1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

Many American Christians have questions about something called “the rapture.” These questions are often tied to a particular flavor of premillennialism called “dispensationalism.” According to this framework, “the rapture” means “the idea that Christ will remove the church from the world prior to the great tribulation.”[1] They believe the rapture is before the Great Tribulation, so it is “pre-tribulational.” This teaching relies heavily on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, along with other supporting passages. This article will evaluate whether this passage teaches a pre-tribulational rapture.

Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

Paul begins a new subject at 1 Thessalonians 4:13.[2] Maybe the church had written to Paul with this question, or maybe Timothy had relayed it in person (1 Thess 3:6f). Regardless, Paul doesn’t want the church in Thessalonica to be upset and grieve, as if they had no hope.

Why are they upset? We don’t know how the issue came up, but wrong ideas seem to taken root in the congregation about Jesus’ return. This isn’t surprising, because Paul didn’t spend much time with them before he was run out of town (Acts 17:1-9).

What is this hope that ought to stop them from grieving? Paul explains:

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Paul explains[3] that, because Jesus has died and rose again, in the same way[4] God will bring with Jesus those who have died (“fallen asleep”) while in union with Him. So, anyone who believes that Jesus is the hinge upon which God’s single plan to rescue us and this world turns—that is, any believer—will be resurrected and be with Jesus forever. This means there is hope, whether the believer is alive or dead.

According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:15).

In fact, the believers who are alive when Jesus returns will not be “first in line” to see Him. The dead believers will not be left behind. What does this mean? Paul explains …[5]

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

The reason dead Christians won’t miss anything is because Jesus Himself will come from heaven and resurrect “the dead in Christ” first. Jesus will come very publicly, very loudly—accompanied with both a piercing battle cry[6] and the sound of a blasting trumpet. So, the dead believers will be resurrected first—but what about the believers who are still alive when Christ returns?

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).[7]

After the dead in Christ are resurrected in the same way Jesus was (i.e., miraculously), those who are still alive will be caught up, snatched, or suddenly seized away[8] into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air as He returns. The word Paul uses, which the NIV translates as “meet,” suggests an advance reception for an arriving dignitary.[9] This happens right after the resurrection of the dead believers, so that together they will meet Jesus in the air as one group. And so, Paul concludes, in this way all believers will be with the Lord for all time.

The point is that dead believers have reason to hope. They will miss nothing. So, when Paul makes his conclusion at the end of v.17, he’s drawing those strands together. He’s answering a question about whether the dead in Christ will miss out when Jesus returns. The answer is no, both dead and living believers will meet the Lord together in the air. In this manner, all believers will be with Jesus forever.

Therefore encourage one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

So, does 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 teach that the Lord will remove the church from the earth before the Great Tribulation? No, it does not. The passage isn’t about the rapture at all. It’s about how those who are in relationship with Jesus, whether alive or dead, always have hope that they’ll be with Him forever when He returns. To be sure, the passage contains the rapture, but that isn’t the same thing as being about the rapture.

Paul doesn’t directly answer the question about rapture timing. He doesn’t address that issue at all. He simply says that, when Jesus returns, both dead and living believers will meet Him in the air as one group and be with the Lord forever.

Two-stage return for Jesus. Does the group (a) then ascend back to heaven with Jesus, (b) clearing the way for the Great Tribulation on the people of Israel, and then (c) return to earth with Jesus afterwards?
Single return for Jesus. Or does the group simply fall in behind Jesus in the air as He continues His return—in which case this meeting is like a divine triumphal entry in which they met Him “half way”?

You must bring in other passages to make the case for a pre-tribulational rapture, which sees a two-stage return for Jesus. I’ll examine the most common support passages in follow-up articles. But the evidence in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 does not explicitly support any particular timing for the rapture. The closest Paul comes is the word he uses for this “meeting” with the Lord in the air (v. 17), which suggests a public welcome for Christ when He returns to His holy city.[10] In other words, there is a hint of support here for a single return for Jesus.

[1] Millard J. Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, revised ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), s.v. “Rapture, Pretribulational view of the,” p. 167.

[2] The NIV omits the transitional conjunction δὲ.

[3] The conjunction at the beginning of v.14 is explanatory (γὰρ).

[4] The adverb of manner at v. 14b (οὕτως) explains that our dying and rising again will happen in the same way as Jesus.’

[5] The conjunction at the beginning of v.17 (ὅτι) is explanatory.

[6] BDAG, s.v., “κέλευσμα,” p. 538; LSJ, s.v., p. 936.

[7] Gk: ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες (nom. apposition) οἱ περιλειπόμενοι (nom. apposition) ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα (paired with ἡμεῖς) ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ (conclusion) οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

“And then we—those who are alive and are still here—will be snatched away together with them into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so, in this way we’ll be with the Lord for all time.”

[8] BDAG, s.v., “ἁρπάζω,” sense 2, p. 134; LSJ, s.v., sense 2, p. 246.

[9] See (a) BDAG, s.v. “ἀπάντησιν,” p. 97, (b) LSJ, s.v., (c) Erik Peterson, TDNT, s.v., p. 1.380–381. See also the context of the usage at Mt 25:6 and Acts 28:15.

[10] “According to 1 Th. 4:17, at the second coming of the Lord, there will be a rapture εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα. The word ἀπάντησις (also ὑπάντησις, DG) is to be understood as a tech. term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly, when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the ἀήρ, acclaiming Him as κύριος,” (Peterson, TDNT, s.v. “ἀπάντησις,”p. 1:380-381).

What is the New Perspective(s) on Paul?

The “New Perspective on Paul” (“NPP”) is a re-calibration of the traditional Protestant understanding of “justification.” NPP has now been a force in New Testament and Pauline scholarship for nearly three generations. This article aims to present a positive statement of NPP. It is a summary, not a critique—so there will be no critical interaction.

First, we briefly sum up the traditional Protestant understanding of “justification.” Next, we survey five aspects of the NPP that differ from the traditional framework.

The Traditional Protestant Understanding of Justification

In light of the New Testament revelation, “justification is God’s declarative act by which, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death, he pronounces believers to have fulfilled all of the requirements of the law that pertain to them.”[1] The person “has been restored to a state of righteousness on the basis of belief and trust in the work of Christ rather than on the basis of one’s own accomplishment.”[2]

God reckons or imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believer as a judicial declaration—communicating His righteousness to us “by some wonderous way,” transfusing its power into us.[3] For God to “justify” someone means “to acquit from the charge of guilt.”[4] This He does “not as a creditor and a private person, but as a ruler and Judge giving sentence concerning us at his bar.”[5]

One Baptist catechism explains that God “does freely endow me the righteousness of Christ, that I come not at any time into judgment.”[6] Millard Erickson writes: “it is not an actual infusing of holiness into the individual. It is a matter of declaring the person righteous, as a judge does in acquitting the accused.”[7] Union with Christ makes this possible in what Francis Turretin styled a “mystical … communion of grace by mediation. By this, having been made by God a surety for us and given to us for a head, he can communicate to us his righteousness and all his benefits.”[8]

The Baptist, 1833 New Hampshire Confession explains that justification:[9]

Includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness;
that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood;
by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God;
that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.

John Calvin explains that “being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.”[10] In other words, good works are the fruit of salvation. Thomas Oden summarizes: “Justification’s nature is God’s pardon, its condition is faith, its ground is the righteousness of God, and its fruits are good works.”[11]

A Survey of Five Aspects of the New Perspective(s) on Paul

There is no single “new perspective,” and it is a mistake to assume that (say) N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn speak with one voice on NPP. What unites the new perspective isn’t so much a single consensus on Paul, but more a shared understanding of first-century Judaism.[12] “There is no such thing as the new perspective … There is only a disparate family of perspectives, some with more, some with less family likeness, and with fierce squabbles and sibling rivalries going on inside.”[13]

The NPP is not “new” because it displaces the “old” perspective. “Rather, it is ‘new’ because the dimension of Paul’s teaching that it highlights has been largely lost to sight in more contemporary expositions … The ‘new perspective’ simply asks whether all the factors that make up Paul’s doctrine have been adequately appreciated and articulated in the traditional reformulations of the doctrine.”[14] Dunn explains that the new perspective “is not opposed to the classic Reformed doctrine of justification. It simply observes that a social and ethnic dimension was part of the doctrine from its first formulation …”[15]

We will survey the NPP by looking at five related issues:[16]

The new perspective on Paul arises from a new perspective on Judaism.
The significance of Paul’s mission is the context for his teaching on justification.
What does Paul mean when he writes about justification by faith in Christ Jesus and not works of the law?
What does “justification” mean?
What is the relationship between works and salvation?

The new perspective on Paul arises from a new perspective on Judaism

Judaism was not a religion of works-righteousness, but of grace. The Reformed (or “Lutheran”) perspective errs by reading the Protestant-Catholic divide back into Paul’s polemics in Galatians and Romans. “The degeneracy of a Catholicism that offered forgiveness of sins by the buying of indulgences mirrored for Luther the degeneracy of a Judaism that taught justification by works.”[17]

The NPP objects to this framework. Instead, it sees a “symbiotic relationship implicit in Israel’s religion (and Judaism) between divine initiative and human response.”[18] Israel’s obedience to the law was not about amassing good works to wipe away sin—it was simply a response to God’s covenant faithfulness.

E.P. Sanders coined the term “covenantal nomism” to describe this ethos and said it was “the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.”[19]

The “righteousness of God” was saving righteousness, not judgment. Luther came to realize this, but Dunn writes that “it wasn’t a new insight for the bulk of Second Temple Judaism; it was rather an axiom that was fundamental to Judaism itself.”[20] Dunn asks whether “traditional Christian antipathy to Judaism has skewed and distorted its portrayal of the Judaism against which Paul reacted?”[21]

So, it is a mistake to read Paul as if he were reacting against crude legalism. Indeed, Paul’s “zeal for God” (Phil 3:6) was “not simply zeal to be the best that he could be,” but a zeal to attack Jews who were violating these boundary markers and thus being unfaithful to the covenant they did not realize was now obsolete.[22] Paul did not attack legalism—he attacked a now-outmoded Jewish nationalism.

The significance of Paul’s mission is the context for his teaching on justification

Paul’s great burden was to proclaim that God’s community included both Jew and Gentile—and this was unacceptable to the Judaism of his day. The Torah taught the Israelites to be different, to be set apart. Dunn says, “no passage makes this clearer than Lev 20.22-26,” which reads (in part): “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you,” (Lev 20:23).

So, Dunn argues, this “set-apartness” ethic is what motivated the agitators we read about in Galatians. It is this clash which is “evidently the theological rationale behind Peter’s ‘separation’ from the Gentiles of Antioch.”[23]

Judaism was not missionary minded. Why should it? Judaism was primarily an ethnic religion, the religion of the residents of Judea, that is, Judeans. So it was natural for Second Temple Jews to think of Judaism as only for Jews, and for non-Jews who became Jews. This was where Christianity, initially a Jewish sect, broke the established mold. It became an evangelistic sect, a missionary movement, something untoward, unheard of within Judaism.[24]

Even Jewish Christians found it difficult to fathom the Gospel going to Gentiles (see Peter at Cornelius’ home in Acts 10:27-29, 44-48). This conflict—the “who is a child of God and therefore what is required to become one?” question—drove his teaching on justification. “The social dimension of the doctrine of justification was as integral to its initial formulation as any other … A doctrine of justification by faith that does not give prominence to Paul’s concern to bring Jew and Gentile together is not true to Paul’s doctrine.”[25]

For the new perspective, the concern that Paul’s concept of justification by faith addresses is not a universal human self-righteousness instantiated in a Pelagian-like, works driven Judaism. Rather, it is a problem specific to the setting of the early church, where a dominant (Jewish) majority was attempting to force the Gentile minority into adopting the Torah-based symbols of the (Jewish) people of God in order to gain access to the (Jewish) Messiah Jesus. As such, Paul’s teaching on justification is nothing like the “center” of his theology—let alone the “article by which the Church stands or falls.”[26]

What does Paul mean when he writes about “justification by faith” in Christ Jesus and not “works of the law”?

“But, if Judaism was essentially a religion of grace, then why did Paul reject it?”[27] That is the question! To what was Paul objecting when he railed against “works of the law?”

Well, because Judaism was a religion of grace, this means legalism is not the true issue, and we are mis-reading Paul if we think it is. Because the “works of the law” are not about legalism, they must be about something else—but what? Well, the cultural wall against which Paul kept hitting his head was about whether Gentiles could come into God’s family, and what this “coming in” looked like.

The Jewish agitators believed the “coming in” meant observing certain Jewish “boundary markers” like circumcision, the Sabbath, and the laws about cleanness and uncleanness—that is, becoming Jews. God gave them to keep His people separate from the world. Dunn explains “works of the law” also included “the distinctively Jewish way of life”[28]—a sort of sociological identity to which the boundary markers pointed.

But Jesus has now come and fulfilled these good but temporary boundary markers. They no longer tag someone as “in” or “out” of the covenant—faith in Christ and indwelling of the Spirit is now the boundary marker. This is the dividing line. This is what Paul meant when he spoke against “works of the law.”

Paul taught and defended the principle of justification by faith (alone) because he saw that fundamental gospel principle to be threatened by Jewish believers maintaining that as believers in Messiah Jesus, they had a continuing obligation to maintain their separateness to God, a holiness that depended on their being distinct from other nations, an obligation, in other words, to maintain the law’s requirement of separation from non-Jews … For Paul, the truth of the gospel was demonstrated by the breaking down of the boundary markers and the wall that divided Jew from Gentile, a conviction that remained the central part of his mission precisely because it was such a fundamental expression of, and test case for, the gospel. This is the missing dimension of Paul’s doctrine of justification that the new perspective has brought back to the center of the stage where Paul himself placed it.[29]

What does “justification” mean?

Dunn explains that “justification by faith” means trusting in Jesus alone for salvation, and not relying on obsolete Jewish boundary markers as covenant preconditions for God’s acceptance (i.e., “works of the law”). Jesus is enough. According to Dunn, Paul’s target is not grace v. legalism, but grace v. outmoded nationalism.

N.T. Wright explains that righteousness is not a changed moral character, but a new declared status—acquittal.[30] The true scene is the lawcourt, not a medical clinic.[31]

It is the status of the person which is transformed by the action of “justification,” not the character. It is in this sense that “justification” “makes” someone “righteous,” just as the officiant at a wedding service might be said to “make” the couple husband and wife-a change of status, accompanied (it is hoped) by a steady transformation formation of the heart, but a real change of status even if both parties are entering the union out of pure convenience.[32]

He breaks decisively with the traditional perspective by saying that “righteousness” is not a substance which can imputed or reckoned to a believer.[33] This is dangerously close to the Roman Catholic concept of righteousness as an infusion of grace.[34] No, Wright argues, God is not “a distant bank manager, scrutinizing credit and debit sheets.”[35] Christ has not amassed a “treasury of merit” that God dispenses to believers.[36]

But “righteousness as declared status from God” is not the whole story. Wright sets his NPP framework by insisting we read all of scripture through a “God’s single plan through Israel for the world” lens. This means “righteousness” is more than acquittal, because this declared status takes place in a particular context. It is “absolutely central for Paul” that one understand “the story of Israel, and of the whole world, as a single continuous narrative which, having reached its climax in Jesus the Messiah, was now developing in the fresh ways which God the Creator, the Lord of history, had always intended.”[37]

For Wright, this is the hinge upon which everything turns. “Paul’s view of God’s purpose is that God, the creator, called Abraham so that through his family he, God, could rescue the world from its plight.”[38] He sums up this “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” hinge as “covenant.”[39]

This is the prism through which we must understand (a) the nature of the law and the believing life, (b) what “works of the law” meant to Paul, and (c) the apostle’s relentless focus on the Jew + Gentile family of God.

In Paul’s day, Wright notes, Jews were not sitting around wondering what they must do to get to heaven when they die. No—they were waiting for God to act just as He said He would (i.e., to show covenant faithfulness), because they counted on being part of His single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world.[40] They were in “exile,” and waiting for a Savior who would be faithful to God’s promises to them.[41]

The Gospel is not simply about us and our salvation. It is about God’s plan. “God is not circling around us. We are circling around him.”[42] We are making a mistake, Wright says, if we make justification the focus of the Gospel. The steering wheel on a car is surely important (critical, even!), but it is not the whole vehicle.[43] In the same way, justification is one vital component of a larger whole—God’s “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” plan.

God had a single plan all along through which he intended to rescue the world and the human race, and that this single plan was centered upon the call of Israel, a call which Paul saw coming to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah. Read Paul like this, and you can keep all the jigsaw pieces on the table.[44]

Because the Christian story hinges upon this covenant, Wright interprets the “righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness to do what He promised for Abraham. This faithfulness consisted of three aspects: (a) eschatology—God’s “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” unfolding in time, and (b) lawcourt, and (c) covenant.

Paul believed, in short, that what Israel had longed for God to do for it and for the world, God had done for Jesus, bringing him through death and into the life of the age to come. Eschatology: the new world had been inaugurated! Covenant: God’s promises to Abraham had been fulfilled! Lawcourt: Jesus had been vindicated-and so all those who belonged to Jesus were vindicated as well! And these, for Paul, were not three, but one. Welcome to Paul’s doctrine of justification, rooted in the single scriptural narrative as he read it, reaching out to the waiting world.[45]

What is the relationship between works and salvation?

Paul declares that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13), and that God will repay each person for what he has done (Rom 2:6). Jesus is the judge at the law-court, and “possession of Torah, as we just saw, will not be enough; it will be doing it that counts …”[46]

Wright says traditional interpretations of these passages have “swept aside” the implications of Paul’s words. Judgment is—somehow, someway—based on works. It is “a central statement of something [Paul] normally took for granted. It is base line stuff.”[47]

This “judgment” is not a reward ceremony for believers where some will get prizes and others will not. No, it is an actual judgment at which everyone (including but not limited to Christians justified by faith) must present themselves and be assessed.[48] To critics who are alarmed at Wright’s insistence on this point, he replies: “I did not write Romans 2; Paul did.”[49] Indeed, “those texts about final judgment according to works sit there stubbornly, and won’t go away.”[50]

Christians are to “do” things to please God. Joyfully, out of love. To those who accuse him of teaching believers to put their trust in something other than Jesus, Wright declares: “I want to plead guilty …”[51]

The key, Wright argues, is the Holy Spirit who sets us free from slavery and for responsibility—“being able at last to choose, to exercise moral muscle, knowing both that one is doing it oneself and that the Spirit is at work within, that God himself is doing that which I too am doing.”[52] The believer “by persistence in doing good” seeks glory and honor and immortality (Rom 2:7). It is not a matter of earning the final verdict or ever arriving at perfection. “They are seeking it, not earning it.”[53]

This seeking is by means of Spirit-filled living that is a bit of a synergistic paradox—“from one point of view the Spirit is at work, producing these fruits (Galatians 5:22-23), and from another other point of view the person concerned is making the free choices, the increasingly free (because increasingly less constrained by the sinful habits of mind and body) decisions to live a genuinely, fully human life which brings pleasure—of course it does!—to the God in whose image we human beings were made.”[54]

This is the kind of life which leads to a positive final verdict.[55]

The present verdict gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it; the Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.[56]

Both Sanders and Dunn are more to the point and suggest Christianity is kinda, sorta a new flavor of covenantal nomism. Dunn writes that the Torah was both the way of life and the way to life, that we cannot play the two emphases off against one another, and that “NT teaching has the same or at least a very similar inter-relationship.”[57]

As Israel’s status before God was rooted in God’s covenant initiative, so for Paul, Christians’ status before God is rooted in the grace manifested in and through Christ. And as Israel’s continuation within that covenant relationship depended in substantial measure on Israel’s obedience of the covenant law, so for Paul the Christians’ continuation to the end depends on their continuing in faith and on living out their faith through love.[58]

The difference is that the New Covenant believer has the Spirit, and so the Christian must walk by the Spirit and “to fulfill the requirements of the law.”[59] Sanders sees Paul as more transforming old categories than dressing them in new clothes. The apostle uses “participationist transfers terms” to describe his doctrine of salvation:

The heart of Paul’s thought is not that one ratifies and agrees to a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenantal relation with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behaviour; but that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a member of the body of Christ and one Spirit with him, and that one remains so unless one breaks the participatory union by forming another.[60]

If you break the union (by defecting and not repenting), then you are out—“good deeds are the condition of remaining ‘in’, but they do not earn salvation.”[61]

What does it matter?

This matters because the NPP will interpret Galatians and Romans quite differently.

Judaism is a religion of grace, forgiveness, and atonement—not of legalism.

This means Paul is not fighting against legalists. Luther and the Reformers are wrong on this point. So is every major creed and confession the Protestant world has produced in the past 400 years. Like people staring up at the sun and assuming it orbits the earth, the traditional perspective sees but does not understand.[62]

Paul’s real problem is a mis-guided Jewish nationalism its agitators do not realize is now obsolete.

So, the “works of the law” Paul rails against are not legalist impulses but Jewish “identity markers.” Being a covenant member means an obligation to be set apart and to “live Jewishly.” The agitators do not realize this is now superseded in union with Christ. So, in this context, “justification by faith” means observing Jesus and the indwelling of the Spirit as the new boundary markers.

The traditional understanding of “justification” is wrong. It may mean observing these new boundary markers instead of the old (Dunn). Or, according to Wright, it might mean “covenant faithfulness,” in that God is bringing His “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” to fruition (eschatology), on the basis of His declaration that Jesus acquits His people of their legal guilt (lawcourt), because He made promises to Abraham He intends to fulfill (covenant).

This alternative grid produces quite different interpretations of seemingly “obvious” passages. For example, the apostle Paul writes this about ethnic Jewish people:

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness (Romans 10:2-3).

According to N.T. Wright, this “zeal … not based on knowledge” refers to the mistaken impression that Israel was not the center of the world. God intended to work not just for them, but through them for a greater plan for the world. As far as “establishing their own righteousness” goes, Paul means that “they have not recognized the nature, shape and purpose of their own controlling narrative … and have supposed that it was a story about themselves rather than about the Creator and the cosmos, with themselves playing the crucial, linchpin role.”[63]

In other words, these passages are about misguided Jewish nationalism, not legalism. Christians (especially pastors) should be familiar with the broad outlines of this newer interpretive grid. Pondering these challenges will both sharpen dull edges in our own understanding and strengthen convictions in the face of alternative challenges. It might even change some minds—the Spirit still has more to teach His church!

[1] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3^rd (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), p. 884.

[2] Millard Erickson, The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, revised ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), s.v. “justification by faith,” p. 108

[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (reprint; Peabody: Hendriksen, 2012), 3.11.23

[4] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.3.

[5] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 16.3.2.

[6] Hercules Collins, An Orthodox Catechism: Being the Sum of Christian Religion, Contained in the Law and Gospel, ed(s). Machael Haykin and G. Stephen Weaver, Jr. (Palmdale: RBAP, 2014), A55.

[7] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 884.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, 16.3.5.

[9] 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith, Art. V, quoted in Phillip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3 (New York: Harper & Bros., 1882), pp. 743-744.

[10] Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.1.

[11] Thomas Oden, Classical Christianity: A Systematic Theology (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), p. 584.

[12] James K. Bielby and Paul R. Eddy, “Justification in Contemporary Debate,” in Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove: IVP, 2011), p. 57.

[13] N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), loc. 233-234.

[14] James D. G. Dunn, “New Perspective View,” in Justification: Five Views, pp. 176, 177.

[15] Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, what and whither?” in The New Perspective on Paul, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),p. 36.

[16] Three of these issues are from Dunn, “New Perspective View,” p. 177.

[17] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” p. 180.

[18] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” p. 181.

[19] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 40^th anniversary ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), p. 75.

[20] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” p. 182.

[21] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” pp. 182-183.

[22] Dunn, “Whence, what and whither?” pp. 12-13.

[23] Dunn, “Whence, what and whither?” pp. 30-31.

[24] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” pp. 186-187.

[25] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” pp. 189.

[26] Bielby and Eddy, “Justification in Contemporary Debate,” in Justification: Five Views, p. 60.

[27] Bielby and Eddy, “Justification in Contemporary Debate,” in Justification: Five Views, p. 58.

[28] Dunn, “Whence, what and whither?,” in New Perspective, pp. 27-28.

[29] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” p. 195.

[30] Wright, Justification, loc. 987.

[31] Wright, Justification, loc. 994.

[32] Wright, Justification, loc. 1002-1005.

[33] “If ‘imputed righteousness’ is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church and-falling-church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (Wright, Justification, loc. 453-454).

[34] Wright, Justification, loc. 1938.

[35] Wright, Justification, loc. 2216.

[36] Wright, Justification, loc. 2747-2748. “We note in particular that the ‘obedience’ of Christ is not designed to amass a treasury of merit which can then be ‘reckoned’ to the believer, as in some Reformed schemes of thought …”

[37] Wright, Justification, loc. 307-309.

[38] Wright, Justification, loc. 1041-1042.

[39] Wright, Justification, loc. 649f.

[40] Wright, Justification, loc. 546f.

[41] “[M]any first-century Jews thought of themselves as living in a continuing narrative stretching from earliest times, through ancient prophecies, and on toward a climactic moment of deliverance which might come at any moment … this continuing narrative was currently seen, on the basis of Daniel 9, as a long passage through a state of continuing ‘exile’ … The very same attribute of God because of which God was right to punish Israel with the curse of exile—i.e., his righteousness—can now be appealed to for covenantal restoration the other side of punishment,” (Wright, Justification, loc. 601-602, 609, 653-655).

In his Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013; Kindle ed.), Wright helpfully explains: “… the covenant, YHWH’s choice of Israel as his people, was aimed not simply at Israel itself, but at the wider and larger purposes which this God intended to fulfil through Israel. Israel is God’s servant; and the point of having a servant is not that the servant becomes one’s best friend, though that may happen too, but in order that, through the work of the servant, one may get things done. And what YHWH wants done, it seems, is for his glory to extend throughout the earth, for all nations to see and hear who he is and what he has done …

The particular calling of Israel, according to these passages, would seem to be that through Israel the creator God will bring his sovereign rule to bear on the world. Israel’s specialness would consist of this nation being ‘holy,’ separate from the others, but not merely for its own sake; rather, for the sake of the larger entity, the rest of the world,” (pp. 804-805, emphases in original).

[42] Wright, Justification, loc. 163-164.

[43] Wright, Justification, loc. 948f.

[44] Wright, Justification, loc. 326-329.

[45] Wright, Justification, loc. 1131-1134.

[46] Wright, Justification, loc. 2163-2164.

[47] Wright, Justification, loc. 2183-2184.

[48] Wright, Justification, loc. 2174.

[49] Wright, Justification, loc. 2168.

[50] Wright, Justification, loc. 2200-2201.

[51] Wright, Justification, loc. 2220.

[52] Wright, Justification, loc. 2230-2232.

[53] Wright, Justification, loc. 2266.

[54] Wright, Justification, loc. 2267-2270.

[55] “Humans become genuinely human, genuinely free, when the Spirit is at work within them so that they choose to act, and choose to become people who more and more naturally act (that is the point of ‘virtue,’ as long as we realize it is now ‘second nature,’ not primary), in ways which reflect God’s image, which give him pleasure, which bring glory to his name, which do what the law had in mind all along. That is the life that leads to the final verdict, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!’” (Wright, Justification, loc. 2279-2282).

[56] Wright, Justification, loc. 3058-3060.

[57] Dunn, “Whence, when and whither?,” pp. 74-75.

[58] Dunn, “New Perspective View,” pp. 199-200.

[59] Dunn, “Whence, when and whither?,” pp. 84-85.

[60] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 513.

[61] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 517.

[62] Wright, Justification, loc. 101-114.

[63] Wright, Justification, loc. 2966-2967.

Church and State no. 3: God’s kingdom isn’t America

In the last article in this series, we discussed the most basic principle to rightly understand the “church v. state” conundrum. That principle was this—there are two kingdoms, Babylon and Jerusalem. Babylon will lose. Now we’ll build on this foundation and introduce the next building block:

Principle 2: God’s kingdom is not America or any other country

What hath the “Jerusalem that is above” to do with Washington D.C., London, Moscow, Beijing, Mexico City, and Buenos Aries? Nothing. That is, not directly. God’s kingdom is not the USA, Great Britain, or Russia … not even Barbados. American Christians may nod their heads at this point.

I’d like to ask you to stop. Think for a moment. Then realize that I really mean that. America has nothing to do with God’s kingdom. That means something important for the church v. state issue—but more on that later.

The “Babylon” which the Apostle John describes in Revelation 17-18 represents Satan’s kingdom in all its flavors. Some interpreters see Babylon only as a geo-political foe which will rise in the last days—it only has relevance for the tribulation. I think it’s more than that.

As I said earlier, Babylon is all the societies, cultures, values, and systems that oppose God throughout history. No matter their outward form, they have the same origin—Satan. This evil empire’s aim is to be a stealthy narcotic, dulling our senses, distracting us from the Gospel light with … whatever, all while disguising its presence. This is why the image of the high-class prostitute is so apt—Babylon is seduction to idolatry,[1] in any form. It entices us to give ourselves to something other than God.

Of course, this “dominion of darkness” (Col 1:13) will take final form as a nation state in the last days, but it still exists here and now as a nefarious shadow behind the curtain. Before it assumes legal and political shape later, it exists now as influence, as values, as worldviews, as wicked ethics, as degenerate cultures in various local contexts. Think of it as a sinister “e pluribus unum,” in that “out of many” there is really “one” malevolent force—Satan.

Jesus’ kingdom is also in an “already/not yet” state, and it will also take legal and political shape once He returns and topples Babylon (Rev 19). It, too, exists for the moment as subversive and countercultural influence, values, worldviews, and cultures. Ideally, these “cultures” are not those of nation states, but the particular, authentic expressions of the true Jesus communities within those countries. “Out of the many” that is the global church there is “one” prime mover—the Lord Jesus Christ.

Both kingdoms are “already, but not yet” in this “field” that is the world, which means the countries where we live are simply the individual battlespaces of a global conflict. Cultures, values, worldviews, and influence ebbs and flows from one side to the other as local and regional actions in a much larger war.

This means “Babylon” is the USA. It’s China. It’s Ukraine. It’s Russia. It’s every part of this world, which the Apostle Paul says is under the sway of “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient,” (Eph 2:2). But these same places are also “the kingdom of God” in the form of individual Jesus communities—the “wheat” and the “weeds” inhabit the same battlespace at the same time. To borrow a cliché from Vietnam, it’s “hearts and minds” that each kingdom is after, because that’s what drives our actions (cp. Prov 4:23; Lk 6:45).

So, I say again—God’s kingdom is completely distinct from any country on this earth. This is what Jesus meant when He said this to Pilate:

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.
John 18:36

He didn’t simply mean “I ain’t from here!” or “my kingdom is located in heaven, not on earth.” The kingdom will be here (Rev 21-22)—Belinda Carlisle was right about heaven being a place on earth. What Jesus meant is something like “my kingdom is totally different than anything here.” It’s from another sphere, another realm, “from another place.” It’s a different thing (cp. Jn 8:23).[2] It’s a kingdom predicated on His loving sacrifice which prompts our loving allegiance and obedience (Deut 6:5; Mk 12:28-32). If Jesus’ kingdom had merely been from this sphere, concerned with borders, power, and politics, His disciples would have fought to prevent His capture.

But it isn’t, so they didn’t.

This means whenever Christians conflate kingdom values with nationalist interests[3] as if they were the same thing, they’re making a terrible mistake. They are not the same thing—not even close. God’s kingdom is distinct from every nation state.

We’ll explore what that means in the next article.

[1] “… any form of worship or religious practice presented or interpreted by the writer or speaker as equivalent to this; the worship of a false god,” (“idolatry,” noun, no. 1a, OED Online. March 2023. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/91099?redirectedFrom=idolatry (accessed April 29, 2023)).

[2] The preposition in ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου seems to express derivation. For commentary, see (1) Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 769-770; (2) C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 1960), p. 447; (3) Alvah Hovey, Commentary on the Gospel of John, in American Commentary (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 366.

[3] “Advocacy of or support for the interests of one’s own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations,” (s.v. “nationalism,” noun, no. 1a, OED Online. March 2023. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/125289?redirectedFrom=nationalism (accessed April 29, 2023)).

Romans 11 and the parable of the olive tree

In Romans 11, Paul finally answers the question he’s been dancing around since ch. 9: what is God’s plan for the people of Israel?

He’s defended God against false accusations (Rom 9:6-29).
He’s told us the nations have obtained righteousness from God, even though they didn’t pursue it. However, the people of Israel have come up empty. “But Israel, chasing after law as the means of righteousness, didn’t achieve that goal. Why not? Because they’re chasing righteousness not by means of faith, but as if by means of works,” (Rom 9:31-32; my translation).
Paul explained: “… because they don’t know the special righteousness which God offers and are trying to set up their own righteousness, they haven’t submitted themselves to this one-of-a-kind righteousness from God,” (Rom 10:3; my translation).[1]

So, in Romans 11, Paul at last answers the question. But we’re making a mistake if we reduce this to an academic question about “Israel.” The real question is: “how will God’s divine rescue plan come together?” Christians sometimes have incomplete ideas about this—they either ignore His promises to the people of Israel or maximize those promises and lose sight of the whole. So, how will God’s plan come together, and what will it look like when it’s finished?

1. God hasn’t rejected the people of Israel (vv. 11:1-6)

God has not rejected His people.[2] Perhaps a better translation is “repudiate,”[3] which gives the idea of to thrust or drive away[4]—to cast off, disown, to refuse to be associated with.[5] How could God have disowned His people if Paul himself is a native Israelite (Rom 11:1)? God has known the people of Israel for a long time[6]—He has a relationship with them (Rom 11:2). It is not over for them.

So, what’s happening, then? Why have the people of Israel not accepted Jesus as their Messiah? Does God intend to rescue (a) all the people of Israel, or (b) a group from within the larger number?

Paul explains that, for the moment, God is working through a remnant. Just as He reserved a small core of people for Himself during the prophet Elijah’s day, “[s]o too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace,” (Rom 11:5). And, then and now, these are people God has reserved for Himself—salvation is ultimately the result of God’s specific grace(Rom 11:4).[7] Whatever God is up to, for right now He’s only rescuing a smaller group of Jewish people.

This rescue is by means of grace, not by means of works[8]—or else it wouldn’t be called “grace” (Rom 11:6). This is what the people of Israel had missed (Rom 9:30 – 10:4). If I owe you money, when I pay you it’s not an expression of love or friendship—it’s a business transaction. With God, His divine favor and love is a gift, not a business transaction.

2. Instead, God is punishing the people of Israel (vv. 11:7-10)

So, if God hasn’t repudiated the people of Israel, what is He doing with them?

The people of Israel had chased after righteousness but missed the boat. The chosen ones among them had made it, “but the others were hardened,” (Rom 11:7). The idea here is a divine blinding, a veil of sorts, a darkening of the mind—a mental block that makes them “not get it.”[9]

This is a punishment which follows the failed chase—“God permits them to become entangled in their own No.”[10] If God is God, then He has the power to act upon our hearts and minds so that we make real, voluntary decisions, but in the manner He wants (cp. Jn 12:39-40). God channels our desires towards the goal He’s determined. This is not a new thing:

When Moses preached to the people of Israel on the eastern banks of the Jordan River, he recounted Israel’s long and sad tale of disobedience. Paul quotes Moses here in support: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day,” (Rom 11:8; quoting Deut 29:4).
King David called out to God in misery and asked for judgment on his enemies: “May the table set before them become a snare; may it become retribution and a trap. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever,” (Rom 11:9-10; quoting Ps 69:22-23).

Paul says the same thing has happened to the people of Israel. God hasn’t repudiated or disowned them—He’s punishing them.

3. What’s the point of God’s punishment? (vv. 11:11-32)

Paul writes:

So, I’m asking: “they didn’t stumble and ruin themselves, did they?” May it never be! Instead, because of their false step, the divine rescue [goes] to the nations, so that it will make the people of Israel jealous.[11]
Romans 11:11; my translation

There you have it. Israel’s “false step” or “trespass—their rejection of Christ as the long-promised prophet, rescuer, and king—triggers God’s pivot to the nations. God is making the people of Israel jealous, envious (cp. Rom 10:19). Interestingly, Paul’s focus is not the nations per se. Instead, he frames the people of Israel as the hinge upon which God’s whole rescue plan turns.[12] The idea is that the people of Israel will see God showing love + grace to the nations, become jealous, re-evaluate, then choose divine rescue through Jesus.

This obviously hasn’t yet happened. Right now, the people of Israel either (a) don’t care, or (b) reject Christ. The people of Israel will never become jealous unless they first agree that Jesus is their Messiah. For example, one kid won’t be jealous of the other’s cookie unless they both agree the cookie is worth having! I’m not jealous if my wife eats plain Lays potato chips, because I don’t like plain Lay’s potato chips.

So, when will God change their minds and make the people of Israel jealous, so they’ll want Jesus as their king, too? During the Millennium (see Zech 12:10ff). But Paul ignores this question—he homes in on “the nations” who will read his letter. He deploys a sort of parable to explain God’s divine rescue plan.

3.1. The parable of the olive tree (vv. 11:13-24)

Paul is the apostle to the nations. But, along the way, he hopes to “somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them,” (Rom 11:14). Remember that, for the moment, God is saving a remnant of the people of Israel and Paul aims to scoop some of them up as he goes along. He declares “if the root is holy, so are the branches” (Rom 11:16). That is, if the people of Israel are the channel for all the covenants, the patriarchs, the promises (Rom 9:3-5)—i.e., “the root” of the Christian family—then surely the “branches” downstream of the patriarchs (the people of Israel alive in this present age) have a future, too.[13] Their restoration will be like a resurrection from the dead (Rom 11:16)!

Paul now segues into the olive tree parable:

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches.
Romans 11:17-18

God has broken some of these downstream Israelite “branches” off, and grafted non-native “olive shoots” into the tree. They “now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.” This is not a substitution or a replacement—it is an unexpected addition. Both (a) the native branches which remain, and (b) the non-native branches which God has added to the tree, partake of the same nutrients from the same root. “The Gentiles nourish themselves on the rich root of the patriarchal promise”[14] because, as the apostle writes elsewhere, “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise,” (Gal 3:29).

Because these new “olive shoots” are non-native, they mustn’t become arrogant. “You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in,’” (Rom 11:19). This is true, but the people of Israel were “hardened” or “blinded” (i.e., branches cut off from the tree) because of their unbelief. In contrast, the nations (i.e., the non-native olive shoots) only remain “in” this tree and stand firm because of faith. Faith is the determining factor, so “[d]o not be arrogant, but tremble,” (Rom 11:20).

If you ever get to the point that you think your relationship with God is because of who you are, what you’ve done, what you bring to the table—that it’s about something other than faith + trust in Jesus (Rom 11:20)—then you’ll be cut out of the tree just as surely as the people of Israel have been (Rom 11:22).

The players in the parable are now clear:

One olive tree → One family of God

Two types of branches on this tree → Two different people groups within God’s family

There is (a) one family of God, (b) from two different places, (c) drawing on the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism (Eph 4:5; i.e., the same sap). There is one flock, governed by the same shepherd and king. There is the same divine rescue, the same love, the same grace, the same forgiveness. This is the secret or mystery which has now been revealed by the Holy Spirit to God’s apostles and prophets: “the secret is that, through the Good News, the nations are fellow-heirs, and united in one family, and sharers together in God’s promise in relationship with Christ Jesus,” (Eph 3:6, my translation).

Jesus spoke of “other sheep” that were not native to His flock: “I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd,” (Jn 10:16).
John wrote that the high priest Caiphas spoke better than he knew when he suggested it would be for the greater good if they killed the troublesome Jesus: “[H]e prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one,” (Jn 10:51-52). This refers to the nations.
The prophet Isaiah records the words of the mysterious “suffering servant” as he recalls Yahweh’s instructions. It wasn’t enough for the Servant to just rescue the people of Israel: “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth,” (Isa 49:6).

This means Paul’s olive tree parable is a restatement of an old promise in new clothes. And to be sure, it’s not over for the people of Israel (cp. Rom 11:11)—“if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again,” (Rom 11:23).

3.2. This parable means the people of Israel have a future (vv. 11:25-32)

Paul is using the parable of the olive tree to explain God’s rescue plan—how does the tree come to its finished form? It will be a three-step process:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved.[15]
Romans 11:25-26

It’s never been a secret that God plans to rescue His people. What has been a secret is the specific way this rescue plan happens. Paul doesn’t want the nations to be in the dark any longer, else they might become arrogant and think themselves wiser than they are. Here, Paul writes, is the mystery:

First, the most people of Israel do not believe God’s good news of righteousness as a gift, by means of faith. Instead, they choose to pursue it by means of “resume-ism.” So, this majority of Israelites are the branches whom God has “broken off” and to whom He’s temporarily sent “blindness” and “hardness of heart”—a dullness of spirit.
So, second, God has now pivoted to the nations and to the Jewish remnant—the “wild olive shoots” are being grafted into the tree. This present stage of God’s rescue plan will last “until the full number of the nations have entered in” and joined God’s kingdom family, at which time God lifts the divine “blindness” and rescue operations will proceed for the people of Israel.
And so, third, this is how “all Israel will be rescued.”

The “all Israel” refers to the ethnic Jewish people who are alive at the time God moves to the third stage, after the full number of the nations have entered the family.[16]

It cannot mean “every Jewish person who ever lived.” God isn’t a universalist (even at the sub-category level), and it would be absurd to suppose Caiphas will be walking the streets of glory.
Paul isn’t referring to a re-defined “Israel” consisting of all true believers (cp. Gal 3, 6:16; Rom 4). His focus here in Romans 9-11 is ethnic Jewish people.
He isn’t referring to all “true” ethnic Jewish people from all time, because Paul’s burden in Romans 9-11 is to explain what’s happening to the people of Israel right now in relation to His divine timetable.

But, through it all, it’s still the same Jesus, the same king, the same divine rescue mission. Two people groups merged into the same family, the same tree, partaking of the same “sap.” God has not pushed away the people of Israel—there is (a) the remnant which can meanwhile choose to pursue God by means of faith, and (b) the entire number of Jewish people who will embrace Jesus as Messiah after the full number of the nations have come in. The people of Israel “are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable,” (Rom 11:28-29).

This three-stage rescue plan, culminating in God rescuing all the ethnic people of Israel then alive when Christ returns, is just what scripture foretold (“as it is written,” Rom 11:26). The prophet Isaiah tells us that one day the Lord looked about and saw the human situation was hopeless—that He Himself must enter the arena to set things right. “So his own arm achieved salvation for him, and his own righteousness sustained him,” (Isa 59:16). And so the Redeemer would one day come to Zion—“to those in Jacob who repent of their sins” (Isa 59:20). The covenant Yahweh swore to make with His people would take away their sins, because “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you,” (Isa 59:21). The apostle quotes the former citation and paraphrases the latter as support for a future for the people of Israel (Rom 11:26b-27).

4. One God and father of all

Paul never again probed so far behind the divine curtain. The see-saw of God’s rescue plan—Israel, then the nations, then Israel again (Rom 11:12, 30-32)—overwhelms him. “How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Rom 11:33).

Commentators have spilt gallons of ink and gigabytes of megapixels on interpreting this passage—especially Romans 11:25-26. What is clear is that the people of Israel have a future. It’s not a “blank cheque” future which encourages a laissez-faire life of spiritual fakery. Nor is it a “I’ll never get tickets to the show!” kind of defeatism that one has when trying to purchase Taylor Swift concert tickets. There will be more than a “lucky few” Israelites grafted back into God’s olive tree! It is a real future—(a) the remnant chosen by grace now, followed by (b) “all Israel” present here when Christ returns later.

Yes, God has unfinished business with Israel during the Millennium, but that is merely the last stop before journey’s end. The “Israel maximizers” make a mistake if they hop off the train here,[17] because there is yet one more stop to go. The train decommissions in Revelation 22, when there will be one family, one tree, “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all,” (Eph 4:6). God will restore Eden, and the tree of life will be available to all “for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:1-5).

Of course, Paul doesn’t discuss that here. But the people of Israel will be there … along with all the other nations who are blessed through Abraham (Gal 3:8) and have become His offspring.

[1] Gk: ἀγνοοῦντες (adverbial, causal) γὰρ (explanatory) τὴν (monadic) τοῦ θεοῦ (gen. source) δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν (δικαιοσύνην) ζητοῦντες (adverbial, causal—paired with ἀγνοοῦντες) στῆσαι (BDAG, s.v., sense 3; anarthrous, complementary), τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (monadic) τοῦ θεοῦ (gen. source) οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν (passive w/middle sense, constative).

[2] The fact that the people of Israel are “his people” (τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; Rom 11:1) is significant.

[3] BDAG, s.v. “ἀπωθέω,” sense 2; p. 126.

[4] LSJ, s.v. “ἀπωθέω,” senses 1, 2; p. 232.

[5] OED, s.v. “repudiate,” senses 1a, 2a.

[6] It goes too far to plead that “foreknow” here (προέγνω) means something like “to choose beforehand.” The word can bear that meaning (e.g. 1 Pet 1:20), but the more common use is just “to know beforehand or in advance” (BDAG, s.v., sense 1, p. 966) or to “foreknow” (LSJ, s.v., sense 3). Reformed exegetes who wish to carry water for unconditional single election will find fertile ground elsewhere in scripture, but Romans 11:2 is not the place to plant that flag.

[7] The 1833 New Hampshire Confession explains: “… regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel,” (Article VII).

[8] Gk: εἰ δὲ χάριτι (dative of means), οὐκέτι ἐξ (means) ἔργων.

[9] See BDAG, s.v. “πωρόω,” and LSJ, s.v., sense 3.

[10] Emil Brunner, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. H.A. Kennedy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), p. 94.

[11] Λέγω οὖν, μὴ ἔπταισαν (fig. for “sin”) ἵνα πέσωσιν (result clause; BDAG, s.v., sense 2b); μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν (dir. obj) παραπτώματι (dat. reason) ἡ σωτηρία (monadic article) τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (implied verb of “going,” dir. obj.) εἰς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι (purpose clause) αὐτούς (dir. obj. of infinitive—refers to people of Israel).

[12] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 76.

[13] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 411-412.

[14] Brunner, Romans, p. 96.

[15] Gk: Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο (dir. obj.), ἵνα μὴ ἦτε (purpose clause) παρʼ ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι. ὅτι (appositional—explains the mystery) πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους (paired to τῷ Ἰσραὴλ) τῷ Ἰσραὴλ (dative of reference) γέγονεν ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν (partitive) εἰσέλθῃ 26 καὶ (conclusion) οὕτως (adverb of manner) πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται.

“Now, I don’t want you all to be in the dark about this secret, brothers and sisters, so that you won’t think you’re wiser than you are. The secret is that a dullness of spirit has come upon some of the people of Israel until the full number of the nations have entered in. And so, that is how all Israel will be rescued …”

[16] “… Paul speaks of a future salvation of ethnic Israel near or at the return of Jesus Christ,” (Tom Schreiner, Romans, in BECNT, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), pp. 598ff). See also Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 723.

[17] Tom Schreiner rightly warns: “The purpose of this revelation is not to titillate the interest of the church or to satisfy their curiosity about future events. The mystery is disclosed so that the gentiles will not fall prey to pride …” (Romans, p. 595).

The First Christmas

Here is my translation of Luke 2:6-18 from my sermon from Christmastide, this past Sunday. I never preach my own translations, but I use them for insight while I preach the text. My preaching text is the NIV. But, for what it’s worth, here is how I rendered this beautiful revelation of the first Christmas. It’s significant that God chose to make humble shepherds the very first evangelists!

6-7: And it happened, while they were in Bethlehem, the days for her to give birth were fulfilled. She gave birth to her son—her firstborn. She wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them at the lodging place.[1]

8-9: Now, in the same area, there were shepherds living outdoors and keeping watch over their flock at night. Then, an angel from the Lord suddenly appeared to them, and the Lord’s glory shone on them, and they were terribly frightened.[2]

10-12: And the angel said to them: “Don’t be frightened! Listen! I’m bring good news to you—great, joyful news to all the people. Because today, in David’s city, a savior has been born for you who is Messiah—the Lord. This is how you all will know this is true: you’ll find the baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a feeding trough.”[3]

13-14: Then, all at once, there appeared with the angel a large crowd of the heavenly army praising God and saying: “Glory to God who is in the heavens above! And peace on earth to the people with whom He’s pleased!”[4]

15: And it came to pass, as the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds were saying to one another: “Let’s all go right now to Bethlehem and check out this thing that has just happened, which the Lord has revealed to us.”[5]

16-18: So, they went and hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the feeding trough. When they saw all this, they told everyone about the message which was told to them about that child. And everyone who heard was astonished at what was told to them by the shepherds.[6]

[1] Gk: Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ [in this context, ἐν τῷ + infinitive = contemporaneous time] ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι [subject nominative] τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν [partitive genitive], καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον [accusative of apposition], καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.

[2] Gk: Καὶ ποιμένες ἦσαν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ [BDAG, s.v., sense 2, p. 1093] τῇ αὐτῇ [identical adjective] ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ φυλάσσοντες [attributive] φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ποίμνην αὐτῶν. καὶ [temporal] ἄγγελος κυρίου [gen. source] ἐπέστη [Louw-Nida 17.5, cp. Lk 24:4] αὐτοῖς καὶ δόξα ⸀κυρίου [gen. poss.] περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς [Louw-Nida 14.44; LSJ, s.v. “περιλάμπω,” sense II, p. 1378] καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν [adverbial accusative].

[3] Gk: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται [epex. sense] παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, 11 ὅτι [explanatory] ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν [dat. indirect–benefaction] σήμερον σωτὴρ [subj. nom] ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος [gen. app] ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ [subj. gen]. 12 καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον, εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ.

[4] Gk: καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος [subj. nom] στρατιᾶς [part. gen] οὐρανίου [att. gen.] αἰνούντων [attributive part. with στρατιᾶς] τὸν θεὸν καὶ λεγόντων· 14 δόξα [nominative of address—optative flavor] ἐν ὑψίστοις [prep. = statial] θεῷ [dat. direct obj] καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη [nominative of address–optative flavor] ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας [att. gen; cp. TLNT; s.v., p. 103].

[5] Gk: Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς [temporal adverb] ἀπῆλθον ἀπʼ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, οἱ ποιμένες ⸀ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· διέλθωμεν δὴ [emphatic particle] ἕως Βηθλέεμ καὶ ἴδωμεν [“investigate,” LSJ, s.v. “εἴδω,” sense A.3.b., p. 483] τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονὸς [att. participle] ὃ ὁ κύριος ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν.

[6] Gk: καὶ ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες καὶ ἀνεῦραν τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὸ βρέφος κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ· 17 ἰδόντες [substantival part.] δὲ ἐγνώρισαν περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ λαληθέντος αὐτοῖς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου. καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν περὶ τῶν λαληθέντων ὑπὸ τῶν ποιμένων πρὸς αὐτούς.

A Prayer for the King

We sometimes see Jesus’ mission as just personal salvation—a golden ticket away from a sinking ship. Christmas then becomes a celebration about the ticket going on sale for those who want it. In Psalm 72, Solomon shows us a Christmas vision that includes personal salvation, but is so much bigger than that.

Solomon wrote this psalm.[1] Like many Old Testament texts about the king of Israel, it operates on two levels. First, Solomon writes a prayer for his own son, Rehoboam. That didn’t work out so well (see 1 Kgs 12; 2 Chr 10). But, on a deeper level, this is also a wish for what the real king of Israel should be like. We’ll focus on the second level in this article. The first verse captures Solomon’s plea, and the rest of the psalm is an elaboration on that wish.

Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness.
Psalm 72:1

Solomon wants the king to embody justice or right judgment—the insight to do the right thing. We like that quality. There’s a reason why politicians run as so-called “outsiders” who are “untainted” by the Washington swamp (etc., etc.). In his 1976 presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter famously pledged “I’ll never lie to you!” We like to believe in people who claim they’ll do “the right thing,” who claim to be “good people” in contrast to the “bad” folks now in power.

Of course, we all have different ideas of what the “right thing” is! So, Solomon asks God to endow His king “with your righteousness.” God’s king is all about God’s values, God’s righteousness. But, what are His values? We might be quick to answer in terms of “moral codes,” but Solomon never mentions those at all. We’ll return to this soon.

Now we see a series of prayers. When God’s people looked forward to a good king (“the royal son”), what did God teach them He’d be like?

May he judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice.
Psalm 72:2

He’ll judge His people “in righteousness,” which means He judges the right way, all the time. He makes sure justice is done. No courts, no trials, no deliberations, no mistakes. The state of Oklahoma just released a man who served 48 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.[2] In contrast, the true king will judge God’s “afflicted ones with justice.”

Who are these “afflicted ones”? These are the “small people.” The hurting, the struggling, the people who are tired, at the end of themselves, without hope. This royal son—the king of the world to come—will vindicate everyone who is afflicted because of injustice (in any form). He’ll set things right—especially for the “forgotten people” of this world.

This is the first hint that Solomon’s vision of the king’s mission is bigger than individual salvation. He continues:

May the mountains bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness.
Psalm 72:3

This isn’t a wish for some crude prosperity gospel, but a longing for a better time when the king fixes us and this world. The agricultural references are just a metaphor for “good times.” In 1984, President Ronald Reagan famously said it was “morning in America!”[3] Well, here Solomon says “it’ll be morning in paradise when the king is here!”

What will happen when the morning comes? What will this “new day” look like? Rather than well-meaning moralism, Solomon describes a much more comprehensive renovation:

May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; may he crush the oppressor.
Psalm 72:4

Eternity will not involve sitting on clouds in heaven. Instead, Solomon prays for a future in which the king does justice on a renovated earth. What would this world look like if:

The king defended the afflicted? If he was on the side of those who are hurting and have no advocate? No voice? No hope? No power? Nobody caring about them once they have their vote?
The king rescued (cp. LXX) the children of the poor? A local elementary school just contacted our church asking if we would help stock a food pantry of sorts it was organizing for kids who didn’t have enough food at home. One day this problem will be over.
The king crushed the oppressors? These are the folks who move the levers of power in oppressive, unholy directions—not just cartoon villains, but also the faceless drones who aid and abet unholy policies that have oppressive effects downstream. God will rip them down from their lofty perches! This was Mary’s prayer as an afflicted and hurting poor woman in a rural town—she wanted the Messiah to fix the injustice in this rotten world (Lk 1:52-55).

After prayers for this king’s reign to never end and to be like water to a parched land (Ps 72:5-7), Solomon shows us the breadth of this king’s reign:

May he rule from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Psalm 72:8

The realm will extend over the whole earth, “from sea to sea.” Solomon assembles the most exotic cast of characters his geographic frame of reference could conjure to stress this point. Nomads from the deserts, kings from Tarshish “and of distant shores,” and heads of state from Seba and Sheba (perhaps modern-day Yemen)—they will all come to Jerusalem to pledge allegiance to the true king. They’ll “lick the dust” and prostrate themselves before Him. They’ll bring tribute and presents. They’ll bow down and serve Him (Ps 72:9-11).

The New Testament writers often focus on salvation, on personal rescue from Satan (“save yourselves from this corrupt generation!” Acts 2:40). Solomon would surely agree, but in this psalm he takes a larger view. He doesn’t mention salvation at all. So, why will the nations come to the king? Why will people from exotic, faraway lands come to worship God’s royal son as the king of the world? What’s the hook? What’s the attraction? What’s the selling point?

The answer is surprising:

For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight.
Psalm 72:12-14

The nations will come to the king because (“for”) He rescues the weak, the needy, and the afflicted. These are likely the same people under cover of three names. They are the lowly, the poor in spirit (Mt 5:3). Not just the “lower classes,” but more “the hurting classes”—the struggling, the “little people,” the working class, the oppressed.

The nations will come because this king rescues. Because He has pity. It isn’t salvation at the barrel of a gun, or salvation by escape from this world. It’s a salvation whose draw, whose hook, whose attraction is pity for the hurting, and rescue for the oppressed. In short, a king who promises to fix us and this world. This includes personal salvation, but is also so much more than that.

Why will the king do this? Because our lives matter to Him (“for precious is their blood in his sight,” Ps 72:14). Because He cares about us. Because He wants to help us. Because He loves us—especially when we don’t love Him back.

Near the end of the psalm, Solomon exclaims “Long may he live! … May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun,” (Ps 72:15, 17). He then writes this beautiful line:

Then all nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed.
Psalm 72:17

This is an echo of God’s promise to Abraham and His special descendant, so long ago (Gen 12:3; cp. Gal 3:16). God swore that Abraham would somehow be the channel for God’s blessing to the whole world. But, who is it referring to here?

To Jesus.

Abraham is that channel to the world—through Jesus, His descendant (Mt 1:1; Gal 3:16). Christmas is indeed about individual salvation and rescue, but the Savior’s mission isn’t just to give us a ticket on a fast train to Georgia before this whole thing burns up. Solomon knew that. He knew that God’s true royal king would bless the nations of the world through the message He brought. A message about Himself, about rescue from prison, about liberation from Satan—the spiritual kidnapper.

When King Jesus rescues us, He gives us a place in the renovated world that’s coming. A world where justice will be done and things will be set right. Where the weak, the needy, and the afflicted will be defended, where the oppressed will see justice done, where the oppressors will be crushed and punished—all according to God’s definition of righteousness, not ours.

The third stanza of the song “O Holy Night!” reflects much of Solomon’s emphases:

Truly He taught us to love one another; His law is love and His gospel is peace. Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother, And in His name all oppression shall cease. Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we; Let all within us praise His holy name. Christ is the Lord! O praise His name forever! His pow’r and glory evermore proclaim! His pow’r and glory evermore proclaim!
O Holy Night! (third stanza)

‌Brotherly love. The good news of peace on earth. Broken chains. Oppression vanquished. Songs of grateful praise. It’s beautiful. Surprisingly, the song was written in 1847 by an atheist Frenchman. He wrote it as a favor to a friend who was a local priest. He did his background research by studying the Gospel of Luke.

‌I wonder if the author ever fully appreciated the beautiful truths he wrote about so movingly. It’s the same story Solomon knew, and the same one that faithful Christians still celebrate today. Christmas is the story of a Savior who has come to rescue and renovate us and our world, so that justice can be done on earth, so we can be with Him forever. And the Christmas message is that anyone who turns to God, through Christ, will be rescued and given a place in His family, and in the better tomorrow that’s coming.

[1] Or, maybe not. The LXX subscription reads “To Solomon,” which leads some to speculate that David wrote the psalm for Solomon.

[2] Jesus Jiminez, “Man Cleared of Murder After More Than 48 Years in Prison.” NY Times. 20 December 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/glynn-simmons-exoneration-oklahoma.html?smid=url-share.

[3] See https://youtu.be/pUMqic2IcWA?si=GPPgSgaxwrzO76oD.

Church and State no. 2: The two kingdoms

We continue our discussion of the relationship between the church and the state (see the series here). The previous article in this series introduced the topic of church v. state. We discussed two critical paradigm shifts with which any American Christian audience must reckon (a task in which it sometimes fails). We presented three general operating environments in which the church often operates—their boosters often see these frameworks as the preferred, ideal paradigm. I then offered a precis of the five principles which should inform any discussion of the “church v. state” problem. Now, in this piece, we’ll examine the first and most basic principle for considering this issue. Here it is …

There are two kingdoms; Babylon and Jerusalem. Babylon will lose.

The Apostle John paints a picture of two competing kingdoms—Babylon and Jerusalem (Rev 17-18). This contrast is the story of history and reality. We’ll sketch each kingdom, in turn.

1. Babylon is Satan’s kingdom, symbolized as a charming seductress.

John’s picture fades in on a pretty woman sitting atop a beast.

The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
Revelation 17:4

John tells us the woman’s name is “Babylon the great,” that she is a prostitute, and the mother of all the abominations of the earth (Rev 17:5). This woman is a figure for the beguiling ways Satan tempts us to follow him.

For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.
Revelation 18:3

Babylon, personified as an attractive call girl, offers “wine” to the masses resulting in “adulteries,” which God often uses as a metaphor for spiritual rebellion (e.g. Hosea 1-3). The nations lust after her, buying her services, committing “adultery.” The merchants trade with her, less interested in her physical charms than in the money they can make in trade. Like the sinister villain in Stephen King’s Needful Things, Babylon offers up whatever we desire with the aim of keeping us in her embrace. She buys us all, each in our own way. “By your magic spells all the nations were led astray,” (Rev 18:23).

This passage ends with Babylon’s destruction, her ruins aflame (“the smoke from her goes up for ever and ever,” Rev 19:3). The merchants, the heads of state, and all those involved in the economic system which abets this “trade” will cry aloud in shock when they behold the end of everything they know (Rev 18:4-20)—the “kingdom” which shaped their reality has fallen.

In the bible’s storyline Babylon is, of course, the empire which conquered Judah, destroyed the first temple, and carried the flower of the southern kingdom off into exile. Beyond the purely historical reference to that specific calamity, scripture later takes “Babylon” and uses it to personify evil and all that opposes God—it’s a figure, a metaphor, a representation. The prophet Isaiah speaks darkly about the king of Babylon, yet his words seem to shade over to a deeper meaning—perhaps referring to Satan himself (Isa 14:3ff). Zechariah speaks of an angel crushing into a basket a woman who represents sin and sending her far away to the east … where Babylon lies (Zech 5).

Now, in Revelation 17-18, God has poured out all His judgments, “Babylon” has fallen, and now Jesus returns to the world He left behind on that day so long-ago outside Jerusalem (Acts 1; Rev 19). In this passage, Babylon is Satan’s kingdom; and the system, culture, world, and values that oppose God have finally crumbled to bits—destroyed from on high with sudden violence (Rev 18:21).

When Jesus returns with “the armies of heaven” (Rev 19:14), He quickly destroys the beast, the false prophet, and the entire army which they mustered. This is a cosmic clash of two opposing forces—darkness v. light. Each character is the opposite of the other on the divine playbill:

Antichrist is Satan’s delegate → Jesus is the Father’s delegate.

Antichrist has an army → Jesus has an army.

Antichrist loses → Jesus wins.

After the millennium, God releases Satan, who tries to salvage what he can from the wreckage—a Battle of the Bulge-like gamble, a last roll of the dice (Rev 20:7-10). Now the struggle isn’t between the delegates, but between the supreme players themselves—it’s God who immolates Satan from on high with a divine fireball (Rev 20:9-10).

The evil empire falls in Revelation 17-18. The coup leaders are each cast into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20; 20:10). God has meted out rewards to the righteous, and judgment to the wicked (Rev 20:4-6, 11-15). Now that God has swept the debris of Satan’s coup away, God brings about His own kingdom (Rev 21-22). Creation is remade, sin is destroyed, and God finally has the community He’s been working to re-create since our first parents made their fateful choice. “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them,” (Rev 21:3)—Emmanuel, indeed (cf. Isa 7:14; Mt 1:23)!

2. Jerusalem is God’s kingdom, fighting with Babylon over the same ground.

Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds tells us about His kingdom in a powerful way. He explained:

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
Matthew 13:24-26

Jesus wants to talk about the kingdom and this parable is an allegory[1] to explain all about it. This is one of the few parables where Jesus identifies the true referent for every character in the story; you have (1) a farmer, (2) an enemy, (3) a wheat crop, and (4) a bunch of weeds. The setup is simple; a farmer sows seed but it turns out bad!

That is terrible. Something’s gotta be done …

The owner’s servants came to him and said, “Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?”

“An enemy did this,” he replied.

The servants asked him, “Do you want us to go and pull them up?”
Matthew 13:27-28

The field was supposed to be one thing, but now it’s a hot mess. The servants think they should go clean it up—why not go and rip out the weeds? What does Jesus think?

“No,” he answered, “because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Matthew 13:29-30

Jesus says no. He says the field will never be cleansed until the harvest—Jesus will give orders to sort it all out then. But, for now, just leave it alone—let the weeds and the wheat all grow up together. If they try to pick out the weeds now, they’ll probably just rip out a whole bunch of wheat. Better to leave it.

In Matthew’s gospel, the writer then inserts a few other parables about the kingdom, but circles back to Jesus’ explanation of our story. This is an intriguing story, so much so that the disciples wanted to hear Jesus explain it once they had a chance to speak to Him alone (Mt 13:36).

He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.”
Matthew 13:37-39

Jesus has now explained all the referents:

kingdom of heaven	→	this scenario of events
farmer	→	Son of Man = Jesus
field	→	world
good seed ≈ wheat	→	people of kingdom
weeds	→	people of evil one
stealthy enemy	→	devil

Pay particular attention to the field—what is it? Jesus says it’s the world, and this “field” boasts two crops which are growing side by side—the “people of the kingdom” and “people of the evil one.” This battlespace is simple—two opposing kingdoms, each with its own commanding officer, each with its own followers, inhabiting the same territory. This war will resolve when the “harvesters” arrive, whom Jesus identifies as angels.

He explains:

As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Matthew 13:36-43

This “field” that is our world will remain a mess until “the end of the age.” The harvesters will fix the field when Jesus sends them. But notice that Jesus now calls the “field” the “kingdom”—He says the angels “will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.” The field is both the world and the kingdom. This suggests Jesus sees the world—this present battlespace—as transitioning into His kingdom at the decisive moment in the future when He intervenes. It’s as if “this world” is the territory at issue throughout history, and Jesus views it as already His, and judgment is (in part) Him sweeping evil out of His lands forever.

“Then,” He promises, “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Why? Because the “weeds” will be gone, and the “wheat” will finally be free to flourish in the field (i.e., “the kingdom of their Father”) without an invasive species choking them.

Jesus’ kingdom is here, right now. It’s in this world in the form of a dispersed community in exile (see no. 3-4, below) in a hostile land.[2] This situation will remain that way until the end of the age (cf. the parable of the net at Mt 13:47-50)—it’s why Jesus said this whole parable, the entire state of affairs it sketched, “is like” the kingdom of heaven. As one early Christian discipleship manual said, “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways.”[3]

3. The world as the battlespace for the two kingdoms at war

This is a sketch of the battlespace we’ve occupied from the Fall to the present. This is the foundation for considering the vexing issue of church v. state. There is a kingdom of darkness called Babylon. There is also a kingdom belonging to God which the Apostle Paul refers to as “the Jerusalem that is above” (Gal 4:26; cf. Rev 21:2). These two kingdoms are the cultures, values, and societies corresponding to two quite different masters—Satan and God. Viewed the right way, we can frame the big picture of history as the story of these two kingdoms in supernatural conflict.

Babylon will lose. Jerusalem will win, and then (and only then) …

… with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
Isaiah 11:4-5

From this fountainhead, other principles logically follow. We’ll turn to these in the next articles.

[1] “A story, picture, etc., which uses symbols to convey a hidden or ulterior meaning, typically a moral or political one; a symbolic representation; an extended or continued metaphor,” (s.v. “allegory,” noun, no. 2, OED Online. March 2023. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/5230?rskey=ts99zo&result=1&isAdvanced=false (accessed May 05, 2023)).

[2] For an argument for the “already, but not yet” aspect of the kingdom, see Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1962), esp. §IV. Many Americans often turn to George Ladd when they think of “already, but not yet,” but Ridderbos published first.

For dispensationalist rejoinders to the idea of kingdom being present now, see esp. (1) Chafer, Systematic, pp. 5:333-358; 7:223-224, and (2) Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God (reprint; Winona Lake: BMH, 2009).

[3] “Didache”1.1, in The Apostolic Fathers in English, trans. Rick Brannan (Bellingham: Lexham, 2012).

Translating John 1:1-18

Here is my translation of John 1:1-18, from the NA-28 Greek text. The notes in the text are footnotes, not the verse numbers–I did not include verse numbers:

In the beginning was the Messenger—God’s living embodiment of Himself,[1] and the Messenger was with God, and the Messenger was God.[2] This Messenger was there at the beginning[3] with God. Everything was created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created. Life was in Him,[4] and that life was the light for[5] men and women. The light is shining into the darkness, and the darkness has not overpowered it.[6]

A man arrived, sent from God. His name was John. He came to be a witness[7]—to testify about this light[8] so that everyone might believe through John.[9] This man was not that light, but came to testify about the light.

This light was[10] the true light[11] who shines upon all people, and it was coming into the world.[12] He was in the world, and this world was made by Him, and the world did not acknowledge Him. He came to His own, and they did not welcome Him. But, to as many as received Him, He gave them permission[13] to become God’s children. He only gave this permission to the ones who trust in His name[14]—not those who are born from normal descent, or from sexual passions, or from our own scheduled birth plans, but those born from God.

And so, the Messenger became a human being and lived among us. We saw His majesty—glory like that of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John was bearing witness about the Messenger, crying out and saying, “This is the one I was talking about, when I said, ‘The one who arrives after me is mightier than me, because He existed before me.’”[15]

This is why[16] from the Messenger’s unlimited supply[17] we have each received one gracious blessing after another.[18] For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Nobody has ever seen God at any time. The one and only God, whom the Father holds so dear[19]—He has made Him known!

Here is the Christmastide sermon I preached from this text. I didn’t use my own translation for the sermon, because I find that sometimes confuses people. So, I stuck with my normal preaching translation–the NIV (2011):

[1] This word carries a wide semantic range. Here, it refers to Jesus as the embodied personification of God’s message (Mounce, Expository Dictionary, pp. 1201, 448, 803). Mounce notes “[t]his flexibility has its root in the use of logos in Greco-Roman literary culture, where it could stand on its own for the spoken word, ‘a message,’ as well as what one does, ‘a deed,’” (p. 803). LSJ notes the term in this context means Christ personified as God’s agent in creation and world-government (Greek-English Lexicon, 1996, p. 1059; cf. BDAG, p. 601, ¶3). The “word” here is God’s divine message, personified in Jesus (Friberg, 3c). See especially Moises Silva’s conclusion on this matter (NIDNTTE, 3:169).

Because “logos” here is a noun, I decided to render it as Messenger. One could argue I should be explanatory, and write “in the beginning was ‘God’s self-revelation’ or ‘very personal message.’” I chose not to do that, because I believe “logos” throughout this section refers to Jesus as a proper noun. So, I opted for Messenger, and I’ll leave it at that.

[2] In a copulative sentence with two nominatives, the one with the article is typically the subject. See Richard Young’s discussion (Intermediate Grammar, pp. 64-66).

[3] I believe the preposition is specifying a point in time, which I rendered as “there at the beginning.”

[4] I take the preposition to be expressing metaphorical space. It’s tempting to go with association (“with Him was life”), but that isn’t what John appears to be saying (cp. John 5:26).

[5] This is an objective genitive.

[6] The phrase “the light is shining” is an imperfective aspect (present tense-form), while the “darkness has not overpowered it” is the perfective aspect (aorist). In the latter case, John seems to be viewing the darkness’ defeat as an undefined whole, viewing the situation in one grand sweep as if from a helicopter or via drone footage. The light is still shining, and the darkness has not overcome it.

[7] Woodenly, this reads “he came for a witness.” But, the word “witness” is a noun, which indicates that was why John came—to be a witness.

[8] This is a subjunctive purpose clause which functions in apposition to the description of John as a witness.

[9] The pronoun in ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν διʼ αὐτοῦ refers to John, not to Jesus. Both antecedents preceding and following this refer to John.

[10] This is an imperfect “being” verb, and you have to supply the subject—in this case, it is “the light.”

[11] Here, both nominatives have the article, so we operate by Rule 3d in Young (Intermediate Grammar, p. 65), and conclude the first nominative is the subject, and the second is the predicate nominative.

[12] The participle is an adverbial participle of attendant circumstance. It’s tempting to see means or reason, but I don’t think they fit.

[13] God gives them the power to become His children. But, to forestall the idea that salvation is something we do, a translation ought to try to convey that. I think “permission” does the trick, here. See BDAG (p. 352, ¶2) and especially LSJ (s.v. “ἐξουσία,” 1996 ver.) for the rendering of “permission to.”

[14] This phrase τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ is usually moved and folded into the middle of v.12. It’s an apposition, further explaining to whom Jesus gave permission to become God’s children. It doesn’t have to be moved to the middle of v.12; it can stand here on its own as an introduction to v.13. This makes better sense, or else v.13 just begins with no connective tissue. It’s the ones who believe in Jesus who get this permission, not those who are born from blood (etc.) It’s cleaner to leave this clause at the end of v.12. Because I’m leaving it here at the end (as it is in the Greek), I have to be a bit explanatory—which is why the sentence doesn’t simply begin with “to the ones who …”

[15] This sense has several different senses: “The one who arrives after me (in time—this is not about being a disciple of John) is mightier than me (i.e. before John in rank), because He existed before me (in time).”

[16] The conjunction here specifies reason—the grounds for knowing something is true. John was right to say that Jesus is mightier than he—this is why from the Messenger’s unlimited supply we have each received … etc.).

[17] The sense here is Christ’s fullness, completeness, the sum-total of His being (see BDAG, p. 829-830, ¶3b; LSJ, s.v. “πλήρωμα,” ¶6). Christ is a reservoir, dispensing grace upon grace. I chose to follow Julian Anderson’s translation (The New Testament in Everyday American English) and render this as “unlimited supply.” This might be a bit more concrete than John intended, but I feel the communicative clarity is worth it.

[18] The best sense seems to be multiple graces being piled up on top of one another, like rolling waves. The NIV 2011’s rendering of one single grace surpassing another single grace seems to refer to the Old v. New Covenants, but I don’t think this is correct. But, I won’t quibble with those who like it.

[19] The well-known expression here is “in the bosum of the Father.” This really means something like “in closest association with” or “really close to.” See the discussion in the UBS Handbook on the Gospel of John.

On the Scriptures

Read the series on the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith so far.

The 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith has always been my personal favorite. It is relatively short, Baptist, Reformed, extraordinarily well-written and powerful. It will encourage any Christian’s heart. Here is the first article:

Of the Scriptures

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction;[1] that it has God for its author, salvation for its end,[2] and truth without any mixture of error for its matter;[3] that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us;[4] and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union,[5] and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.[6]

Here are some brief thoughts on this article:

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired,

The Bible was not written by ordinary men. It was written by “men moved by the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God,” (2 Peter 1:21). The Apostle Peter said that “God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets,” (Acts 3:21). This is why the early church considered the Scriptures “the word of God,” (Acts 6:2). The writer of Hebrews quoted Psalm 95:7-11 (Heb 3:7-11), and specifically identified the Holy Spirit as the author of that psalm, even though it was written by a man!

The point is that the Bible is a special book, a unique book. That special book was written by God, through men “divinely inspired,” who were moved to pen precisely what God wanted through the filter of their own personality and character.

and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter;

The Holy Scriptures are God’s special revelation to men, containing all that is necessary for us to know Him, understand our just condemnation for sin and wickedness, the provision of salvation through Christ’s life, death, burial and resurrection, and for Christian life and godliness (cf. 2 Peter 1:3).

The Bible’s “end” is to teach men about salvation; why they need it, how it is possible, what Christ has done to secure it for His children, and the means God uses to bring men, women, boys and girls to saving faith in His Son.

The Bible is completely truthful, and does not contain any error.[7]

that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us;

The Bible is the sole, infallible rule of faith for God’s people. This means it tells us all about ourselves; how we ought to act, and how we actually act. How we should love God, and how we actually love Him. The way men and women were originally made to serve God, and the way we actually rebel against Him, like the criminals, spiritual terrorists and children of wrath we actually are.

The Bible tells us why we’re sinful and unacceptable to God, explains His holiness and righteousness, and therefore explains the basis for our eternal condemnation and just punishment – if we reject the only way of salvation in Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me,” (Jn 14:6).

and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

The Bible is at the center of the Christian life, and therefore it is the universal point of contact which makes fellowship and cooperative ministry possible between all brothers and sisters in Christ – regardless of where they hail from.

Some Christians have a bizarre understanding of what the Reformation-era motto “Scripture Alone” means. Some think it implies a Christians needs literally nothing except the Bible. I’ve heard of people who shun exegetical commentaries and other reference books; “I don’t need them! I have the Holy Spirit and my Bible! I don’t want man’s opinion.” What silliness.

The principle of “Scripture Alone” has never meant this. It simply means that, although books, Pastors, creeds and confessions may be very helpful, the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for God’s people. It is the yardstick. It is the goalpost. As this confession explains, the Bible is “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”

^Ps119:97Oh, how I love thy law!
    It is my meditation all the day.
⁹⁸Thy commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
    for it is ever with me.
⁹⁹I have more understanding than all my teachers,
    for thy testimonies are my meditation.
¹⁰⁰I understand more than the aged,
    for I keep thy precepts.
¹⁰¹I hold back my feet from every evil way,
    in order to keep thy word.
¹⁰²I do not turn aside from thy ordinances,
    for thou hast taught me.
¹⁰³How sweet are thy words to my taste,
    sweeter than honey to my mouth!
¹⁰⁴Through thy precepts I get understanding;
    therefore I hate every false way.

Notes

[1] 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:21; 1 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16; 3:21; John 10:35; Luke 16:29–31; Psa. 119:111; Rom. 3:1. 2.

[2] 2 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 1:10–12; Acts 11:14; Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:16; John 5:38, 39.

[3] Prov. 30:5, 6; John 17:17; Rev. 22:18, 19; Rom. 3:4.

[4] Rom. 2:12; John 12:47, 48; 1 Cor. 4:3, 4; Luke 10:10–16; 12:47, 48.

[5] Phil. 3:6; Eph. 4:3–6; Phil. 2:1, 2; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 4:11.

[6] 1 John 4:1; Isa. 8:20; 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Cor. 13:5; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:6; Jude 3:5; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 119:59, 60; Phil. 1:9–11.

[7] See the excellent discussion about inerrancy Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 246-265.

Why Trust the Four Gospels?

Very good, short (20:00 min) lecture on some reasons why we can trust the Gospels over and against the false, gnostic gospels. If you have a few minutes, this will be time well spent. The man lecturing is Peter J. Williams, Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge, UK:

The Eccentric Fundamentalist

Musings on theology, apologetics, practical Christianity and God's grace in salvation through Jesus Christ

Tag: Bible

1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture

What is the New Perspective(s) on Paul?

The Traditional Protestant Understanding of Justification

A Survey of Five Aspects of the New Perspective(s) on Paul

The new perspective on Paul arises from a new perspective on Judaism

The significance of Paul’s mission is the context for his teaching on justification

What does Paul mean when he writes about “justification by faith” in Christ Jesus and not “works of the law”?

What does “justification” mean?

What is the relationship between works and salvation?

What does it matter?

Church and State no. 3: God’s kingdom isn’t America

Romans 11 and the parable of the olive tree

1. God hasn’t rejected the people of Israel (vv. 11:1-6)

2. Instead, God is punishing the people of Israel (vv. 11:7-10)

3. What’s the point of God’s punishment? (vv. 11:11-32)

3.1. The parable of the olive tree (vv. 11:13-24)

3.2. This parable means the people of Israel have a future (vv. 11:25-32)

4. One God and father of all

The First Christmas

A Prayer for the King

Church and State no. 2: The two kingdoms

1. Babylon is Satan’s kingdom, symbolized as a charming seductress.

2. Jerusalem is God’s kingdom, fighting with Babylon over the same ground.

3. The world as the battlespace for the two kingdoms at war

Translating John 1:1-18

On the Scriptures

Of the Scriptures

Notes

Why Trust the Four Gospels?

Musings on theology, apologetics, practical Christianity and God's grace in salvation through Jesus Christ

Share this:

The Traditional Protestant Understanding of Justification

A Survey of Five Aspects of the New Perspective(s) on Paul

The new perspective on Paul arises from a new perspective on Judaism

The significance of Paul’s mission is the context for his teaching on justification

What does Paul mean when he writes about “justification by faith” in Christ Jesus and not “works of the law”?

What does “justification” mean?

What is the relationship between works and salvation?

What does it matter?

Share this:

Share this:

1. God hasn’t rejected the people of Israel (vv. 11:1-6)

2. Instead, God is punishing the people of Israel (vv. 11:7-10)

3. What’s the point of God’s punishment? (vv. 11:11-32)

3.1. The parable of the olive tree (vv. 11:13-24)

3.2. This parable means the people of Israel have a future (vv. 11:25-32)

4. One God and father of all

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

1. Babylon is Satan’s kingdom, symbolized as a charming seductress.

2. Jerusalem is God’s kingdom, fighting with Babylon over the same ground.

3. The world as the battlespace for the two kingdoms at war

Share this:

Share this:

Of the Scriptures

Notes

Share this:

Share this: