits the neglect of the elderly. From Jesus' strong rebuke at the replacement of parental care with religious donation (the practice of "corban," cf. Mark 7:9-13; Matt 15:4-6) to His expressed care for His mother at the time of His suffering, there is no doubt that parental care and positive attitudes towards the aged are recommended by the ethics of Jesus (Matt 19:19). The description of the final reward for both the righteous and the wicked in Matthew 25:34-46 underscores the importance of these caring attitudes in living the Christian life (Mark 9:40-42).

Concerning the poor and the sick, Jesus' statements reveal that He cared deeply for these individuals. For example, Luke reports how caring for the poor is leads to heavenly investment (Luke 12:33; cf. Matt 19:21). In a more direct way, Jesus instructed His followers to plan for the welfare and happiness of the poor (Luke 14:13-14). Similarly, His desire to heal individuals suffering from all manner of sickness (Matt 4:23; 8:14-17; 9:35; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; 6:6) coupled with His directives to His followers to heal (Luke 9:2; 10:9; Matt 10:1, 8) showed that Jesus cared for those suffering from poor health.

Political Ethics

The ethics of Jesus provides guidelines for the manner in which Christians are to respond to political activities. Jesus' attitude towards non-religious political institutions is observed from some of His lifetime statements and experiences with people who wielded non-religious political authority. A case in point is Jesus' affirmative response to the query bothering the legality of the payment of "tax" (Matt 22:15-21; Mark 12:14-17; Luke 20:19-25; 23:2). Elsewhere, Matthew records Jesus' payment of a "two-drachma tax" (Matt 17:27). It is evident from His conduct, then, that the ethics of Jesus affirms the honest performance of one's civic duties. Again, His swift and positive treatment of the centurion's request (Matt 8:5-13; Luke 7:2-10) coupled with His polite responses to Pontius Pilate, even in the hour of Jesus' unfair trial (John 18:33-38; cf. Matt 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:3-7), spells a tolerating and calmly relationship between Jesus and non-religious political figures. Like Jesus, Christians are to be honest in their civic duties. Also, Christians are to maintain a gentle relationship with non-religious political figures and institutions.

Religious Ethics

A general theme of the ethics of Jesus is the 'God-focus.' In both His personal and social life, as well as in all of His teachings, Jesus emphasized the need to love God, engaged in God's business, give glory to God, commit to God's will and purposes, and rely upon God at all times (Matt 6:10, 26; 19:17; 22:37; 26:42; Mark 4:32; 12:30; Luke 4:43; 7: 29; 10:27; 11:2; 18:43; 22:42; John 6:28; 9:4). In the gospels, Jesus' desire to please God often contrasted the religious views of the leadership of the Jews (Matt 15:1-9; 23:1-39; Mark 7:1-13; Luke 11:37-53). Despite these frequent clashes between Jesus and His compatriots, Jesus followed the directives of the religious leaders in some circumstances (Matt 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14). Most importantly, Jesus' lessons about the kingdom of God/heaven were full of instructions concerning the duties of Christians towards God (Matt 21:31, 43; Mark 1:15; 4:26; 9:47; 10:14-15; Luke 4:43; 9:11; 10:9, 11; 13:18; 19:11).

Business Ethics

The ethics of Jesus offers some principles by which Christians can approach their business issues. Though explicit principles concerning financial management may be lacking in the gospel, Jesus' directives on the subject are implicitly in the gospels. In both His teachings and lifestyle, Jesus stressed godly life over obsession for wealth (Matt 16:26; Mark 8:37). For example, His counsel to invest in the secured heavenly treasury (Matt 6:19-21; Luke 12:13-34) through benevolence (Matt 6:1-4; Luke 16:113) is directed towards the elevation of personal piety over obsession for wealth. The parable of the "rich fool" depicts clearly Jesus' concern about the shrewd usage of God's financial endowment (Luke 12:13-21). Similarly, the encounter between Jesus and the rich young man (Matt 19:16-30) reveal the challenges that are faced by those who are obsessed with wealth (Mark 10:25; Matt 19:24; Luke 18:25). By His own example, Jesus did not shun the company of the rich; yet He maintained moderacy in financial matters (Luke 9:58; Matt 8:20).

Christian Eschatology and the Ethics of Jesus

The unity of eschatology and ethics is best illustrated in the ethical teaching of Jesus. Subsumed in Jesus' conception of the kingdom of God, the ethics of Jesus portrays a moral system that is strongly driven by God's activity in the ultimate history of humanity (Niebuhr, 2012: 21). Such eschatological consciousness makes ethics both "earth-affirming" and aretological (Bouma-Prediger, 2013: 18). It is 'earth-affirming' because belief in God's future activities in humanity's final history generates ethical lifestyles among Christians in the present moral order. It is aretological because Christian lifestyle in the present order is determined by who and what they will become after God has shaped the future (Bouma-Prediger, 2013: 20). The eschatological aspect of the ethics of Jesus provides a channel by which the envisaged "ultimate, futural good" order is lived in the present moral order (Stackhouse, 2009: 554). From Jesus' statement and parables about the kingdom of God (Matt 11:12; 13:24, 33, 44, 47; 18:23; 22:2; Mark 1;15; 4:26; Luke 10:9), it is easily seen that the notion of God's kingdom "interpenetrates" the present moral order through the ethics of Jesus (Edmiston, 2005: 22). Thus the eschatological consciousness of the ethics of Jesus makes Christian morality "future-oriented" (Stackhouse, 2009: 555). It is strengthened by the evangelical notion of the "already' and "not yet" concerning the "kingdom of God" (Birx, 2009: 433).

The all-time relevance of the ethics of Jesus to the moral concerns of the present moral order has led to various views on the moral identity of Jesus. Four dominant views in this regard are Jesus as a subversive sage, Jesus as an eschatological sage, Jesus as a teacher of unconventional wisdom, and Jesus as a mystic teacher. Jesus' reaction to the ills of his contemporary moral order has been considered to support the idea that His teaching intended to replace current moral teachings of His day (Dunn, 2003: 62). Closely knitted with this portrait of Jesus is the view that Jesus' moral principles were unknown in His immediate community. Accordingly, Jesus challenged existing moral authority by His sacramental usage of "unconventional wisdom" (Borg, 1996: 18). The overarching theme of God's activities in the final history of humanity, embedded in the teachings of Jesus, has been claimed to be the basic framework for understanding and applying the moral teachings of Jesus (Freedman & McClymond, 2001: 350; Flusser & Notley, 2007: 79). Describing Jesus as a "mystic teacher," H. Bruce May observed that Jesus' ultimate concern was to teach people on "how to find the kingdom of God in their lifetime" (May, 2016: 210). This concern pervasively characterized Jesus' teaching such that his teachings always ended with an appeal to His audience to participate in the "kingdom of God" through repentance (Ferguson, 2016: 203). All these portraits of Jesus in relation to His moral teaching indicate that the ethics of Jesus cannot be effective without its eschatological ethos.

Implications for Moral Living

The ethics of Jesus, with its eschatological ethos, does not support escapist ethical notion. Instead, it provides new and concrete object for pursuing the good life. It urges Christians to adopt patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that attract God's blessings in their present life. Also, such lifestyles enable Christians to be beneficiaries of God's activities in humanity's ultimate future. Accordingly, the desire to be part of God's plan for humanity's ultimate future must inspire moral living in the here-and-now. This calls for glocal ethical standards for pursuing the common good. In this sense, then, the Christian church is both an ethical and an eschatologically-induced community. It is an ethical community because it is marked by individuals whose highest goal is cooperation with God in His plan to spiritually and physically heal humanity from the ravages of sin and its effects. It is an eschatologically-induced community because members of the Christian community pursue ethical standards in the present order that are defined and directed by the 'eschaton.' Obviously, such higher standard of living would be strange/unique to other ethical systems that only focus on the temporality of life.

Conclusion

This article has probed the relationship between the Christian eschatology and Christian ethics. After reviewing the nature of Christian eschatology and Christian ethics, the article has indicated that Christian ethics cannot be separated from its eschatological context. Believe in God's ultimate activity in humanity's future is a motivating force for moral living in the present moral order. Accordingly, the ethics of Jesus, with its five ethical life oriented categories (personal ethics, social ethics, political ethics, religious ethics, and business ethics), provides the clearest opportunity whereby desire to be part of God's accomplishments in humanity's ultimate future inspires godly living. Contrary to the view that an eschatologically-driven morality will be 'acosmic,' the ethics of Jesus instills within the Christian an internal love for godly values. Though these values define the trait of the redeemed, the here-and-now framework is the arena by which saved Christians exhibit their saved character. As such, an attitude of moral negligence is incompatible with the ethics of Jesus.

References

Abbott, L. (1901). Are the Ethics of Jesus Practicable? The Biblical World, 17(4), 256–264.

Aristotle. (1140). Nicomachean Ethics. Los Angelos: Enhanced Media.

Association, M. (2005). Seventh-day Adventists Believe (2nd ed.). Silver Springs: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Bakon, S. (2010). The Day of the Lord. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 38(3), 149–156.

Birx, H. J. (Ed.). (2009). Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, & Culture, Volume 1. Sage.

Borg, M. (Ed.). (1996). The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus. Berkeley: Ulysses Press.

Bouma-Prediger, S. (2013). Eschatology Shapes Ethics: New Creation and Christian Ecological Virtue Ethics. Canadian Theological Review, 2(2), 15–32.

Brandt, R. B. (1996). Facts, Values, and Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Case, S. J. (1935). The Ethics of Jesus from Strauss to Barth. The Journal of Religion, 15(4), 389–399.

D’Souza, A. (2005). Christian Ethics and Moral Values. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.

Daly, C. B. (1996). Moral Philosophy in Britain: From Bradley to Wittgenstein. Dublin: Four Courts Press.

Dunn, J. D. G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Edmiston, J. (2005). The Jesus Manifesto: How to Live in the Kingdom of God. Los Angelos: John Edmiston.

Epp-Tiessen. (2010). Death, Resurrection, New Creation. Christian Reflection: A Series in Faith and Ethics, 34, 88–93.

Evans, C. A. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. New York: Routledge.

Evans, D. (1911). The Ethics of Jesus and the Modern Mind. The Harvard Theological Review, 4(4), 418–438.

Federer, W. J. (2000). America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. St. Louis: Amerisearch.

Ferguson, D. S. (2016). The Radical Teaching of Jesus: A Teacher Full of Grace and Truth. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.

Filson, F. V. (1951). Reviewed Work(s): Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus by Amos Niven Wilder. The Jewish Quarterly Review, 12(1), 85–86.

Flusser, D., & Notley, S. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage from Galilee: Rediscovering Jesus’ Genius (4th ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Freedman, D. N., & McClymond, M. (Eds.). (2001). The Rivers of Paradise: Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, and Muhammad as Religious Leaders. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Fritz, V. (1994). An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology. Nashville: B & H Publishing.

Gill, D. W. (2012). Theology of Care for the Vulnerable. In A. J. Ammann & J. P. Holland (Eds.), Women, HIV, and the Church: In Search of Refuge (pp. 62–80). Eugene: Wipf & Stock.

Grenz, S. J., & Placher, W. C. (Eds.). (2003). Essentials of Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Hanegraaff, H. (2007). The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says about the End Times and Why It Matters Today. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Harkness, G. (1974). Understanding the Kingdom of God. Nashville: Abingdon.

Harkness, G. E. (1957). Christian Ethics. Nashville: Abingdon.

Holbrook, F. B. (1984). Light in the Shadows: An Overview of the Doctrine of the Sanctuary. Journal of Adventist Education, 46(1-2): 1-26.

Hovland, N. C. (2014). Thomas Jefferson’s Religion. Hillsborough: Lulu.

Kain, P. (2010). Kantian Ethics. Philosophical Review , vol. 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2009-029

Keck, L. E. (1996). Rethinking“ New Testament Ethics.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 115.1(1), 3–16. http://doi.org/10.2307/3266815

Keller, J. D. (2006). Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Maine: Goose River Press.

Kennedy, H. A. A. (1909). Reviewed Work(s): The Teaching of Jesus about the Future, according to the SynopticGospels by Henry Burton Sharman. The American Journal of Theology, 13(3), 450–453.

Krantz, S. F. (2002). Refuting Peter Singer’s Ethical Theory: The Importance of Human Dignity. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.

Kucheman, C. A. (1961). Reviewed Work(s): Ethics and the Gospel by T. W. Manson. The Journal of Religion, 41(4), 318.

Mabry, J. R. (2005). Crisis and Communion: The Remythologization of the Eucharist. Berkeley: Apocryphile Press.

May, H. B. (2016). Searching for the Light: The Quest for Truth (3rd ed.). North Carolina.

McGrath, A. E. (2017). Christian Theology: An Introduction (6th ed.). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

McKnight, S. (2013). Sermon on the Mount: The Story of God Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Mcnamara, B. E. (2014). No More Hiding, No More Shame: Finding Freedom from Pornography Addiction. Oklahoma: Tate Publishing.

Menn, J. M. (2017). BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY (Revised). Appleton: Jonathan Menn.

Miles, R. (Ed.). (2010). Georgia Harkness: The Remaking of a Liberal Theologian. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Miller, D. E. (2010). John Stuart Mill: Moral, Social, and Political Thought. Cambridge: Polity.

Ministerial Association. (2005). Seventh-day Adventists Believe, 2nd ed. Silver Spring: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Niebuhr, R. (2012). Interpretation of Christian Ethics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Orr, D. W. (2004). Earth in Mind. Washington: Island Press.

Orr, J. (2016). Ritschlianism: Expository and Critical Essays. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.

Piper, J. (2012). Love Your Enemies: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis. Wheaton: Crossway.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap.

Schmidt, N. (1912). Reviewed Work(s): The Ethics of Jesus by Henry Churchill King. International Journal of Ethics, 22(2), 233–239.

Schwarz, H. (2000). Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Schwarz, H. (2005). Theology in a Global Context: The Last Two Hundred Years. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Sim, D. C. (2010). Jesus as Role Model in the Gospel of Matthew: Does the Matthean Jesus Practise What He Preaches? Australian E-Journal of Theology, 16(August), 1–21.

Spohn, W. C. (1995). Jesus and Christian Ethics. Theological Studies, 56, 92–107.

Stackhouse, M. L. (2009). Ethics and Eschatology. In J. L. Walls (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (pp. 549–566). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stott, J. R. W. (1998). Introduction: what is this sermon? (Matthew 5:1, 2). In J. A. Motyer, J. Stott, & D. Tidball (Eds.), The Message of the Sermon on the Mount: Christian Counter-Culture (pp. 9–24). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic.

Thiselton, A. C. (2010). The Day of the Lord. 1 & 2 Thessalonians: Through the Centuries, 38(3), 211–244. Venter, R. (2014). Trends in Contemporary Christian Eschatological Reflection. Missionalia, 43(1): 105–123.

Viljoen, F. P. (2006). Faithful Christian Living Amidst Scoffers of the Judgment Day: Ethics and Ethos in Jude and 2 Peter. In J. G. van der Watt (Ed.), Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament (pp. 511–533). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Vorster, W. S. (1991). Jesus: Eschatological prophet and/or wisdom teacher? HTS Theological Studies, 47(2), 526–542. http://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v47i2.2409

Votaw, C. W. (1915). A Professional Reading Course on the Ethical Teaching of Jesus. The Biblical World, 46(4), 249–257.

Wierzbicka, A. (2001). What did Jesus Mean? Explaining the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables in Simple and Universal Human Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilder, A. N. (2014). Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (2nd ed.). Eugene: Wipf & Stock.

Witmer, S. (2014). Keeping Eschatology and Ethics Together: The Teaching of Jesus, the Work of Albert Schweitzer, and the Task of Evangelical Pastor-Theologians. Themelios, 39(3), 484–500.

Wogaman, J. P. (2011). Christian Ethics: A Historical Introduction (2nd ed.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox.