ETHNIC SOLIDARITY, BABEL-PENTECOST
RELATIONSHIP,
By
Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Missions
Published in Global Missiology, Featured Article, April 2006, www.globalmissiology.org
The
New Testament clearly presents a picture of the Spirit endowed body moving out
into the surrounding world, presenting the gospel of Christ. King Jesus is the Servant of Yahweh who
suffered, but is now exalted to the right hand of the Majesty on high (see
e.g., Mt 28:18-20; Lk 24:25-27,45-49; Acts 2:22-39,
Yahweh
stated that he would make a ¡§covenant of peace . . . an everlasting covenant¡¨
with a re-united
This
phrase: ¡§they will know that I am Yahweh¡¨ (Ez 6:7,10,13,14; 7:4,9,etc.) is ¡§a
technical formula,¡¨ normally used about
To
know Yahweh is not merely passive, but involves witnessing Yahweh¡¦s actions and
then submitting to him as Lord.
This includes
The
surrounding ethno-nations in Ezekiel have seen and will see Yahweh¡¦s greatness
in the judgment upon
Therefore,
as a result of the work of the New Covenant work in Messiah¡¦s Exodus and
Conquest (death, resurrection, and ascension), the nations, along with
Paul
links the Abrahamic blessing for all the ethnies of earth (Gal 3:8-9) with
union with the Anointed Davidic King, Jesus [evn
Cristw/| VIhsou/], who is of the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16,26-29; Rom
1:3; Ps 2). Furthermore, he couples
the blessing of Abraham with receiving the Holy Spirit, and hence he joins the
Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant of the promised Spirit (Gal 3:5,14; Ez
36:27; Is 59:21; Jl 2:28; see Bruce 1982; Fung 1988; Pyne 1995).[1] Next, Paul links the receiving of the
Spirit with anyone believing the ¡§gospel,¡¨ that is ¡§my gospel [that I preach]¡¨
(Gal 3:8b; Rom
Observe
also how Paul links this New Covenant, a covenant that promises the Spirit both
to
The
gospel in Galatians 3-4 includes the decree of ¡§justification¡¨ from the curse
and obligation of the law (of creation or legal covenant of works expressed
later in the Mosaic commandments: Gal 3:8a,15-21, 4:1-5; see Fung 1988; contra Braswell 1991). This justification is equivalent to
Jeremiah¡¦s classic statement on the New Covenant: ¡§I will forgive their
iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more¡¨ (Jer 31:34).[3] Jesus took upon himself both the
obligation to obey the broken law and its wrath for the benefit of all the
human ethnies including first the Israelites.[4] The gospel thus includes freedom from
condemnation of the law both presently and in the final Day of Judgment for all
from the peoples who believe (Rom 2:5-16;
T.
L. Donaldson explains how this occurs:
Furthermore,
the gospel contains the ability to walk in the ¡§righteous requirement of the
law¡¨ (Rom 8:4).[5] At the same time, the gospel removes the
obligation to keep the restrictive ceremonies, dietary commands, and other
ethno-religious barriers of the Mosaic law (see Rom 14-15, 1 Cor 8-10; Gal 3-5;
Eph 2:11-22; Col 2:11-14,16-23; Heb 5, 7, 8:1-10:23). The Spirit provides a real circumcision,
that of the inner being [peritomh. kardi,aj],
which makes any person, even one from the ethnies, a ¡§[true] Jew who is one
inwardly.¡¨ These, then, become
members of the ¡§sons of Abraham¡¨ (Gal
A
gôy, together with his family and
people, can therefore become a real member of the one household of faith
without becoming a Jew externally (Rom
Paul
thus revises the traditional proselyte model for those who wish to inherit
Abraham¡¦s blessedness (see Acts 10-11, 15). Donaldson again explains: ¡§No longer is
it a case of Gentiles joining an already established Jewish people of God;
rather, Jew and Gentile together and on the same terms need to enter the ¡¥in
Christ¡¦ sphere of existence¡¨ (Donaldson 1986, 106). This change is a revision, not something
completely original, because just as ¡§at the consummation of salvation history pa/j VIsrah.l [Rom
Therefore,
Paul links all the major post-Noahic covenants¡XAbrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and
New Covenant¡Xinto one complex whole.
¡§No features have been deleted except the ceremonies and ordinances of
the ¡¥old¡¦ Mosaic covenant whose phasing out was planned for long ago. The better covenant remained¡¨ (Kaiser
1972, 21).[8] In connecting them, Paul never denied
that each ethnic group to whom the gospel comes must sacrifice their non-moral
cultural uniqueness to become members of the one body of Christ and share in
the benefits of the covenant of grace. There seems to exist, then, both a true
unity and real ethno-cultural diversity in that one sheepfold [mi,a poi,mnh: flock] with one shepherd (Jn
All
of this is a major theme of Pauline literature: (1) Romans (Rom 1:5,16; 2:9-16;[9]
3:9,19,20-22,29-30; 4:11-13,17-18; 5:12,18; 9:24; 10:12; 11:11-15,25-26,30-32;
15:7-12,16,18,19-21; 16:26), (2) Galatians (Gal 3:5-14,23-29), (3) Ephesians
(Eph 2:11-3:16), and (4) Colossians (Col 2:8-23), as well as (5) Hebrews (Heb
7-10).
Immediately
after Joel speaks about the New Covenant¡¦s outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he
speaks about the gôyîm almost
uniformly concerning the judgment and wrath upon them (Jl 3). However, he teaches along with many of
the other prophets, that the future also holds a different story. The reference to ¡§all flesh¡¨ [rf'B'-lK':
Jl 2:28-29] refers to Yahweh¡¦s pouring out the gift of his Holy Spirit
universally upon all humankind at Pentecost.[10]
Joel
suggests a universal application to all the gôyîm
by contextual hints. First, Joel
mentions female and male slaves [tAxp'V.h;-l[;w> ~ydIb'[]h'-l[; MT; evpi. tou.j dou,louj kai. evpi. ta.j dou,laj LXX],
which broadens ¡§all flesh¡¨ to comprise more than just the Israelites. Joel explains this expression by first
giving a list of Jewish groups.
Then by way of surprise the prophet abruptly declared
¡§and also¡¨ or ¡§and even¡¨ (wegam)
menservants and maidservants. . . .
This epexegetical addition . . . forces the interpreter to acknowledge
that Joel had ¡¥all mankind¡¦ in mind. (Kaiser 1983a, 119)
Second,
the phrase ¡§everyone who calls¡¨ (Jl
Third,
comparing the phrase ¡§all flesh¡¨ to its use in other passages makes this
pan-ethnic[11]
conclusion sure (see e.g., Gn
In
the present era of the Spirit of Messiah all peoples and social groups are to
be blessed. The blessing is not
merely to come to individuals, who as extracted proselytes are received into a cultural
¡§
Some
would contend, however, that certain passages would preclude this
interpretation. A possible
precursor to the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit, which some believe may
indicate a reversal of the ethnic division of
First,
however, as background to the crucial statement in Zephaniah 3:9-13, the
prophet makes an astounding prediction (Zep
Though
the translation is disputed, the words ¡§each in their own lands¡¨ (NIV) may
contrast to the usual picture of the ethnies streaming to the
In
the next context, after again pronouncing judgment on ¡§the tyrannical city,¡¨
Jerusalem and all the surrounding ethnies in the judgment brought through
Babylon (Zep 3:1-8), Yahweh announces a second time that he will give a
blessing ¡§to the peoples¡¨ [~yMi[;-la,].
He states, through Zephaniah, that he will change the peoples and give
them ¡§purified lips¡¨ so that all will call on Yahweh¡¦s name and serve him
literally ¡§with one shoulder.¡¨ Then
the ¡§daughter of My dispersed ones¡¨(
The
implication in the context is that the converted peoples of earth, no longer
heathen gôyîm but ¡¥amim, will serve Yahweh ¡§with one shoulder,¡¨ taking upon
themselves the shoulder-yoke of the covenant, streaming alongside believing
Israelite pilgrims to
Now
some, with a desire to destroy apartheid, racism, and ethnicism in the church,
interpret ¡§purified lips¡¨ to mean a reversal of the division
of languages at
Often
in Scripture ¡§lip¡¨ [hp'f'] does mean ¡§language¡¨ as it does indeed in Gn
11:1,6,7,9; Ps 81:5; Is 19:18; Ez 3:5-6.
However, it is clear in Scripture that language itself, as a created
thing, is not impure[15]
but only the sinful motive of the words conveyed by the language-lip. The
phrase means ¡§the lip of a man who is defiled by sin¡¨ (Keil 1996, 458). Here the implication is not that Yahweh
seeks to purify the lingual division of
The impurity . . . consisted in the fact that they
prayed to and swore by other gods than Yahweh. The purification will consist in their
being brought to abandon the worship of any and every god save Yahweh; cf. Ho. 2:12; Ps. 16:4. (Smith, Ward and
Brewer 1911, 248)
It
is at this point that there may be an allusion to the Tower pericope (see Pusey
1950, 283). If the total unifying
human apostasy of idolatry began at the Tower (except for a Shemite remnant),
and continued afterwards by the always idolatrous gôyîm, then Yahweh now prophesies he will reverse that second universal
fall.
This
parallels Joel¡¦s prophecy. ¡§By the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the purification of heart and lip was
accomplished that led to a widespread calling on the name of the Lord (Acts
God¡¦s
Holy Spirit of grace will reach past the branches of
Whatever
the exact allusion is, Zephaniah foresees a unified ¡§Jewish and gentile
community serving with a single shoulder and presenting a single offering¡¨
(Robertson 1990, 330). In common
with many other prophecies we have examined, the day will come when Jewish and
gentile peoples will serve the Lord together in one body. Though I do not agree with his ¡§reversal
of
Zephaniah does not quite express the ¡§fellow heirs,
members of the same body¡¨ like Paul does in Ephesians 3:6 (Is 19:25), but he approximates
the ¡§sharers in the promise¡¨ as he sees the earth praising the name that the
people of God bear: the promise to Abraham that in his seed (the believing
family of Rom. 4:16-25 and Gal. 3:7) all families of the earth would find the
blessing they need (Gen. 22:18). (Motyer 1993, 952)
Therefore,
this passage teaches that the Holy Spirit will convert the ESOLs within their
solidarity and he will bring unity within one body. However, Mennonite author John Howard
Yoder misses the point in ¡§The Social Shape of the Gospel¡¨:
[Believing Jews and Gentiles] . . . together form the
new humankind (Eph.
Yoder
then critiques Church Growth missiology, which seeks to plant self-governing
ethno-churches: ¡§¡¥If one is in Christ,¡¦ there is a whole new world. Ethnic standards have ceased to count¡¨
(Yoder 1983, 283; see also Bosch 1982, 1983; Padilla 1985a,b).
There
is only one logical conclusion to this position. Because unity in Christ is more
important than particularity, all diversity loses ¡§equally ultimate¡¨ existence
in itself. Therefore, logically,
even the individual has lost any permanent particular identity and
self-determination. The androgynous
person then must be encompassed by unity to participate in the social
good.
Hence,
not only unique ethnic diversity, but also even individual ethnic identity,
must be surrendered into the ¡§good¡¨ of the unified new humanity coming. Logically, this and only this will
reverse the social curse of
Many
theologians who deal with ethnic relations within the body of Christ are
convinced that the outpouring of the Spirit upon all kinds and sorts of humans
results in a radical leveling or democratizing of humankind. Pentecost reverses
South
African, Douglas Bax, for example, in the following extensive citation, makes
precisely this point:
The
miracle of Pentecost signifies precisely the reversal of what happened at
Observe
how Bax attempts to overcome the divisiveness of the South African apartheid
theology (HRLS 1976) by claiming that Pentecost and
J.
G. Davies¡¦s, classic article ¡§Pentecost and Glossolalia¡¨ points out the
parallels between the
It was open to him [Luke] to interpret the coming of
the Spirit . . ., as the occasion when the confusion of
Pentecost is only one of the many acts of God begun when he
called Abraham (Gn 12:1-3). In
these acts he is ¡§bringing order into ¡¥confusion¡¦¡¨ (Volf 1996, 227) caused by
sin, not by ethnic diversity.
Indeed, each of the languages and peoples represented were only
representatives of the peoples of the world: ¡§Im Rahmen unseres Berichts gelten
diese Diasporajuden gewissermaßen als Repräsentatnten der Weltvölker, die in ihnen
wenigstens potentiell gegenwärtig sind¡¨ (Schneider 1980, 251).[20]
Pentecost,
Volf believes, is God¡¦s decentralized alternative to the homogenizing imperialistic
unity
When the Spirit comes, all understand each other, not
because one language is restored or a new all-encompassing meta-language is designed,
but because each hears his or her own language spoken. Pentecost overcomes the ¡§confusion¡¨ and
the resulting false ¡§scattering,¡¨ but it does so not by reverting to the unity
of cultural uniformity, but by advancing toward the harmony of cultural
diversity. (Volf 1996, 228)
A
close look at the worldview of the Hebrew bible supports this position. For this section, I depend greatly upon
James M. Scott¡¦s magisterial article, ¡§Luke¡¦s Geographical Horizon¡¨ (Scott
1994). As we saw in chapter three,
the Völkertafel of Genesis 10 placed
It is clear that descendants of each of the three sons
of Noah are represented . . . . In
other words, by alluding to the Table of Nations, the partial list of nations
in v. 19 explicates what is meant by ¡§the nations,¡¨ which, in turn, provides
concrete examples of God¡¦s intention to gather ¡§all nations¡¨ in v. 18. . .
. [Last], the focus on
It
seems that it was exactly this Hebraic worldview that influenced Luke in his
twin volume work.[22]
Luke also implicitly sees
The
same can be seen in the account of the Pentecostal outpouring. The list is similar to that in Hebrew
¡§Table-of-Nations tradition¡¨ (Scott 1994, 528). Scott finds three other similarities. Acts shares an apparent lack of
structuring and shares many of the traditional names of ethno-nations in that
tradition. Third, Luke alludes to
the
Scott
further believes that a mission to the three sons of Noah is reflected in the
outline of the book, based as it is upon the programmatic verse, Acts 1:8. (1) ¡§
In
summary, the miracle on the day of Pentecost, therefore, was a miracle of
¡§tongues,¡¨ that is the apostles spoke in real human languages, found in the
¡§whole world.¡¨[27] ¡§Zugleich zeigt die Bezugnahme auf V4b, daß es sich um einen
Sprachenwunder, nicht um ein Hörwunder handelt (Schneider 1980, 251-252).[28]
The dispersion from
Isaiah
especially laments the fact that
The
miracle was thus not of the ears.
The listeners did not understand one new unifying language. The miracle was of tongues, that is
languages and dialects created first at
Pentecost,
therefore, did not destroy the beauty of ethno-linguistic diversity; it sanctifies it in Christ, the seed of Abraham (Gal
3:5-16). One message of
Pentecost, thus, is that God speaks to each ethnie in their own,
beautiful and unique, God-created language and dialect (Acts 2:4-11; see Dayton
and Fraser 1980, 118-119).[29] Therefore, Christ¡¦s redemption does not
restore a condition in the church like that before
Lastly,
this more nuanced perspective on the Babel-Pentecost relationship teaches that
in the Pentecost account, the Lord sent the Spirit to restore human
confessional unity in Christ. This
unity has been broken because of
Bernhard
Anderson summarizes the contrary perspective to the reversal-of-Babel
view.
Eschatological portrayals of the consummation of God¡¦s
historical purpose do not envision a homogenized humanity but human unity in
diversity. According to the
Isaianic vision (Isa. 2:1-4), when the peoples in the last days stream to Zion,
the City par excellence, they will
come as nations with their respective ethnic identities. And when the Spirit was given at
Pentecost, . . . human beings ¡§from every nation under heaven¡¨ heard the
gospel, each ¡§in his own native language,¡¨ in the city of
Edward
Dayton and David Fraser agree: ¡§A number of verses in Revelation (5:9, 7:9,
10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15) envision the end of time as encompassing rather
than erasing the differences that characterize people groups¡¨ (Dayton and
Fraser 1980, 117). The new
Jerusalem from above, is thus a city ¡§of
perfect diversity within perfect unity¡¨ (Van Rooy 1991, 240; italics in
original). It is therefore
necessary to emphasize both in equal ultimacy (C. A. Van Til). ¡§In
the church of Christ diversity glorifies unity and unity accentuates diversity¡¨
(Van Rooy 1991, 240; italics in original).
We must not therefore chase away others of diverse language, culture, or
color because of fear of their diversity.
The ¡§city of
The
Gospels include two separate version of the commission King Jesus gave to his
disciples after his resurrection (Mt 28:17-20; Lk 24:45-51). The Lukan account is a statement of
summary by the resurrected Lord of what ¡§the Scripture¡¨ teaches concerning his
work. There are many affinities to
the Isaianic books here, which in turn have roots in the Abrahamic
covenant. The holds true for the
Matthean account, which occurred after the Lukan version.
Matthew
emphasizes that King Jesus is the one possessing the Son of Man¡¦s authority
over heaven and earth (Mt 28:17; Da 7:13-14; Michel 1983, 36; LaGrand 1999,
238). Furthermore, this version of
the Great Commission[31]
was not an afterthought in the structure of the Gospel. Instead, it ¡§provides the unifying
climax of the entire Gospel¡¦s teaching on mission that is anticipated in many
ways through Matthew¡¦s narrative¡¨ (Köstenberger and O¡¦Brien 2001, 87; see
Brooks 1981; Carson 1984, 61, 596).[32]
David Bosch summarizes:
One thing contemporary scholars are agreed upon, is
that Matthew 28:18-20 has to be interpreted against the background of Matthew¡¦s
gospel as a whole and unless we keep this in mind we shall fail to understand
it. No exegesis of the ¡§Great
Commission¡¨ divorced from its moorings in this gospel can be valid. (Bosch
1993, 57)
The
questions asked about this passage in its total context, which are relevant to
my thesis, are twofold. First, does
Jesus[33]
mean disciple ¡§all the ethnies of the world¡¨ with the term ¡§pa,nta ta. e;qnh¡¨ or is this phrase used
¡§with no sense of the plurality of the nations; that is, it is used
non-sociologically¡¨ (DeRidder 1975,188).
Second, what or who are the ta. e;qnh?
Most
now correctly reject the concept that the term ta.
e;qnh excludes the Jews (see Bosch 1992).[34] Further, however, many reject the idea
that ta. e;qnh are anthropological or
sociological groups and agree that they are collectively the amalgam of all
non-Jews in a religious sense (e.g., Hoekendijk 1948, 229; DeRidder 1975, 188;
Bosch 1983, 235-240; Hre Kio 1990).
Johannes Hoekendijk gives his
classic expression: ¡§Panta ta ethne is terminus technicus voor de gehele
mensheid, uit wier midden God zich zijn volk vergadert. Niet ethnisch, maar heilshistorisch is
de mensheid verdeeld in Israël en de ¡¥volkeren¡¦ (= heidenen)¡¨ (Hoekendijk 1948,
229).[35]
He concludes on this basis that ¡§volks-kerstening vindt dus geen grond
in de terminologie van het zendingsbevel¡¨ (Hoekendijk 1948, 229).
He
rejects a covenant-family approach and adopts an individualistic approach, more
similar to the Radical than the Genevan Reformation (see Kreitzer 1998). The Great Commission thus must be
brought to individuals alone, not individuals-in-family, clan or ethnic
bonds. ¡§Alle mensen in de gehele oikoumene, die niet in
het volk Gods zijn opgenomen, zijn het adres der zending¡¨ (Hoekendijk 1948,
229). Harry Boer agrees:
It is significant that while we read much . . . about
groups of believers that enter the Church, about families that are baptized as
a unit, about the right of Jews to remain Jews and of gentiles to remain
gentiles, we read nothing about the significance of ethnic characteristics for
the ingathering of the Church. On
the contrary, Paul . . . states specifically that in the Church ethnic
characteristics fall away. There is
in the Church neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian,
Boer,
Hoekendijk, Bosch, Verkuyl, DeRidder and many others are correctly reacting to
Germanic, post-war racism. They
rightly agree that the term people or volk/Volk
in Germanic languages such as Afrikaans and German, and to a lesser extent
Dutch, is a ¡§romantic, race-conscious, and emotionally laden term¡¨ (Boer 1961,
169; see Moodie 1975). They hold,
thus, that volk/Volk has little to do with the church beyond pragmatic
considerations of language and style.
The church should be one institute in which ethnicity plays little
essential part (see critique in Kreitzer 1993, 1997, 1998).
Those
who come from a Reformed background usually further infer that ¡§the New
Testament clearly does not extend the believing social unit beyond the family¡¨
(Boer 1961, 172). ¡§Disciple the
nations¡¨ means then that believers must seeks to disciple only a representative
full number of the gentiles to fulfill Christ¡¦s command. Though this group of scholars complains
of an Idealist-Romantic background for the German Volksideal, there seems to be a Greek-platonic background to their
rejection of the idea of ethnicity in the church (Kreitzer 1998). The created good of ethno-linguistic
particularity is not something natural to be discarded in the spiritual times
of the post-Pentecost era. Hear
again Boer:
When German missionary thought attempts to make the Volk concept an essential part of the
Church concept it does violence to the discontinuity that the eschatological
event of Pentecost has effected between the fellowship of the new people of God
and the natural relationships existing among the peoples of the world. (Boer
1961, 173)
David Bosch and Harry Boer make similar comments concerning
Donald McGavran and Peter Wagner¡¦s Homogeneous Unit concept, agreeing that they
are merely an ¡§anglicized version¡¨ of the Germanic concept (Boer 1961, 179;
Bosch 1983, 238).
Many,
on the other hand, now accept the fact that King Jesus states in the Great
Commission that his ¡§followers are called not merely to disciple individuals,
but entire nations, indeed, all nations¡¨ (Köstenberger and O¡¦Brien 2001, 104;
see Meier 1977; Carson 1984; Hagner 1995; Piper 1992, 1993; Keener 1999). If by nations, they mean distinctly
identifiable ethnies, unique in language, and so forth (see chapter 4), this
perspective is more correct. It
takes into account the whole context of Matthew and biblical theology.
Certainly
Matthew¡¦s version of the mission imperative is not a ¡§drastic innovation,¡¨ as
Craig Keener calls it (Keener 1999, 719).
It is instead the logical extension of the Abrahamic covenant, read
through OT lenses, especially colored by Isaiah and Daniel. Matthew begins his account with King
Jesus as the heir of the seed-blessing found in the Davidic and Abrahamic
covenants, and concludes with the Abrahamic covenant¡¦s renewed commission to
bless the peoples. Read this way, the
whole book comes freshly alive.
Briefly,
Matthew founds his account of Jesus in a genealogy grounding his humanity in
the ethno-covenantal seed-line of Abraham and David, the first godly king (Mt
1:1-17,20). ¡§Jesus the Messiah came
in fulfillment of the Kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile blessings
promises to Abraham¡¨ (Carson 1984, 61; see Mt 3:9, 8:11). He next establishes him to be the
virgin-born King to come from the Davidic line, as Isaiah 7:14-16 states (see
Is 9:1-7). He will save his people
from their sins as Isaiah 53 foretells (Is 53:5,8,10-11; Mt
The
Son¡¦s way was made ready by the voice introducing those Servant Songs,
identified as John the Baptist (Mt 3:1-4).
John was the prophesied Elijah who was to come (Mt 3:4; Mal 4:5-6). His mission was to restore the people to
the Abrahamic covenant (Mt 3:9) and to repentance lest the Mosaic curse flare
up soon (Mt 3:7-10). Jesus, poured
with water [bapti,zw] and anointed [e;crise,n] with the Holy Spirit, received the
Father¡¦s commendation in words alluding to the Servant Songs (Mt
This
Anointed King preached the coming of his Father¡¦s reign, and recapitulated and
overcame the steps of Adam¡¦s Fall (Mt 4:1-13). Victorious over the Serpent, he began to
fulfill Isaiah¡¦s vision of him being the Davidic, royal light, one sharing
Yahweh¡¦s work, character, and name, to Galilee of the ethnies (Mt 4:12-25; Is
9). As the Prophet like unto Moses,
he proclaimed the universally valid law from a mount (Mt 5-7) and then
fulfilled the Servant of Yahweh¡¦s royal-priestly-prophetic task of carrying the
sicknesses and diseases of heart and body away in his work (Mt 8-9; 8:17; Is
53:4).
King
Jesus then sent out his twelve apostles.
They were participating in the Servant¡¦s task to restore first the
tribes of Jacob and then, by implication, the gentile ethnies to Yahweh¡¦s
kingdom (Is 49:6; see Acts
Christ
thus is the King of First Isaiah (Mt 11:4-5, 10-14), to whose Temple-body all
the peoples shall stream (Is 2:1-4, 11:6; Mt 26:61; Jn
As
the Second Moses, the Prophet, he prophesied that he was setting up his lh;q.
and the gates of Satan¡¦s peoples would not withstand his people¡¦s assault, just
as the prophets foretold (Gn 22:17; Is 11:10-16). The two greatest prophets, Moses and
Elijah, honored him, and he called himself the Son of Man of Daniel, who will
sit upon his heavenly throne, judging Jerusalem (Mt 19:28, 24:30, 26:64). He fulfilled the Servant¡¦s death as a
ransom for ¡§many,¡¨ that is all his people (Mt 20:28; Is 53), and he allowed
himself to be proclaimed to be the Davidic King upon arrival in Jerusalem,
riding on Zechariah¡¦s prophesied donkey (Mt 21; Zec 9:9). He prophesied the destruction of his
Vineyard-City, the temporary setting aside of
After
his trial and death as the rejected King of Israel (Is 53; Ps 22; Dn
Within
this extensive background context that Matthew skillfully interweaves from Old
Testament material, we must interpret the words maqhteu,sate
pa,nta ta. e;qnh, as well as the rest of the phrases. Abraham¡¦s seed would be the source of
blessing: evneuloghqh,sontai evn auvtw/|
pa,nta ta. e;qnh th/j gh/j (Gn
Luke
likewise ends his first epistle to Theophilus in a similar manner with the
Lord¡¦s vision of reaching the ethnies of earth. Sharing a similar outline study would be
redundant. The last passage again
summarizes the thrust of the whole book (Bosch 1991, 91; Köstenberger and
O¡¦Brien 2001, 123). This is focused
by the climax of the
The
two men on the
Again,
the background is the Abrahamic covenant (Lk 1:54,67-73), focused through the
lenses of the Davidic covenant¡¦s ¡§charter for all humanity¡¨ (Kaiser 1974; see
Lk 1:32-33; Is 9:6-7; Dan 7:14) and Isaiah¡¦s Servant Songs (see Weerstra 1992;
Piper 1992, 1993; Showalter 1996; Köstenberger and O¡¦Brien 2001, 125). Luke adds new information not given by
Matthew. The old prophet Simeon
claimed that Jesus was Yahweh¡¦s salvation, prepared in the presence of all
peoples (kata. pro,swpon pa,ntwn tw/n law/n),
as a light for both ta. e;qnh and
In
contrast to the first view, Gustav Warneck (Warneck 1902) and Donald McGavran
(McGavran 1955, 1970, 1979, 1980) and their followers believe that the greatest
part of every Volk (Warneck 1902) or
people-group (e.g., McGavran 1955) should be discipled. Indeed in rejecting Warneck and
McGavran, the first perspective in effect rejects the Commission¡¦s vision to
transform all areas of every ethno-culture¡¦s life under terms of the covenant
in Yahweh¡¦s Anointed King. Both
Testaments in several places state this (e.g., Is 2:1-4; 11:1-10,
Surely
one must strip the excessive pragmatism from McGavran and Wagner¡¦s approach as
it is necessary to strip Romantic-Idealist philosophy from the ¡§de Duitse
Zendingswetenschap¡¨ (Hoekendijk 1948).
However, as we saw in chapter four, Hoekendijk¡¦s classic perspective is
not as exegetically certain as its proponents proclaim. As we shall see in the next chapter, the
Church is not a ¡§triton genos, the
third race next to the existing two races of Jews and Gentiles¡¨ (Bosch 1983,
239; Hoekendijk 1948, 237-238).
Instead,
Christ¡¦s Commission mandates the planting of a multi-ethnic, and at the end of
history a pan-ethnic, diverse-yet-unified body in every corner of earth (Lk
24:47; Acts 1:8). Christ¡¦s people
are to express ever-greater visible unity in that multi-ethnic body[39]
as they work out their collective salvation/sanctification with fear and
trembling (Php 2:12-13; Kreitzer 1997).
This results in true spiritual and
visible unity, along with real, four-self (Hiebert 1985) diversity in one holy,
universal (¡§catholic¡¨) body (Eph
Anderson, Bernhard W. 1977. The
Barrett, C. K.
1994. A critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. The
International Critical Commentary.
Bavinck, Herman.
2000. Herman Bavinck on the
covenant of works: Selections from Gereformeerde
Dogmatiek. In Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A
festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether,
169-185. Translated by Richard B.
Gaffin, Jr.
Bax, Douglas S.
N.d. A different Gospel: A critique of the theology behind apartheid.
Boer, Harry R.
1961. Pentecost and missions.
Bosch, David J.
1982. The church as alternative community. Wetenskaplike bydraes van die PU vir CHO. Reeks F: Instituut vir Reformatoriese
Studie. Reeks F1:
. 1983. The structure of mission: An exposition
of Matthew 28:16-20. In Exploring church growth, ed. Wilbert R.
Shenk, 218-248.
. 1988. Church growth missiology. Missionalia
16, no. 1 (April): 13-24.
. 1992. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission.
Brooks, O. S.
1981. Matthew xxviii 16-20
and the design of the first Gospel.
Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 10:2-18.
Bruce, F. F.
1981. The Epistle to the Galatians: A commentary on the Greek text. The
New International Greek Testament Commentary.
. 1988. The
book of the Acts. Revised
ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Brueggemann, Walter. 1982. Genesis. Interpretation:
A biblical commentary for teaching and preaching, ed. James L. Mays.
Calvin, John.
1996. Commentaries on the twelve
minor prophets. Translated by
John Owen. 5 vols.
Carson, D. A.
1984. Matthew. In The
expositor¡¦s Bible commentary.
Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein.
Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke,
3-599.
Davies, J. G.
1952. Pentecost and
Glossolalia. Journal of Theological Studies 3:228-231.
De Gruchy, John, and Charles Villa-Vicencio, ed. 1983. Apartheid is a heresy. With a foreword by Allan Boesak.
De Ridder, Richard R. 1971. Discipling
the nations.
Donaldson, Terence L. 1986. The ¡§curse of the law¡¨ and the inclusion
of the gentiles: Galatians 3:13-14.
New Testament Studies
32:94-112.
Fishman, David E., Rena Mayerfeld, and Joshua A.
Fishman. 1985. ¡¥Am and Goy as designations for
ethnicity in selected books of the Old Testament. In The
rise and fall of the ethnic revival: Perspectives on language and ethnicity,
ed. Joshua A. Fishman, Michael H. Gertner, Esther G. Lowy and William G. Milán,
15-38.
Fung, Ronald Y. K.
1988. The Epistle to the Galatians.
The New International Commentary
on the New Testament.
General Synod Commission [of the Dutch Reformed
Church]. 1976. Human relations and the South African scene in the light of
Scripture: Official translation of the report Ras, Volk en Nasie en Volkereverhoudinge
in die lig van die Skrif approved and accepted by the General Synod of the
Dutch Reformed Church October 1974 [HRLS].
Goldsworthy
González,
Catherine Gunsalus, and Justo L. González.
1993.
Gowan, Donald E.
1975. When man becomes God: Humanism and Hubris in the Old Testament.
Haenchen, Ernst.
1971. The Acts of the Apostles: A commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble and Gerald
Shinn.
Hagner, D. A.
1995. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B
of Word Biblical Commentary.
Hauerwas 1987
Hodge, Charles.
1995. Systematic theology. 3
vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoekendijk,
Johannes Christiaan. 1948. Kerk
en volk in de Duitse zendingwetenschap.
Hre Kio, Stephen.
1990. Understanding and
translating ¡§nations¡¨ in Mt 28:19. Bible Translator 41:230-238.
Huffmon, Herbert B.
1966. The treaty background
of Hebrew yada. American Schools of Oriental Research
Bulletin 181:31-37.
Irons, Lee. 2000.
Redefining merit: An examination of medieval presuppositions in Covenant
Theology. In Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline,
ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether, 253-269.
Jeremias, Joachim.
1959. Jesus¡¦ promise to the nations.
Johnson, Dennis.
1997. The message of Acts in the history of redemption.
Johnston, O. R.
1977. God and the
Nations. Evangelical Review of Theology 1:83-93.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. 1972. The old promise and the new covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31-34. Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 15, no. 1:11-24.
. 1983a. Toward Old Testament ethics. Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan.
.
1983b. The promise of
God and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: Joel 2:28-32 and Acts 2:16-21. In The
living and active Word of God: Studies in honor of Samuel J. Schultz, ed.
Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood, 109-122.
. 2000.
Karlberg, Mark W.
2000a. Covenant theology in reformed perspective: Collected Essays and book
review in historical, biblical, and systematic theology.
. 2000b. Reformed theology as the theology of the
covenants: The contributions of Meredith G. Kline to Reformed theology. In Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A
Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether,
235-252.
Keener, Craig S.
1999. A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.
Keil, C. F.
1996. The Minor Prophets.
Vol. 10 of Commentary on the Old
Testament, ed. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, trans. James Martin.
Kline, Meredith G.
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Peter T. O¡¦Brien. 2001. Salvation to the ends of the earth: A
biblical theology of mission.
Kuyper, Abraham.
1870. Eenvormigheid, de vloek van het moderne
leven: Lesing, gehouden in het Odéon te
LaGrand, James.
1999. The earliest Christian mission to ¡§all
nations¡¨ in the light of Matthew¡¦s Gospel. With a foreword by Richard
Bauchkham.
Loubser, J. A.
1987. The apartheid Bible: A critical review of
racial theology in
McGavran, Donald A.
1955. The bridges of God: A study in the strategy of missions. N.p.: World Dominion Press.
. 1970. Understanding
church growth.
. 1979. Ethnic
realities and the church: Lessons from
. 1980. Understanding
church growth. 2d fully revised ed.
Meier, John P.
1977. Nations or gentiles in
Matthew 28:19? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39:94-107.
Metzger, Bruce M.
1990. Ancient astrological
geography and Acts 2:9-11. In New Testament Studies: Philological, versional and patristic, 46-56. NTTS 8.
Michel, Otto.
1983. The conclusion of
Matthew¡¦s Gospel: A contribution to the history of the Easter message. In The
interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton, 30-41. Vol. 3 of Issues in Religion and
Theology.
Moodie, T. Dunbar.
1975. The rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, apartheid
and the Afrikaner civil religion.
Oswalt, John N.
1991. The mission of
Padilla, C. René.
1985a. The unity of the
church and the homogeneous unit principle.
In
. 1985b. Mission between the times: Essays on the Kingdom.
Piper, John. 1992.
The supremacy of God among ¡§all the nations.¡¨ International
Journal of Frontier Missions 9, no. 2 (July): 81-95.
.
1993. Let the nations be glad!
The supremecy of God in missions.
Pusey, E. B.
1950. The minor prophets: A commentary. Explanatory and practical.
Pyne, Robert A.
1995. The ¡§seed,¡¨ the
Spirit, and the blessing of Abraham.
Bibliotheca Sacra 152
(April-June): 211-222.
Robertson, O. Palmer. 1980. The Christ of the covenants.
.
1990. The books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah.
Rushdoony, Rousas J. 1963. Messianic
character of American education: Studies in the history of the philosophy of
education.
. 1970. Thy
kingdom come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation.
. 1978. The
nature of the American system.
Scaer, D. P.
1991. The relation of
Matthew 28:16-20 to the rest of the Gospel. Concordia Theological Quarterly 55: 245-266.
Schneider,
Gerhard. 1980. Die
Apostelgeschichte. I. Teil. Einleitun. Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-8,40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament. Band V.
Scott, James M.
1994. Luke¡¦s geographical
horizon. In The book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman setting, ed. David W. J. Gill
and Conrad Gempf, 483-544. Vol. 2
of The book of Acts in its first century
setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter, I. Howard Marshall and David W. J. Gill.
Showalter, Richard.
1996. All the clans, all the
peoples. International Journal of Frontier Missions 13, no. 1:11-13.
Van R00y
Vogels, Walter.
1973. Covenant and
universalism. Guide for a missionary
reading of the Old Testament. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und
Religionswissenschaft 57:25-32.
Volf, Miroslav.
1996. Exclusion and embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness,
and reconciliation.
Warneck,
Gustav. 1902. Evangelische
Missionslehre. Vol. 3/1. 2d ed.
Weerstra, Hans M.
1992.
Yoder, John Howard.
1983. The Social Shape of
the Gospel. In Exploring church growth, ed. Wilbert R. Shenk, 277-284.
[1]¡§The
Abrahamic Covenant did not specify the nature of the blessing to be received by
the nations through Abraham and his ¡¥seed,¡¦ Paul appears to identify that
blessing as the promise of the Spirit (cf. vv. 2,5)¡¨ (Pyne 1995, 218). ¡§In Paul¡¦s thinking the blessing of
justification is almost synonymous . . . with the reception of the Spirit¡¨
(Fung 1988, 152).
[3]Cf.
an explicit justification passage, Rom 4:6-8 (citing Ps 32:1-2, and parallels
in Heb 10:10-18, discussing the New Covenant for Messianic Jews close to
apostasy (Heb 8:6-10:18).
[4]Christ
died exclusively ¡§for his sheep [
[5]¡§And
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you
will be careful to observe My ordinances¡¨ (cf. Rom
[6]The
ceremonies are not necessary but may be kept in solidarity with the ancient
People of God (see below, 1 Cor 9).
[7]Believers
from the ethnies are not under Mosaic Sabbath and festival ceremonies. But a rest day once a week is a creation
ordinance and moral command, for the good of all mankind [to. sa,bbaton dia. to.n a;nqrwpon evge,neto]
(Gn 2:2-3; Mk
[8]This
is traditionally termed the covenant of grace (versus the creational ¡§covenant
of works¡¨: see e.g., Robertson 1980; Kline 1993; Hodge 1995,
Though
I disagree with Walter Kaiser¡¦s premillennialism, I agree that
[9]¡§Tw/n avnqrw,pwn¡¨ [of men, mankind, humanity]
means all peoples both Jew and ¡§Greek¡¨ (Rom
[10]For
the overall meaning of Pentecost, see chapter five, ¡§The Meaning of Pentecost¡¨
in Pentecost and Mission (Boer
1961).
[11]The
¡§all flesh¡¨ includes at least all kinds and sorts of humans outside
[12]¡§Zephaniah¡¦s
distinctive imagery of each person worshiping in his own place anticipates a
central aspect of the worship perspective provided by Jesus¡¨ (Robertson 1990,
308; Jn 4:21-23).
[13]Douglas
Bax, ¡§The Bible and Apartheid 2,¡¨ in Apartheid is a Heresy (De Gruchy and
Villa-Vicencio 1983, 129). See note fifteen below.
Pusey
(1950) and Alec Motyer see a connection as well, but with the motive of seeing
a unified church encompassing all peoples in the future. Motyer titles the passage: ¡§
[14]¡§In
the Old Testament Yahweh promises that when He fulfils the process of salvation
(which He began in Abram), He will reverse the curse of
The
logic is simple and compelling. The
sin of
The
conclusion breaks down when one of the major premises is refuted. The sin of
[15]To
accept that would be to subtly bring in neo-platonic presuppositions. All divisions, including lingual
divisions, are not evil. Only
divisions caused by sin are evil.
Redemption does not thus restore all divisiveness into an undivided
unity.
Sin
as rebellion to the Creator is evil, and redemption destroys the uncleanness of
sin upon words, thoughts, language use, and actions. Where sin causes social upheaval and
disruption (see e.g., Jas 4:1-7), redemption heals social ills, bringing the
peace of justice but not destroying created social distinctions such as
lingual-ethnic, gender, and some aspects of social class (see Kreitzer 1997,
1998).
[16]J.
Jeremias correctly ties the ¡§turning of the lip¡¨ to the confession that the
ethno-nations will make. He writes, citing Ps 86:10 and Is 45:24: ¡§with cleansed
lips they will confess: ¡¥Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, even
vanity and things wherein there is no profit¡¦ (Jer.
[17]E.g.,
compare the following list of commentators:
See
Calvin (1996) on Acts 2.
¡§Pentecost
has to be understood within the framework of salvation history as the
antithesis of
¡§We
believe that at Pentecost God has undone what was done at
¡§Pentecost,
therefore, is a catholic event: it represents
¡§The
event [of Pentecost] was nothing less than a reversal of the curse of
¡§Pentecost
itself is seen through the miracle of tongues to be a reversal of
These
scholars, including Bax, grapple with the thematic connection of the two
pericopes. Each desires to see the
warring factions of humankind healed.
However, their interpretation of the relationship of
[18]Davies
shows many similarities in shared vocabulary between Gn 11 and Acts 2 (sugce,wmen, glw/ssan,
fwnh.n [confuse, language/tongue,
voice]; glw,ssaij, fwnh/j and sunecu,qh,
[tongues/ languages, voice, confused/bewildered]). Davies seems to indicate, however, the
problem of humankind caused by
It
is better to see both the similarities and dissimilarities between the passages
(Volf 1996, 226; Gonzalez and Gonzalez 1993, 22), and to see the message as one
of creating harmony out of sinful rebellion, according to the Abrahamic
mandate, while maintaining ethnic diversity, a created good.
[19]He
immediately adds: ¡§At Pentecost, the time was not yet ripe for the e;qnh, the Gentile peoples, to be seized by
the Spirit: it was to the Jews that the mission first turned¡¨ (Haenchen 1971,
174). This cannot be a totally
correct interpretation. The coming
of all the scattered sheep of Israel from all the nations back to Jerusalem as
the prophets foretell, is only a picture of the coming of ¡§all your brethren
from all the nations as a grain offering to the LORD¡¨ [a;xousin tou.j avdelfou.j u`mw/n evk pa,ntwn tw/n evqnw/n dw/ron
kuri,w|] (Is 66:20). It is
possible that to this offering Paul refers in Romans 15:16 as the ¡§h` prosfora. tw/n evqnw/n.¡¨
[20]Schneider,
however, believes these were not pilgrims but Diaspora Jews now resident in
[21]¡§The
old linguistically based divisions of mankind had now been overcome. ¡¥Unitatem linguarum quam superbia
Babylonis disperserat humilitas ecclesiae recolligit, spiritaliter autem
varietas linguarum dona variarum significant gratiarum¡¦ (Bede)¡¨ (Barrett 1994,
116).
[22]See
Barrett (1994, 122-123) for background in list of Jews in the Diaspora. Scott points out that these often were
outlined by the Völkertafel (Scott 1994).
See Metzger 1980; Bruce 1988, 55; Scott 1994; Barrett 1998, 122 for
refutation of view that the background was an astrological table.
[24]Compare
the LXX and MT, in e.g., Jer 39:16 [yviWKh; %l,m,-db,[,l. MT; Abdemelec to.n Aivqi,opa LXX]; see Jer
[25]For
possible allusions, compare Acts
[26]Consider
further Paul¡¦s references to the Table of Peoples in his Mars Hill address in a
short summarizing of the proto-history: (1) the self-sufficient Creator of all
things (Acts 17:24-25; Gn 1), (2) creation of every nation [pa/n e;qnoj] from one man so that they would
spread out over the whole face of the earth [evpi.
pa/n to. prosw,pon th/j gh/j] (Acts 17:26; Gn 9-11; cf. evpi. pa/san th.n gh/n, Gn 9:19). Note reference to Dt 32:8 in Acts
17:26.
[27]Note
the parallels here: tongues, peoples or ethnies, and named birth languages or
dialects: ¡§[They] began to speak with other tongues [e`te,raij glw,ssaij], as the Spirit was
giving them utterance. Now there
were Jews living in
[28]See Schneider 1980, 252, n. 74 and sources
listed: ¡§Die Annahme eines Hörwunders ist im algemeinen heute aufgegeben.¡¨
Abraham Kuyper sees the same: ¡§Immers op
den grooten Pinksterdag spreekt de Heilige Geest niet in eenvormige sprake,
maar een eigentlig hoorde in zijn eigen taal dien Geest de werken Gods
verkondigen¡¨ (Kuyper 1870, 24).
[29]¡§Pentecost
is a signal that the new people of God will incorporate the vast array of
tribes, clans, castes, languages, and subcultures. The miracle of tongues signals that each
language group is to hear the mighty acts of God in its own tongue. The Church does not reduce the people of
God to one culture or to one people in the same sense that
[30]God
directly created the ancestor of that tongue at
[32]See
discussion and literature cited in Scaer 1991; Bosch 1983, 1992, 56-57; and
LaGrand 1999, 236-237. ¡§Matt.
28:18-20 is the key to the understanding of the whole book¡¨ (Michel 1983, 35;
italics in original). ¡§The
concluding pericope (xxviii 16-20 has
controlled the entire design of the Gospel of Matthew¡¨ (Brooks 1981, 2). ¡§The
closing pericope (28:16-20) is . . . [the] climax toward
which the entire Gospel moves¡¨ (Carson 1984, 36; see 61,596). Matthew begins with the mention of Jesus
as Messianic King, ¡§son of David, the son of Abraham¡¨ (Mt 1:1), and ends with
the command to fulfill Abraham¡¦s blessing by discipling all the ethnies of
earth.
[33]Despite
much doubt about the pericope¡¦s genuineness as actual ipsissima verbal Jesu (see e.g., Bosch 1983; Köstenberger and
O¡¦Brien 2001), James LaGrand makes a very strong stand for the passage¡¦s
authenticity (LaGrand 1999).
[34]Bosch cites Michel, Strecker, Trilling,
Hahn, Zumstein, Frankemölle, Matthew, and Friedrich. This point can be clearly seen in
Lukan material in the citation of Ps 2 in Acts
[35]¡§Pa,nta ta. e;qnh is a technical term for the
whole of humanity, out of whose midst God himself is gathering his people. Humanity is not ethnically but
salvation-historically divided into
[36]Mt