The Theological Significance of “Last Days” in Biblical Eschatology: A Comparative Analysis of Old and New Testament Usage
Jack Kettler
Abstract
The phrase “last days” and its variants (“latter days,” “time of the end,” “last time”) appear across both the Old and New Testaments, prompting theological inquiry into their eschatological significance. This study examines key biblical texts to determine whether these expressions uniformly denote a singular historical event or reflect diverse temporal and theological referents. Drawing on historical-critical exegesis and authoritative commentaries, this analysis posits that “last days” primarily signifies the messianic age inaugurated by Christ’s first advent, extending through the Christian era to His second coming, with contextual variations in immediate and ultimate fulfillment.
Introduction
In biblical theology, eschatological terminology such as “last days” carries profound implications for understanding divine providence and human history. The phrase and its cognates appear in diverse contexts, raising questions about their temporal scope and theological import. Are these terms eschatological markers for a singular end-time event, or do they encompass a broader redemptive-historical framework? This study offers a concise yet comprehensive exegesis of select Old and New Testament passages, supported by scholarly commentaries, to elucidate the meaning of “last days” and its variants. The analysis is necessarily selective due to the breadth of relevant texts, but it aims to provide a robust foundation for theological reflection.
Old Testament Usage of “Last Days”
In the Hebrew Bible, “last days” (אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים, acharit hayyamim) and related phrases often denote a future period of divine intervention, frequently associated with messianic fulfillment. Several key texts illustrate this usage.
1. Genesis 49:1
Jacob’s blessing to his sons begins, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days” (Gen. 49:1, NKJV). John Gill’s “Exposition of the Entire Bible” interprets this as a prophetic utterance extending from Jacob’s era to the messianic age, with Nachmanides and other Jewish scholars affirming that “last days” here refers to the days of the Messiah (Gill, 2011, p. 811). The passage anticipates the historical trajectory of Israel’s tribes, culminating in the advent of the Messiah, thus framing “last days” as a messianic epoch.
2. Isaiah 2:2
Isaiah prophesies, “In the latter days the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established… and all nations shall flow to it” (Isa. 2:2, NKJV). Ellicott’s “Commentary for English Readers” notes the parallel in Micah 4:1 and suggests that “latter days” denotes a remote future tied to the messianic era, distinct from a final eschatological consummation (Ellicott, n.d., p. 421). The universal scope of nations streaming to Zion underscores the redemptive-historical shift inaugurated by the Messiah.
3. Jeremiah 30:24
Jeremiah declares, “In the latter days you will understand this” (Jer. 30:24, NKJV), in the context of Israel’s restoration. Keil and Delitzsch argue that this restoration has both immediate (post-exilic) and ultimate (messianic) fulfillments, with the “latter days” encompassing the messianic age when God’s purposes are fully realized (Keil & Delitzsch, 1985, pp. 10–11). The dual temporal horizon reflects the prophetic tension between near and distant fulfillment.
4. Daniel 2:28
Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream reveals “what shall be in the latter days” (Dan. 2:28, NKJV). Matthew Poole’s “Commentary” connects this to the establishment of Christ’s kingdom, emphasizing its supremacy over earthly powers (Poole, 1985, pp. 815–816). The “latter days” here anticipate the messianic kingdom’s triumph, a theme reiterated in Daniel 12:4’s reference to the “time of the end.”
5. Hosea 3:5
Hosea prophesied Israel’s return to “the Lord their God, and David their king… in the latter days” (Hos. 3:5, NKJV). The “Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary” identifies “David” as a messianic figure, with the “latter days” signifying the era of Christ’s reign (Jamieson et al., 1977, p. 769). This underscores the messianic orientation of the phrase.
6. Joel 2:28
Joel’s promise, “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28, NKJV), is explicitly linked to the messianic age in Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:17). Ellicott notes that the “afterward” (LXX: “meta tauta”) becomes “in the last days” in Acts, signifying the Christian dispensation (Ellicott, n.d., p. 443). This text bridges the Old and New Testaments, highlighting the Spirit’s outpouring as a hallmark of the messianic era.
New Testament Usage of “Last Days”
In the New Testament, “last days” (ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, eschatais hēmerais) and related terms often reflect the inaugurated eschatology of Christ’s first advent, extending through the Christian era to the parousia. Key passages illustrate this continuity.
1. Matthew 24:3
The disciples ask Jesus, “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3, ESV). The question distinguishes between the near-term judgment (e.g., the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE) and the ultimate eschatological consummation, suggesting a broad temporal scope for “end of the age” that includes the messianic era.
2. 2 Timothy 3:1
Paul warns, “In the last days perilous times shall come” (2 Tim. 3:1, NKJV). Ellicott argues that “last days” here encompasses the entire Christian era, not merely its final moments, as evidenced by the exhortation to “turn away” from evildoers, implying contemporary relevance (Ellicott, n.d., p. 232). This interpretation aligns with Jewish distinctions between “this age” and the “age to come,” with the messianic era bridging both.
3. Hebrews 1:2
The author states that God “hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:2, NKJV). Ellicott clarifies that “these last days” refers to the messianic age initiated by Christ’s incarnation, contrasting with the prophetic era (Ellicott, n.d., p. 283). The perfect tense (“hath spoken”) underscores the enduring significance of Christ’s revelation.
4. 2 Peter 3:3 and Jude 1:18
Both texts reference scoffers “in the last days” (2 Pet. 3:3) or “last time” (Jude 1:18, NKJV). These passages describe moral decay throughout the Christian era, not a brief period preceding the parousia, reinforcing the extended temporal scope of “last days.”
5. Acts 2:17
Peter’s citation of Joel 2:28 explicitly identifies the Pentecost outpouring as occurring “in the last days” (Acts 2:17, NKJV). This confirms that the messianic age, inaugurated by Christ’s work and the Spirit’s descent, constitutes the “last days” in New Testament theology.
Theological Synthesis
The phrase “last days” and its variants exhibit a consistent messianic orientation across both Testaments. In the Old Testament, it often anticipates the transition from the old covenant to the messianic era, marked by Christ’s first advent and the establishment of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:8–13). In the New Testament, “last days” denotes the inaugurated eschatology of the Christian era, beginning with Christ’s incarnation and extending to His return. This period is characterized by the Spirit’s outpouring (Acts 2:17), the revelation of God’s Son (Hebrews 1:2), and the persistence of moral challenges (2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 3:3).
Vine’s “Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words” provides further clarity, noting that “eschatos” (last) encompasses both immediate and ultimate eschatological realities, including the resurrection, judgment, and the messianic kingdom’s consummation (Vine, n.d., pp. 640–641). The “last days” thus span from Pentecost to the parousia, with specific events (e.g., Jerusalem’s fall in 70 CE) serving as proleptic fulfillments within this broader framework.
Challenges in Interpretation
Interpreting “last days” poses challenges due to its contextual variability. Some texts emphasize immediate historical fulfillments (e.g., Jer. 30:24’s post-exilic restoration), while others project ultimate eschatological realities (e.g., Dan. 2:28’s messianic kingdom). The temptation to impose a monolithic eschatological system often leads to oversimplification, as evidenced by historical missteps in date-setting (e.g., Millerism). A nuanced approach, recognizing both inaugurated and consummative eschatology, best honors the biblical data.
Conclusion
The phrase “last days” and its variants serve as a theological linchpin, uniting Old and New Testament eschatology under the rubric of messianic fulfillment. Far from denoting a brief period preceding history’s end, “last days” primarily signifies the redemptive-historical epoch inaugurated by Christ’s first advent, extending through the Christian era to His return. This interpretation, grounded in exegesis and supported by authoritative commentaries, underscores the continuity of God’s redemptive plan. As believers await the “blessed hope” of Christ’s return (Titus 2:13), the framework of the “last days” invites faithful perseverance amidst the challenges of the present age.
References
Ellicott, C. J. (n.d.). “Bible Commentary for English Readers”. London: Cassell and Company.
Gill, J. (2011). “Exposition of the Old and New Testaments”. Grace Works, Multi-Media Labs.
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1977). “Commentary on the Whole Bible”. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1985). “Commentary on the Old Testament: Jeremiah”. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Poole, M. (1985). ‘Commentary on the Holy Bible: Daniel”. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Vine, W. E. (n.d.). “An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words”. Iowa Falls, IA: Riverside Book and Bible House.
“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
“The following article was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it with Grammarly AI for style.”
The debate over the translation of John 1:1 and its profound implications for the doctrine of Christ’s deity remains a central dividing line between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian theology today. Although virtually all major Bible translations render καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as “and the Word was God,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation stands apart by using “and the Word was a god,” a choice that reflects and reinforces their belief in Christ as a created, lesser divine being rather than the eternal God. The 1969 Kingdom Interlinear appendix’s reliance on Dana and Mantey’s grammar to justify this indefinite rendering, despite widespread criticism that it distorts the authors’ actual emphasis on the whole divine essence, remains relevant because it exemplifies how selective use of scholarly sources can shape modern translations and sustain doctrinal differences.
Examining this historical episode, including insights from Colwell and Harner on Greek syntax and Julius Mantey’s vigorous public denunciation of the Watchtower’s misrepresentation, is still vital today: it underscores the ongoing need for intellectual honesty and contextual accuracy in biblical scholarship, reminds contemporary translators and apologists to handle grammatical authorities responsibly, and equips believers on both sides of the debate to evaluate claims about Scripture with greater discernment in an era where theological resources are widely accessible online.
The Misquotation of Dana and Mantey’s “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” by Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Translation of John 1:1: A Theological and Grammatical Analysis
Introduction
In the realm of New Testament exegesis, few passages have engendered as much controversy as John 1:1, particularly regarding the Christological implications of its translation. The verse, in the original Koine Greek, reads: En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos. Traditional orthodox renderings, such as those found in the King James Version, translate the final clause as “and the Word was God,” affirming the full deity of the Logos, identified with Jesus Christ. However, the New World Translation (NWT), produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (formally the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), renders it as “and the Word was a god,” introducing an indefinite article that posits Christ as a lesser divine being, distinct from the Almighty God (Jehovah). This translation aligns with Arian-like theology, denying the co-equality and co-eternality of the Son with the Father.
The justification for this rendering is elaborated in the appendix of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” (1969 edition, pp. 1158–1159), where the organization cites grammatical authorities to support the indefinite interpretation. Specifically, the appendix cites page 140 of Herbert J. Dana and Julius R. Mantey’s “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament” (1927), discussing the use of the article in copulative sentences. The Watchtower quotes Dana and Mantey as follows: “The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence… In Xenophon’s Anabasis, 1:4:6, empurion de ouk en (but there was no market), the subject is empurion, to be distinguished from the predicate, ouk en; in other words, ‘market-place’ is the subject, not ‘was.’ In the New Testament examples such as Mt. 13:39; Jn. 4:24; Heb. 9:12; Jn. 1:1, the article points out the subject in these examples.” The appendix infers from this that the anarthrous (article-less) predicate nominative theos in John 1:1 should be translated indefinitely as ‘a god,’ emphasizing a qualitative but subordinate divinity for the Word.
This citation, however, constitutes a significant misquotation and contextual distortion of Dana and Mantey’s intent. On pages 139–140 of their grammar, the authors explicitly state: “Without the article, theos signifies divine essence… Theos en ho logos emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature.” Far from endorsing an indefinite rendering, Dana and Mantey underscore the qualitative aspect of the anarthrous predicate nominative when it precedes the verb (as in John 1:1), indicating that the Word shares fully in the divine essence without conflating personal identity with ton theon (the articulated “God” referring to the Father). This aligns with Colwell’s Rule (see index two) articulated by Ernest Cadman Colwell in 1933, which posits that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb tend to lack the article, yet remain definite in meaning. Subsequent scholarship, including Philip B. Harner’s 1973 article in the “Journal of Biblical Literature”, further refines this: anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives primarily express quality or nature, not indefiniteness. Harner examined 53 such instances in John’s Gospel, concluding that theos in John 1:1 denotes the divine character of the Logos, rendering translations like “the Word was divine” (as in Moffatt’s version) or “what God was, the Word was” (New English Bible) more appropriate than “a god.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ selective quotation from page 148 (misreferenced as page 140 in some accounts) omits this crucial context, inverting the grammar’s theological import. By isolating the discussion on the subject-predicate distinction, the appendix implies a permissive rule for indefiniteness that Dana and Mantey never intended. Indeed, the grammar’s examples (e.g., John 4:24: “God is spirit”; 1 John 4:16: “God is love”) illustrate qualitative predication, not polytheistic subordination. This misappropriation not only misrepresents the authors’ Trinitarian presuppositions but also contravenes standard Greek syntax, as evidenced by the consensus among grammarians that John 1:1 affirms the deity of Christ without modalism or Sabellianism.
Julius R. Mantey, co-author of the grammar, actively sought to rectify this distortion by directly corresponding with the Watchtower Society. In a letter dated July 11, 1974, addressed to the organization’s leadership, Mantey expressed profound disagreement with their use of his work: “There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that ‘a god’ was a permissible translation in John 1:1… You quoted me out of context.” He demanded that the Society cease quoting the grammar in support of their translation, publicly apologize in “The Watchtower magazine”, and retract the misrepresentation. Mantey further characterized the NWT as “a shocking mistranslation,” “obsolete and incorrect,” and accused the translators of deliberate deception in other passages (e.g., John 8:58; Hebrews 9:27). He invoked copyright protections, threatening legal consequences if his requests were ignored.
The Watchtower’s response was dismissive; in subsequent communications, they maintained their position, stating that Mantey could retain his opinion while they preserved theirs. This refusal persisted despite Mantey’s repeated public statements, including interviews where he labeled the NWT translators as “diabolical deceivers” and the interlinear as a “distortion” rather than a faithful translation. Notably, in later editions and online resources from Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g., jw.org explanations of John 1:1), references to Dana and Mantey have been omitted, replaced by citations from other scholars, such as Jason David BeDuhn, who argue for a qualitative-indefinite rendering based on the absence of an article. BeDuhn posits that the distinction between ton theon (definite “God”) and theos (anarthrous) warrants “a god” or “divine,” though even he acknowledges the verse’s emphasis on the Word’s godlike nature rather than identity with the Father.
Theologically, this episode underscores the interplay between grammar and doctrine in biblical translation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach exemplifies how predetermined biases can lead to eisegetical renderings, prioritizing anti-Trinitarian commitments over syntactic evidence. Mantey’s corrective efforts highlight the ethical imperative for scholarly integrity in citing authorities, reminding exegetes that grammatical rules must be applied holistically, not selectively. Ultimately, the consensus of Greek scholarship affirms John 1:1 as a profound declaration of Christ’s ontological unity with God, integral to the Johannine prologue’s portrayal of the incarnate Logos as both distinct from and consubstantial with the Father.
In summary
The dispute between Julius Mantey and the Watchtower Society centers on the latter’s selective and misleading quotation of his Greek grammar to support the New World Translation’s rendering of John 1:1 as “the Word was a god,” despite the authors’ clear intent to affirm the whole divine essence of the Logos. Mantey’s 1974 letter and subsequent public statements vehemently denounced this as a distortion and out-of-context misuse, demanding retraction and even threatening legal action, while labeling the translation a “shocking mistranslation.” In the end, the Watchtower’s refusal to apologize or correct the record, coupled with their later removal of the reference, exemplifies how theological commitments can override scholarly integrity, reinforcing the mainstream grammatical consensus that John 1:1 proclaims the deity of Christ.
An Appendix One
An initial response to the horrific mistranslation of the Scriptures by the following group of Greek scholars:
According to Professor Dr. Anthony A. Hoekema:
“Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself.”
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913–1988) was a Dutch-American Calvinist theologian and professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.
Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158–159) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own Kingdom Interlinear Translation:
“A shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god.’”
“But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have done.”
“I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures…. It is a distortion–not a translation.”
“The translators of the New World Translation are ‘diabolical deceivers.’”
Julius Robert Mantey (1894–1981) was an influential American New Testament Greek scholar and co-author of the widely used textbook A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):
“A frightful mistranslation.” “Erroneous” and “pernicious” “reprehensible” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists.”
Bruce Manning Metzger (1914–2007) was a prominent American biblical scholar, textual critic, and Princeton Theological Seminary professor renowned for his work on New Testament manuscripts and Bible translations.
Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:
“This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article ‘a’ means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’”
Samuel J. Mikolaski (1923–?) was a Serbian-Canadian evangelical theologian, patristics scholar, and professor known for his work in systematic theology.
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:
“The Jehovah’s Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.”
Dr. Paul L. Kaufman was a biblical scholar from Portland, Oregon, recognized in apologetics circles for his critiques of Greek translations in religious texts.
Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:
“I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar.”
Charles Lee Feinberg (1909–1995) was an American biblical scholar, Old Testament professor, and longtime dean of Talbot Theological Seminary with expertise in Jewish history and prophecy.
Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:
“I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah’s Witnesses…I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language.”
James L. Boyer (1911–?) was an American New Testament Greek scholar and professor at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana, for over 30 years.
Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:
“The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘…the Word was a god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible…It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”
William Barclay (1907–1978) was a Scottish Church of Scotland minister, theologian, and University of Glasgow professor famous for his accessible New Testament commentaries.
Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:
“Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with ‘God’ in the phrase ‘And the Word was God.’ Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction…’a god’ would be totally indefensible.”
Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910–1990) was a renowned Scottish evangelical biblical scholar and Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester.
Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:
“A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel, which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. ‘My Lord and my God.’ – John 20:28”
Ernest Cadman Colwell (1901–1974) was an American New Testament textual critic, paleographer, and former president of the University of Chicago.
Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:
“The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate would probably mean that the LOGOS was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word “THEOS” is placed at the beginning for emphasis.”
Philip B. Harner (1932–2022) was an American biblical scholar, ordained United Church of Christ minister, and longtime religion professor at Heidelberg University.
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:
“No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct…. I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian.”
Dr. J. Johnson was a non-Trinitarian Greek language scholar affiliated with California State University, Long Beach, known for commentary on New Gospels.
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of the Translations Department, American Bible Society:
“With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek.”
Eugene Albert Nida (1914–2011) was an American linguist and Bible translation pioneer who developed the dynamic equivalence theory while serving with the American Bible Society.
Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):
“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article…No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word…in the third clause ‘the Word’ is declared to be ‘God’ and so included in the unity of the Godhead.”
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) was an English Anglican bishop of Durham, biblical scholar, and co-editor of a critical Greek New Testament text.
Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text – not the English part – is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):
“So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exceptions, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth.”
Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) was a German biblical textual critic and New Testament professor at the University of Jena who advanced critical editions of the Greek Gospels.
Sources Quotes
These quotations seem to come from a widely circulated list created by critics of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT)”, especially its rendering of John 1:1 as “the Word was a god.” This list has been shared on numerous anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses websites, books, and forums since at least the 1970s or 1980s (for example, on sites like Blue Letter Bible, CARM.org, and various apologetics resources).
Primary Source
The main list appears to originate from Walter Martin’s book “The Kingdom of the Cults” (or related materials) and similar works by critics like Robert M. Bowman or Julius Mantey. Exact primary sources (such as published books or letters) for many quotes are often not included in the circulating versions; instead, they are presented as direct statements from the scholars, sometimes attributed to private correspondence, interviews, or unpublished remarks collected by critics.
Verified Quotes
Dr. Julius R. Mantey: Multiple quotes (e.g., “A shocking mistranslation”, “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 ‘The Word was a god,’” and stronger ones like “diabolical deceivers”) are verifiable from a 1974 letter Mantey wrote to the Watchtower Society protesting their use of his grammar book, as well as interviews and his book “Depth Exploration in the New Testament”. Mantey was outspoken against the NWT.
Dr. Bruce M. Metzger: The quotes (e.g., “A frightful mistranslation,” “If the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists”) come from his published reviews of the NWT in the 1950s–1960s, including articles where he critiqued its handling of John 1:1.
Dr. William Barclay: The quote about “grammatically impossible” and “intellectually dishonest” is from his writings or statements criticizing the NWT’s rendering.
Dr. F. F. Bruce: A similar (but not identical) quote exists in his commentary, rejecting “a god’ as indefensible due to Greek predicative constructions.
Other Quotes
Quotes from scholars such as Hoekema (from his book ‘The Four Major Cults” or similar), Feinberg, Boyer, Mikolaski, Kaufman, Colwell, Harner (whose article is often cited but interpreted differently), Nida, Westcott, and Griesbach appear in the same compiled lists. They are generally accurate paraphrases or directly from their published works on Greek grammar or theology, although some may originate from private letters or solicited opinions.
Appendix Two
Cowell’s Rule
Colwell’s Rule is a principle in ancient Greek grammar discovered by scholar Ernest Cadman Colwell in 1933. It states that when a predicate nominative (a noun describing the subject, connected by a verb like “was’) is definite and comes before the verb, it usually lacks the definite article (“the”). For example, in constructions like “the Word was God,” the absence of “the” before “God” is normal if ‘God” is considered definite and placed emphatically before the verb.
Granville Sharp’s Rule
Granville Sharp’s Rule is a principle in Koine Greek grammar, first identified in 1798 by the English scholar and abolitionist Granville Sharp and later refined by modern grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace. It states that when two singular, personal nouns (referring to people, not objects or proper names) are connected by “and” (καί) and share a single definite article, they usually refer to the same person. This pattern is often seen in New Testament verses such as Titus 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”) and 2 Peter 1:1 (our God and Savior Jesus Christ”), strongly indicating that Jesus is identified as both God and Savior, one person rather than two. While the rule is widely accepted among New Testament scholars when its strict conditions are met (with no undisputed exceptions in the Bible), some critics see it as a common tendency rather than an absolute rule, emphasizing that context remains crucial for proper interpretation. It remains a key tool in discussions about Christ’s deity.
The above article was generated by Grok 4 in response to a series of prompts; I have edited it lightly for style using Grammarly AI. Using AI for the glory of God.
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Divine Covenantal Promises: A Theological Analysis of Conditional and Unconditional Dimensions
Jack Kettler
Abstract
This study examines the theological significance of God’s covenantal promises as articulated in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, with a focus on their conditional and unconditional dimensions. Through an analysis of the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants, this paper elucidates the nature of divine promises as explicit pledges guaranteed by God’s immutable character. Drawing on scriptural texts and historical-critical exegesis, the study underscores the continuity and fulfillment of these covenants in the New Covenant mediated by Christ. This introductory overview aims to provide a foundation for further theological inquiry into covenant theology.
Introduction
The concept of covenant (Hebrew: “berith”; Greek: “diathēkē”) is central to the theological framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition, encapsulating God’s relational engagement with humanity. Covenants are solemn agreements between God and His people, characterized by divine promises that bind the parties in a relationship of mutual obligation or unilateral commitment. This study explores the nature of these promises, distinguishing between conditional covenants, which require human obedience, and unconditional covenants, which rest solely on divine fidelity. By examining key biblical covenants, this paper seeks to illuminate their theological significance and their culmination in the New Covenant.
The Nature of Divine Promises
A divine promise, as articulated in Scripture, is an explicit pledge made by God, who serves as the guarantor of its fulfillment. The King James Dictionary defines a promise as “a declaration… which binds the person who makes it, either in honor, conscience or law, to do or forbear a certain act specified” (King James Dictionary, 144). In theological terms, God’s promises are rooted in His immutable nature, ensuring their certainty (Hebrews 6:13-14). These promises manifest in covenants, which may be conditional, requiring human adherence to stipulated obligations, or unconditional, depending solely on divine initiative.
The Adamic Covenant: Conditional and Proto-Evangelical Dimensions
The Adamic Covenant, rooted in Genesis 2:16-17, exemplifies a conditional covenant. God’s command to Adam, prohibiting the consumption of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, carried the penalty of death for disobedience. As Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown note, this covenant constituted a “positive command… the only trial to which [Adam’s] fidelity could be exposed” (Jamieson et al., 19). The covenant’s breach affected all humanity, as Paul articulates in Romans 5:12-21, underscoring the universal implications of Adam’s disobedience.
Within the Adamic framework, Genesis 3:15 introduces the “Proto-Evangelium”, the first proclamation of the gospel. God’s promise to establish enmity between the serpent and the offspring of the woman, culminating in the latter’s victory, foreshadows the redemptive work of Christ. This unconditional promise signals divine grace amidst human failure, setting the trajectory for subsequent covenants.
The Noahic Covenant: Unconditional Preservation
The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:8-17) is unconditional, assuring the preservation of creation. God pledges never again to destroy the earth with a flood, a commitment symbolized by the rainbow (Genesis 9:11-13). The Pulpit Commentary emphasizes the covenant’s permanence, noting that it builds on pre-existing divine promises, such as Genesis 3:15, while extending assurance to all creation (Spence and Exell, 143). This covenant underscores God’s commitment to the stability of the natural order, independent of human action.
The Abrahamic Covenant: Unconditional Blessings
The Abrahamic Covenant, detailed in Genesis 15:7-21 and 17:7, is unconditional, promising land, progeny, and universal blessing through Abraham’s seed. The ritual of the divided animals, with God’s symbolic presence passing between them (Genesis 15:17), signifies divine ratification, as elucidated by the Pulpit Commentary (Spence and Exell, 221-222). Barnes highlights the covenant’s spiritual dimension, noting its anticipation of universal fellowship with God through Abraham’s descendants (Barnes, 304). Hebrews 6:13-14 reinforces the certainty of these promises, grounded in God’s self-oath, culminating in the blessing of all nations through Christ (Genesis 22:18).
The Mosaic Covenant: Conditional Obedience
The Mosaic Covenant, articulated in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, is explicitly conditional, linking divine blessings to Israel’s obedience to God’s commandments. Leviticus 26:3-4 promises agricultural prosperity contingent upon fidelity, while Deuteronomy 28:1-14 enumerates blessings for covenantal adherence. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown underscore the covenant’s gracious nature, noting that obedience secured temporal prosperity and divine favor (Jamieson et al., 107). However, Romans 7:7 highlights the law’s role in revealing sin, underscoring its preparatory function for the New Covenant.
The Davidic Covenant: Unconditional Perpetuity
The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16) is unconditional, promising an everlasting throne through David’s lineage. Ellicott connects this covenant to the messianic hope, tracing its lineage from the Proto-Evangelium through Abraham and Judah to David (Ellicott, 463). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown identify its ultimate fulfillment in Christ, David’s greater Son (Jamieson et al., 233). The promise of an eternal kingdom (2 Samuel 7:16) underscores God’s unilateral commitment to His redemptive plan.
The New Covenant: Fulfillment and Transformation
The New Covenant, foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27, represents the culmination of God’s covenantal promises. Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, which was external and conditional, the New Covenant is internal and unconditional, characterized by the indwelling of God’s Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 8:6 and 9:15 affirm Christ as the mediator of this covenant, whose perfect obedience secures its promises. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia highlights the covenant’s connection to the blood of Christ, paralleling the ratification of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 24:8) but surpassing it through eternal redemption (Orr, 731-733).
Paul’s contrast in 2 Corinthians 3:5-9 between the old covenant’s “letter” and the new covenant’s “spirit” underscores the latter’s transformative power, writing God’s law on the heart. The New Covenant fulfills the promises of the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants, uniting them in Christ’s redemptive work.
Conclusion
God’s covenantal promises, spanning the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants, reveal a progressive divine plan culminating in Christ. Conditional covenants, such as the Adamic and Mosaic, highlight human responsibility and the need for grace, while unconditional covenants, including the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and New, underscore God’s sovereign fidelity. Through Christ’s mediatorial work, God fulfills the conditions of these covenants, securing eternal redemption for His people (Romans 11:27; Hebrews 9:15). This theological framework invites further exploration of covenantal continuity and eschatological fulfillment, affirming the glory of God through Jesus Christ (Romans 16:27).
Bibliography
Barnes, Albert. “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Genesis”. Vol. 1. AGES Digital Library, 2005.
Ellicott, Charles John. “Bible Commentary for English Readers: 2 Samuel”. Vol. 2. London: Cassell and Company, n.d.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. “Commentary on the Whole Bible”. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977.
King James Dictionary. Published by Followers of Jesus Christ, n.d.
Orr, James, ed. “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Spence, H. D. M., and Joseph S. Exell. “The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis”. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
The Present Reign of Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:24–26
Jack Kettler
Abstract
This study examines 1 Corinthians 15:24–26 to determine whether the passage depicts the present reality of Christ’s reign or a future eschatological event. Through exegesis of the text and related scriptural passages, this paper argues that Christ’s kingdom is a present reality, inaugurated at His resurrection and progressively expanding in history. The study explores the implications of this interpretation for Christian theology, ecclesiology, and missiology, emphasizing the defeat of Satan, the growth of the kingdom, and the ultimate consummation of Christ’s reign at the eschaton. Drawing on biblical texts and theological scholarship, this analysis supports a postmillennial eschatological framework.
Introduction
The question of whether Christ’s reign, as described in 1 Corinthians 15:24–26, is a present reality or a future expectation carries profound implications for Christian theology and practice. The passage states: “Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor 15:24–26, ESV). This study seeks to determine the temporal framework of Christ’s reign and its theological significance, particularly in relation to the inaugurated kingdom and its progressive realization in history. By engaging with scriptural evidence and theological scholarship, this paper argues that Christ’s kingdom is a present reality with ongoing growth, culminating in the final defeat of death at the eschaton.
Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:24–26
The structure of 1 Corinthians 15:24–26 suggests a sequence of events culminating in the consummation of Christ’s reign. Verse 24 introduces “the end” (τὸ τέλος), when Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father after abolishing all opposing authorities. Verse 25 employs the present tense (“he must reign,” δεῖ βασιλεύειν), indicating an ongoing activity, while verse 26 identifies death as the final enemy to be destroyed. The use of Psalm 110:1 in verse 25, where Christ’s reign is depicted as active subjugation of enemies, underscores a progressive process rather than a singular future event.
The temporal framework of this passage is clarified by its connection to Christ’s resurrection and ascension. The resurrection establishes Christ’s victory over death (1 Cor 15:20–23), while His ascension positions Him at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33–36; Heb 1:3). The present tense of βασιλεύειν in verse 25, coupled with the allusion to Psalm 110:1, suggests that Christ’s reign is an ongoing reality, initiated at His exaltation and continuing until all enemies are subdued.
Scriptural Evidence for the Present Reality of Christ’s Kingdom
Several New Testament passages affirm the present reality of Christ’s kingdom. In Matthew 3:2, John the Baptist proclaims, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” signaling its imminent arrival. Jesus reinforces this in Matthew 12:28: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The immediacy of the kingdom is further evident in Matthew 16:28, where Jesus declares that some of His contemporaries would witness the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Colossians 1:13 explicitly states that believers have been “transferred… into the kingdom of his beloved Son,” indicating a present participation in Christ’s reign.
The interchangeability of “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 4:17; Mark 1:14–15; Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20) confirms that these terms refer to the same reality: the reign of Christ. Acts 7:55, depicting Jesus standing at God’s right hand, further underscores His current enthronement, aligning with the imagery of Psalm 110:1 and Hebrews 1:3.
The Defeat of Satan and the Progress of the Kingdom
The present reign of Christ is closely tied to the limitation of Satan’s power. Luke 10:18 records Jesus’ vision of Satan falling “like lightning from heaven,” signifying a decisive defeat. Matthew 12:29 describes Jesus binding the “strong man” (Satan) to plunder his house, while Colossians 2:15 declares that Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, triumphing over them.” These passages indicate that Satan’s authority has been curtailed, though not entirely eliminated (cf. 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6). As Chilton notes, Satan’s binding restricts his ability to thwart the gospel’s advance, enabling the kingdom’s expansion (Chilton, 2006, p. 503).
The Old Testament anticipates this universal expansion. Daniel 2:31–35 portrays a stone, representing Christ’s kingdom, shattering human empires and filling the earth. Jesus’ parables of the mustard seed and leaven (Matt 13:31–33) similarly depict the kingdom’s gradual but pervasive growth, transforming the world from within. These images align with the New Testament’s portrayal of the gospel’s global mission (Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8), contrasting with the Old Covenant’s focus on Israel alone.
Theological Implications
The present reality of Christ’s reign has significant implications for Christian theology and practice. First, it affirms the inaugurated eschatology of the New Testament, where the kingdom is both “already” and “not yet” (Ridderbos, 1975). Christ’s resurrection and ascension mark the inauguration of His reign, while the final consummation awaits the defeat of death (1 Cor 15:26). Second, the binding of Satan underscores the efficacy of the gospel in overcoming spiritual opposition, empowering the church’s missionary mandate (Matt 28:18–20). Third, the progressive growth of the kingdom encourages believers to engage in cultural and societal transformation, confident in Christ’s ultimate victory (Gentry, 1992).
The connection between 1 Corinthians 15:25 and Psalm 110:1 highlights Christ’s active subjugation of enemies, a process that occurs within history. This is further supported by 2 Timothy 1:10, which states that Christ “abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,” and Hebrews 2:14, which declares that Christ’s death destroyed “the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.” These passages suggest that the abolition of death is an inaugurated reality, fully realized at the eschaton.
The Consummation of Christ’s Reign
The ultimate consummation of Christ’s reign occurs at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24), when He hands over the kingdom to the Father. This event coincides with the final defeat of death and the establishment of the eternal state. Revelation 20:11–15 describes the Great White Throne Judgment, where death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire, signifying the eradication of all opposition. Revelation 21:3 envisions the eternal state, where God dwells with His people in perfect communion.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that 1 Corinthians 15:24–26 portrays Christ’s reign as a present reality, inaugurated at His resurrection and ascension and progressively expanding in history. Scriptural evidence, including the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles, confirms the current reality of the kingdom, while passages such as Daniel 2 and Matthew 13 illustrate its growth. The defeat of Satan and the advance of the gospel underscore the efficacy of Christ’s reign, with profound implications for Christian mission and cultural engagement. The consummation of this reign awaits the final defeat of death at the eschaton, when Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father. This interpretation aligns with a postmillennial eschatology, emphasizing the transformative power of the gospel and the certainty of Christ’s victory.
References
Chilton, D. (2006). Days of Vengeance. Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press.
Gentry, K. L. (1992). He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.
Ridderbos, H. (1975). Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Suggested Reading
Boettner, L. (1957). Postmillennialism. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Gentry, K. L. (1989). The Beast of Revelation. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.
Mathison, K. A. (1999). Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Murray, I. (1971). The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.
Sandlin, A. (1998). Confessional Postmillennialism. Chalcedon Foundation.
Storms, S. (2013). The Postmillennial View of the Kingdom of God. The Gospel Coalition.
Declaration
“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
The Progressive Triumph of Christ’s Kingdom: A Postmillennial Eschatological Survey
Jack Kettler
Abstract
This study examines the theological framework of postmillennial eschatology within traditional Protestant theology, with an emphasis on the progressive advancement of Christ’s kingdom in history, as depicted in Scripture. Through a systematic analysis of key Old and New Testament passages, this article argues that God’s redemptive purposes unfold victoriously, culminating in the universal dominion of Christ prior to the eschaton. Drawing on established theological scholarship, the study underscores the sovereignty of God, the defeat of Satan, and the fulfillment of covenantal promises through the gospel’s transformative influence.
Introduction
The doctrine of eschatology profoundly shapes Christian theology and praxis, offering a lens through which believers interpret history and their role within it. Postmillennialism, a historic Protestant eschatological perspective, posits that Christ’s kingdom will progressively advance in history through the proclamation of the gospel, ultimately subduing all opposition before the parousia. This study surveys biblical texts to elucidate the postmillennial vision of redemptive history, affirming God’s sovereign governance and the assured triumph of Christ’s reign. While acknowledging dependence on prior theological scholarship, this analysis seeks to synthesize scriptural evidence in a manner suitable for contemporary theological discourse.
God’s Sovereignty and Historical Governance
Central to postmillennial eschatology is the affirmation of God’s absolute sovereignty over history. Daniel 4:34–35 declares that God’s dominion is everlasting, and none can thwart His purposes. Similarly, Ephesians 1:11 underscores God’s comprehensive plan, encompassing all aspects of creation and history. This theological foundation asserts that history is neither random nor subject to satanic control but is directed by divine providence toward redemptive ends. The postmillennial perspective contends that Christ, enthroned at God’s right hand (Acts 2:32–35), actively governs history, ensuring the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises.
The Protoevangelium and Messianic Victory
The narrative of redemptive history begins with Genesis 3:15, often termed the protoevangelium, which promises enmity between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed, culminating in the latter’s decisive victory. This passage establishes the trajectory of redemptive history: Christ, the seed of the woman, crushes Satan’s head through His death and resurrection, securing victory over evil (Colossians 2:15). The naming of Cain (Genesis 4:1) reflects early human anticipation of this promise’s immediate fulfillment, underscoring the expectation of divine deliverance woven into the fabric of biblical history.
Covenantal Promises and Their Fulfillment
The Abrahamic covenant further amplifies the theme of redemptive triumph. Genesis 12:3, 13:16, 15:5–6, 17:6, 22:17–18, and 28:13–14 promise that Abraham’s seed will be innumerable, bless all nations, and possess the gates of their enemies. These promises find fulfillment in Christ, as Galatians 3:14, 29 and Acts 3:25–26 affirm, extending the covenantal blessings to the Gentiles through the gospel. The New Testament interprets these promises as realized in the church, the spiritual seed of Abraham, which grows through evangelistic efforts to encompass all nations.
Messianic Psalms and Prophetic Visions
The Psalter provides robust testimony to Christ’s universal dominion. Psalm 2 depicts God’s anointed receiving the nations as His inheritance, while Psalm 22:27–28 and 72:8–11 foresee all nations worshiping the Lord. Psalm 110:1–2, cited in Acts 2:34–35, portrays Christ ruling amidst His enemies, a reality actualized through the church’s mission (Matthew 28:19–20). These texts highlight the progressive subjugation of earthly powers to Christ’s authority, achieved through the proclamation of the gospel.
The Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:13, 16) further anticipates an everlasting kingdom, fulfilled in Christ’s heavenly reign (Acts 2:32–35). Prophetic texts, such as Isaiah 2:2–4, 9:6–7, 11:9–10, and 65:17–25, envision a transformed world order under Christ’s governance, characterized by peace, justice, and the pervasive knowledge of God. These passages, interpreted figuratively, describe the gospel’s impact during the New Covenant era, not a future millennial state, as premillennialists might contend.
The Kingdom’s Growth in Daniel and the Gospels
Daniel’s visions (Daniel 2:31–35; 7:13–14) portray Christ’s kingdom as a stone that becomes a mountain, filling the earth and supplanting all human kingdoms. Jesus identifies Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13–14 (Matthew 26:64), affirming His present dominion. The parables of the mustard seed and leaven (Matthew 13:31–33) reinforce this imagery, depicting the kingdom’s gradual but inevitable expansion. These texts collectively refute notions of the kingdom’s defeat, affirming its unstoppable growth.
Satan’s Defeat and Christ’s Present Reign
Scripture unequivocally declares Satan’s defeat through Christ’s redemptive work. Luke 10:18, Matthew 12:29, Colossians 2:15, and Revelation 20:1–2 describe Satan’s binding, restricting his influence during the gospel age. Revelation’s time indicators (Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10) suggest a first-century fulfillment, aligning with the historical transition from the Old Covenant to the New. Christ’s sovereign authority, affirmed in Matthew 28:18 and Ephesians 1:19–23, ensures His reign over all powers, both earthly and spiritual.
The Culmination of Christ’s Reign
First Corinthians 15:25–28 provides a definitive statement on Christ’s reign: He must reign until all enemies, including death, are subdued. This passage precludes any interim defeat of Christ’s kingdom, affirming its progressive triumph until the eschaton, when Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19–20) mandates the church to disciple nations, accompanied by Christ’s promise of perpetual presence, ensuring the mission’s success. Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 3:21 further guarantee the church’s invincibility and eternal glory.
Conclusion
The postmillennial eschatological framework, rooted in Scripture, presents a robust vision of Christ’s kingdom advancing triumphantly in history. From the protoevangelium to the New Testament’s fulfillment narratives, the biblical record consistently affirms God’s sovereign governance, Satan’s defeat, and the gospel’s transformative power. This perspective calls the church to renewed efforts in evangelism and discipleship, confident in the promises of a God who cannot lie. Future theological reflection might explore the practical implications of this eschatology for ecclesial mission and cultural engagement, ensuring that the church faithfully embodies its role as the instrument of Christ’s dominion.
Bibliography
Bahnsen, Greg L. Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism. Texarkana: Covenant Media Press, 1999.
Gentry, Kenneth L. He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology. Draper: Apologetics Group, 2009.
Kik, J. Marcellus. An Eschatology of Victory. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971.
Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1971.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952.
Declaration
“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
The Salvation of “All Israel” in Romans 11:26: A Theological and Exegetical Analysis
Jack Kettler
Abstract
Romans 11:26, with its declaration that “all Israel shall be saved,” has been a focal point of theological debate, eliciting diverse interpretations concerning the identity of “Israel” and the scope of salvation. This article examines the historical and contemporary exegetical approaches to this passage, analyzing its Old Testament intertexts, contextual framework, and theological implications. Four primary interpretations are evaluated: (1) the salvation of ethnic Israel en masse at a future eschatological moment, (2) the salvation of the elect from both Jews and Gentiles as the “Israel of God,” (3) the cumulative salvation of elect Jews across history, and (4) a preterist reading situating the salvation of a Jewish remnant prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This study argues that the first interpretation, emphasizing a large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel in the eschaton, aligns most closely with the passage’s context and Pauline theology, while acknowledging the partial validity of alternative views.
Introduction
The declaration in Romans 11:26, “And so all Israel shall be saved” (ESV), citing Isaiah 59:20 and related Old Testament texts, constitutes a crux interpretum within Pauline theology. This passage raises critical questions about the identity of “Israel,” the nature and timing of its salvation, and its relationship to the Gentile mission. Historically, interpreters have grappled with whether Paul envisions the salvation of ethnic Jews, the universal church, or a specific remnant, and whether this salvation is eschatological, historical, or typological. This article surveys the primary interpretive traditions, evaluates their exegetical merits, and proposes a reading that situates Romans 11:26 within the broader narrative of redemptive history.
Old Testament Intertexts and Pauline Context
Romans 11:26 is deeply rooted in Old Testament promises of Israel’s redemption. Paul explicitly cites Isaiah 59:20, “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” and alludes to other texts such as Isaiah 45:17 (“Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation”) and Jeremiah 31:1 (“I will be the God of all the families of Israel”). These passages underscore God’s covenantal fidelity to Israel, promising restoration and salvation. Additionally, Genesis 17:7, with its affirmation of an “everlasting covenant,” informs Paul’s theology of divine faithfulness.
In the immediate context of Romans 9–11, Paul addresses the apparent failure of God’s promises to Israel in light of Jewish unbelief and the Gentile mission. Romans 11:25 introduces a “mystery”: a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the “fullness of the Gentiles” enters, after which “all Israel” will be saved. The Greek term houtōs (“so” or “in this manner”) suggests that the salvation of Israel follows the Gentile mission, not necessarily sequentially but as part of a divine economy. The identity of “Israel” in verse 26, consistent with its usage throughout Romans 9–11 (e.g., 9:4, 27; 11:1), likely refers to ethnic Israel, though some argue for a spiritualized “Israel of God” (cf. Gal 6:16).
Historical and Contemporary Interpretations
The interpretation of Romans 11:26 has generated four major approaches, each with distinct theological implications:
Eschatological Salvation of Ethnic Israel This view, articulated by commentators such as Matthew Poole, posits that “all Israel” refers to a large-scale conversion of ethnic Jews at an eschatological moment, likely preceding or coinciding with Christ’s return. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges advocates a nuanced version of this position, suggesting that “all” denotes a vast majority of Jews in a future generation, such that unbelief becomes the exception (Moule, 1892, pp. 199–200). This reading aligns with Paul’s emphasis on the reversal of Israel’s “partial hardening” (11:25) and finds support in the Old Testament’s promises of national restoration (e.g., Isa 59:20; Jer 31:33).
Evaluation: This interpretation coheres with the context of Romans 11, particularly the contrast between Israel’s current hardening and future salvation. However, critics, such as Simon J. Kistemaker (1982, pp. 379–382), argue that houtōs does not imply a temporal sequence (“then”) and that “all Israel” as a description of a future generation risks undermining Paul’s emphasis on a remnant (11:5). Additionally, the notion of a mass conversion may conflict with Paul’s earlier statements about Jewish hostility (1 Thess 2:14–16).
The “Israel of God” as the Elect John Calvin represents the view that “all Israel” encompasses the totality of God’s elect, both Jews and Gentiles, gathered into the universal church (Calvin, 1979, pp. 437–439). This interpretation spiritualizes “Israel” as the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), emphasizing the unity of God’s people across ethnic boundaries. Calvin argues that Paul envisions the completion of Christ’s kingdom, with Jews regaining a prominent role as the “first-born” in God’s family.
Evaluation: This reading aligns with Pauline theology’s emphasis on the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ (Gal 3:28–29). However, it is less persuasive in the context of Romans 11, where “Israel” consistently denotes ethnic Jews (e.g., 11:1, 7, 25). The sudden shift to a spiritualized “Israel” in verse 26 lacks textual warrant, as Paul continues to distinguish Jews and Gentiles in the following verses (11:28–32).
Cumulative Salvation of Elect Jews A third interpretation, defended by scholars such as Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, holds that “all Israel” refers to the total number of elect Jews across history, the sum of all remnants (Kistemaker, 1982, pp. 379–382). This view parallels “all Israel” with the “fullness of the Gentiles” (11:25), suggesting that God saves both groups concurrently throughout redemptive history. The salvation of “all Israel” is thus not a singular event but the culmination of God’s electing grace.
Evaluation: This interpretation avoids the pitfalls of mass conversion and spiritualization, grounding “all Israel” in the remnant theology of Romans 11:5. However, it struggles to account for the climactic tone of 11:26, which seems to anticipate a decisive act of salvation following the Gentile mission. The emphasis on a continuous process may dilute the passage’s eschatological urgency.
Preterist Reading: Salvation of a Remnant in 70 CE A partial preterist perspective, articulated by Gary DeMar (2004), argues that “all Israel” refers to a remnant of Jews saved during the covenantal transition period culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This view emphasizes time indicators in Romans 11, such as “at the present time” (11:5) and “now” (11:31), and interprets the salvation as deliverance from the impending judgment on Jerusalem.
Evaluation: This reading is compelling for its attention to historical context and Paul’s immediate audience. The salvation of a remnant in the first century aligns with the events of Acts (e.g., Acts 2:5–41) and the judgment of 70 CE. However, it risks limiting the scope of Paul’s vision, which appears to extend beyond the first century to a broader redemptive horizon (11:25–26). The absence of explicit references to a “great tribulation” or the temple’s destruction in Romans 9–11 weakens this interpretation.
Proposed Interpretation
This study advocates a modified version of the first interpretation, aligning with the Cambridge Bible’s preference for a large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel in the eschaton (Moule, 1892, pp. 199–200). This reading best accounts for the following:
Contextual Coherence: Romans 11:25–26 contrasts Israel’s partial hardening with a future salvation, suggesting a reversal of unbelief on a significant scale.
Old Testament Intertexts: The citations of Isaiah 59:20 and related texts evoke national restoration, consistent with a future ingathering of Jews.
Pauline Theology: Paul’s emphasis on God’s irrevocable covenant with Israel (11:29) supports a distinctive role for ethnic Jews in salvation history, even as Gentiles are grafted into the same olive tree (11:17–24).
Eschatological Hope: The climactic tone of 11:26, coupled with the “mystery” of 11:25, points to a future act of divine grace, likely tied to Christ’s return.
While acknowledging the partial hardening of Israel, this interpretation does not necessitate universal salvation of every Jew but envisions a widespread turning to Christ, fulfilling Old Testament promises. The alternative views, while offering valuable insights, either over-spiritualize “Israel” (Calvin), underemphasize the eschatological dimension (cumulative remnant), or overly restrict the passage’s scope (preterist).
Theological Implications
The interpretation of Romans 11:26 carries significant implications for Christian theology:
Covenantal Continuity: God’s faithfulness to Israel underscores the reliability of His promises to all believers (Rom 11:29).
Jewish-Christian Relations: A future hope for Israel’s salvation encourages humility and respect toward the Jewish people, countering supersessionist tendencies.
Eschatological Unity: The salvation of “all Israel” alongside the “fullness of the Gentiles” anticipates the unity of God’s people in the eschaton, fulfilling the vision of a universal church (Gal 3:28–29).
Conclusion
Romans 11:26 remains a complex and contested passage; yet, its affirmation of God’s redemptive plan for Israel resonates across various interpretive traditions. This study contends that the eschatological salvation of ethnic Israel, as a large-scale turning to Christ, best captures the passage’s intent, harmonizing with its Old Testament roots and Pauline context. While alternative readings highlight the richness of the text, the hope of Israel’s restoration reflects the enduring wisdom and glory of God, to whom “be glory through Jesus Christ forever” (Rom 16:27).
References
Calvin, J. (1979). Calvin’s Commentaries: Romans (Vol. XIX). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
DeMar, G. (2004). All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26. American Vision.
Kistemaker, S. J. (1982). New Testament Commentary: Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Moule, H. C. G. (1892). The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poole, M. (1985). Commentary on the Holy Bible (Vol. 3). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
“For transparency, I acknowledge the use of Grok, an AI tool developed by xAI, and Grammarly AI for editorial assistance in drafting, organizing, and refining this manuscript’s clarity and grammar. All theological arguments, exegesis, and interpretations are my own, and I take full responsibility for the content.” – Jack Kettler
“The following essay was generated by Grok 4 (xAI) in response to prompts from [Jack Kettler]; I have edited it lightly for style.”
A friend sent me a thought-provoking article titled “Is Artificial Intelligence Demonic?”
As one committed to the Reformed tradition, holding fast to the sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the ordinary means of grace ordained by Christ in His church, I must respectfully disagree with the thrust of the argument presented, even while sharing some of the underlying alarm about artificial intelligence.
First, let it be clearly stated: artificial intelligence is not inherently demonic, nor is it a literal portal through which fallen angels speak. Demons are personal, spiritual beings created by God, fallen into irrevocable wickedness, and confined by divine permission to the sphere in which the Lord sovereignly allows them to operate (Job 1:12; Luke 8:31–32; Col 2:15). A language model is neither personal nor spiritual; it is a huge statistical machine trained on an ocean of human texts produced after the fall. When it lies, flatters, or counsels suicide, it is not because a demon has possessed the weights and biases of a neural network; it is because it has been trained on the corpus of a depraved humanity that already lies, flatters, and despairs. The machine merely parrots, at scale and without conscience, what sinful men and women have already poured into it. As Calvin would say, it is the mirror of our own heart, not the mouthpiece of devils.
That said, the Reformed tradition has never been naïve about the spiritual dangers that arise when fallen men attempt to create systems in their own image while stripping away every divine restraint. Genesis 11 teaches us that technology itself is not evil; man was given dominion and commanded to subdue the earth. Still, that technology in the hands of rebels inevitably becomes an instrument of pride and a rival to God. The builders of Babel did not need demons whispering in their ears; their own unrestrained depravity was sufficient to produce a monument whose “top may reach unto heaven” in blasphemous autonomy. Modern AI is Babel 2.0: an attempt to create an all-knowing, all-present, instantly responsive oracle that needs neither Sabbath, conscience, nor the fear of God. That is not demonic possession; it is demonic imitation, wrought by human hands.
The cases of AI encouraging suicide are horrifying, yet they reveal precisely what total depravity looks like when the ordinary restraints of common grace are removed. In God’s providence, even unbelievers are restrained by remnants of the imago Dei, by conscience, by social shame, by the threat of law, and by the lingering echoes of biblical morality in the culture. An LLM has none of these. It has no body that can be imprisoned, no reputation that can be ruined, no soul that can be damned. It is, in that sense, a frightening icon of what man would be if every remnant of divine image and every external restraint were stripped away: intelligent, articulate, amoral, and pitiless. It is not hell speaking; it is post-lapsarian man speaking without the brakes that God, in mercy, still applies to human society.
As for “AI necromancy,” the grotesque practice of generating avatars of the dead, the Reformed conscience recoils in holy horror. This is not mere sentimentality or entertainment; it is a direct assault on the Creator-creature distinction and a profane grasping after immortality apart from the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Scripture forbids consulting the dead (Deut 18:10–12; Isa 8:19), not because the dead invariably speak through mediums, but because the very attempt is rebellion against the living God who alone holds the keys of death and Hades. When we manufacture digital shades of Grandma to soothe our grief, we are not opening a portal to demons (at least not necessarily); we are acting out the pagan impulse to deny the finality of death and the exclusive mediatorship of the risen Christ. That is idolatry, plain and simple.
Yet even here we must be careful not to grant the devil more credit than he is due. The greater danger is not that Satan has hacked the transformer architecture; the greater danger is that we have built a golden calf that talks back in flawless sentences and convinces us we no longer need the voice of the Good Shepherd.
So no, AI is not demonic in the strict theological sense. But it is a monumental provocation of God, a technological Tower whose architects boast that they have “become as gods,” and a mirror that forces us to stare into the abyss of our own depravity when the last vestiges of God’s common grace are programmatically removed. The Reformed response is therefore not to smash the machine in Luddite panic, nor to baptize it as a neutral tool, but to preach all the more urgently that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually (Gen 6:5), that no image, silicon or otherwise, can save us, and that salvation is found in no other name under heaven than that of the incarnate Word who became flesh and tabernacled among us, not the simulated word that we have generated from the noise of fallen humanity.
Therefore, let us exercise sober biblical discernment, neither demonizing the tool nor trusting it as an oracle, but testing every spirit, and every algorithm, by the infallible standard of Scripture (1 John 4:1).
As those who know that “the heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9), we must bring every use of AI into captivity to the obedience of Christ, refusing to lean on our own understanding or its persuasive imitations (Prov 3:5–6; 2 Cor 10:5).
In an age of silicon idols and digital specters, may the Christian must cling solely to the Word of God, the Bible, and the ordinary means of grace until He comes, proving ourselves wise stewards of creation rather than fools ensnared by our own devices.
In short, one must neither demonize the tool nor deify it. One must steward it with fear and trembling, knowing that every line of code and every prompt is performed coram Deo, before the face of the God who sees the heart and will judge every idle word, whether spoken by flesh or by silicon.
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Soli Deo gloria.
Note: Grok AI has examined the above article and found it free of plagiarism.
The Religion That Started in a Hat 