I heard that there were some good messages at the Resolved conference this year, and since for a time they are not charging for those messages, I downloaded and listened to the final sermon, that by John Piper. It was an excellent message, and probably would have been better if I had heard some of those preceding it, and I would commend the series and this message to you.
At the end of the sermon, Piper gave a one-minute survey of God’s purpose in creation that I thought was worthy of further attention. I think it is very good:
When God conceived of a universe of material things, he conceived of everything. It will be created perfectly. It will, by my decree, fall. I will labor patiently for thousands of years with a people recalcitrant, showing the depth of human sin, and I will, at the center and apex of my purpose, send my Son to bear my wrath on my people. And then I will gather a people who believe in him for myself. And then I will return and I will cast all of the unbelievers into hell which will demonstrate the infinite worth of my glory and the infinite value of my Son’s sacrifice which they have rejected. And I will renew the earth and I will make my people so beautiful and then tailor this universe for them with this purpose that when my Son is lifted up with his wounds they will sing the song of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world in the mind of God who planned it all.
There is, however, something missing. (You can read it again if you didn’t see anything missing.) That which he left out is probably not due to a lack of time. I think it is missing because he does not believe it to be true. This something receives great attestation in the Bible and will result in unspeakable praise and glory to God the Father for his magnificent plan and perfect promise-keeping character. It is something so central to God’s plan that nearly half of his revelation would be unnecessary if this were not true. That something is this: God will save Israel.
I want to focus attention on this section of the summary:
I will labor patiently for thousands of years with a people recalcitrant, showing the depth of human sin, and I will, at the center and apex of my purpose, send my Son to bear my wrath on my people. And then I will gather a people who believe in him…
Piper recognizes that God worked with Israel. But he has them ultimately damned, not saved. They never turn to him. The purpose of Israel, apparently, was solely to show the depth of human sin. God tried for thousands of years, even sending his Son. But it didn’t work (Israel didn’t repent) and God moved on. There is no place for a redeemed Israel in this summary. They have been replaced. Note the transition from “my people” to “a people.” He means by that, of course, a different people. This naturally enough raises the question: has God’s word failed? Will God’s promises (to Israel in the OT) be left unfulfilled? Did God reject his people? Paul answers that question: By no means! (Rom 11:1). Paul anticipated this very question (that Piper’s summary provokes) and he answers in an extended treatment in Romans 11: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved….God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.
What is the culmination of this great event of the future salvation of Israel? It is great glory and praise to God, as Paul, even in thinking about it in a distant future, cannot contain himself from uttering one of the most profound doxologies in Scripture: Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! (and it continues).
I am not saying that God does not receive great glory in the way that Piper described it, but I am saying that many of the Reformed persuasion miss one of the most glorious events when they assume that the church eternally assumes Israel’s place in God’s plan. I am saying that when you look at the people of Israel today, whether in Jerusalem or in Dallas, and you see hearts that are apathetic to their Messiah and other hearts that are strongly antagonistic toward their Savior, and when you read what Zechariah (12:10) wrote…
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
…you can only marvel. There are a few things that are predicted in the Bible that are simply unfathomable to me, apart from the miraculous power of God, and this is chief among them. IF GOD CAN DO THIS, if God can turn the hearts of his people to himself, if he can make a New Covenant with them, and give them hearts of flesh, then there will be no words to describe our amazement or the glory of God. But it will happen. As Zechariah (13:1) later said:
On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.
This has never occurred in history, but it will (and if you think it has, be sure to read the verse in context). And God will be praised by the Jews and by the Gentiles.
So if I could alter the paragraph quoted above, I would do so like this (my additions in bold):
When God conceived of a universe of material things, he conceived of everything. It will be created perfectly. It will, by my decree, fall. I will labor patiently for thousands of years with a people recalcitrant, showing the depth of human sin, and I will, at the center and apex of my purpose, send my Son to bear my wrath on my people. And then I will gather a people who believe in him for myself, and Israel will embrace their Messiah. And then I will return and I will cast all of the unbelievers into hell which will demonstrate the infinite worth of my glory and the infinite value of my Son’s sacrifice which they have rejected. And I will renew the earth and I will fulfill all of my promises to my people and make my people so beautiful and then tailor this universe for them with this purpose that when my Son is lifted up with his wounds they will sing the song of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world in the mind of God who planned it all.
Small changes, but important in understanding the great glory that God has designed for himself.
Todd,
I cannot express how glad I am to hear you say this! You are absolutely right about how so many people discount Israel anymore, but this is absolutely unfounded. Israel is one of the centermost facets of God’s plan with our world. Thanks for bringing that out!!!
Wow!
Thanks for your thoughts.
I greatly admire your courage to point out something that is missing in a statement Piper has made.
I sometimes cannot understand why wonderful and godly teachers can miss the fact that Israel has a future in the plan of God.
Other than John MacArthur(my favorite living teacher), I can’t think of many reformed theologians who see it.
Todd, I would add to your final sentence, “Small changes, but essential for an accurate understanding of the great glory God has designed for himself.”
Why people miss this, I do not understand. The only explanation that I can come up with is 2 Cor 4:3–4.
Thanks for a great post!
Also, just to clarify, please don’t assume that I’m implying that John Piper is blinded by Satan. He is one of the most gifted pastors I know, and I am deeply indebted to him for his gospel preaching. However, I believe God’s plan for Israel is an essential part of the entire gospel message. And, yet, it is sadly overlooked by many modern preachers today.
I would have to say that in all fairness, the Biblical teaching on the salvation of Jews apart from any relationship to Jesus Christ is, at best, unclear.
Paul seems to think that Jews will be saved, but only in the respect that he believes that they will come to understand Jesus as Messiah and Savior. Todd, you say as much. One could argue that at that point, a Jew becomes a de facto Christian and is not saved by race alone.
There is also the question of how do you define a Jew. I suspect Paul would never have imagined the existence of a Jewish atheist, but the modern Jewish state of Israel was founded by a great many atheists. Would a Jew who didn ‘t believe in God be saved by his DNA?
I don ‘t think the answer is as easy as some would like it to be. I do not doubt the power of God to change hearts, but at the same time accept that those who come to God will do so only through Jesus Christ. If God has an economy by which these two things are equally accomplished, then I will be most pleased.
Al – I believe that God does have a plan by which he saves the nation of Israel when they place their faith in Jesus. There is no salvation except by Christ, and all who are saved are done so by God’s plan and choice. God has revealed that his plan is to harden the nation of Israel (this reality is evidenced by the great many of non-believers in Israel today) but this is not a final hardening, but will one day be removed, at which point the Jewish people will look upon him whom they have pierced, be convicted of their sin, and embrace Jesus as their Messiah and Savior. I think this part is pretty simple. Where it is potentially more difficult is whether the future salvation of the Jews results in their incorporation into the church or whether they retain a separate status as God’s chosen nation of Israel. I think it is the latter, but that takes more time to develop. The critical point in this post is that God’s plan with Israel did not fail, nor was it merely to show human sin. God will yet save Israel.
>I believe that God does have a plan by which he saves the nation of Israel when they place their faith in Jesus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow…that sounds like… predestination. We might make a Calvinist out of you yet
The Bible teaches predestination and I believe it. The Bible teaches personal responsibility for sin and I believe that. The Bible teaches that all Israel will be saved and I believe that. What is strange is that a good system like Calvinism accepts some parts of the Bible but not others. What is stranger is that very bright and godly people today are still stuck in “the system” and can’t see their way out of the unbiblical parts.
commenting on the origianl post…it is so refreshing to hear it so clearly put and so confusing to me that so many refuse to acknowledge it… while he is the same God with the same character and i can apply the promises based on his character to my life…i am not the same as his chosen people…they will always have a special place in his heart…so important i think! and really makes me all the more thankful that the invitation for salvation was extended to me
Todd,
I was at Resolved and listened to that sermon. And if memory serves me correctly, the sermon had nothing to do with Israel. I don’t personally know Piper’s views on Israel. But I know that at Resolved I didn’t gather that implication from the ever so slight change in pronouns used. In fact, his use of the the word “a people” toward the beginning of the paragraph and then again at the end seems like he isn’t thinking about Israel at all. In this case the term “my wrath on my people” might have more to do with his view of the atonement than Israel.
The sermon wasn’t about Israel, nor the millinial kingdom, but the final recreated heaven and earth.
And p.s. I was invovled with the production of Resolved (I’m an audio guy at GCC and Master’s). Piper was crushed for time, as this was the second session that night, and CJ Mahaney had caused things to go long. So Piper was speeding through pages of notes and in fact I believe skipped entire sections of the sermon, and because of what CJ had teached about was almost re-writing his sermon as he went. So don’t assume that this is Piper’s best statement ever.
Like I said, I don’t know Piper’s views on Israel, I am in total agreement with the position you lay forward. but this probably isn’t the best statement from Piper to use to argue against him. But in fact a very quick search on Desiring God shows I think he is closer to our view than you give him credit for:
“Now how is this going to happen? I don’t know the details, but it seems to me that Paul does mean that in connection with the second coming of Christ there will be a great turning of Israel to Christ. Just how it works, I don’t know.” (from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2004/164_All_Israel_Will_Be_Saved/)
Todd,
Thank you for helping us discern the words of Piper and understand God’s plan for Israel. When you mentioned something was missing, I re-read his summary. I failed to see what was absent, but your evaluation brought it to light. Your careful analysis of Scripture is a blessing.
Bryan – I don’t dispute your points about the content or the pace of the sermon. My intention was not to suggest that the sermon was about this very subject, nor to suggest that Piper had to be brief. In fact, the starting point was that Piper gave a self-limited summary of God’s purpose in history. I believe that this statement was written out word-for-word in Piper’s manuscript. He dropped other parts of the sermon, but this was part of his conclusion and he hit it exactly. Furthermore, it matches his beliefs stated elsewhere precisely. But this is somewhat irrelevant because I’m not concerned about the theology of one person. I used this as an example because 1) I just listened to it and it struck me; 2) Piper is well-respected by many in my circle; 3) this statement is really quite a classic statement of the Reformed view. If Piper said that he agreed with my additions, many others would not, and that is the issue. I don’t think he would agree, however, based on his q&a here (http://tinyurl.com/6orzm5). I wrote a blog post on his answer a few years ago but never got around to posting it. But he is fuzzy on Israel’s future, which I attribute to his honesty with Scripture (that is, he doesn’t try as hard to explain away what is in the text because it doesn’t fit his system). When he preaches on Romans 11:26, as he was in the quote you gave, he acknowledges what it clearly states. But I don’t think he fully appreciates the truth and the way that God has determined that Israel’s salvation will bring him great glory, or he would exult like Paul, and not leave it out altogether. Again, though, the issue is not any individual, but rather how any statement that speaks of God’s glory in history should not omit the future salvation of Israel.
Can someone please cite a verse to support, “It will, by my decree, fall.” There’s a big difference between having a failsafe plan in case it falls, vs. “Thou shalt fall”, which is what it sounds like in the Piper quotation.
(Thanks for everything else in your post, Todd; I support your alterations.)
Thanks for the clarifications Todd, and your passion to see God glorified in His people when they embrace their Messiah. I guess I would still think it was a bad example to use for your point but I do whole-heatedly agree with you on the point you made.
It is always a pleasure to read your blog and be encouraged and challenged by what you are thinking about. I’m really sorry I missed out on IBEX with you there. But maybe is several years you’ll be back and I can take the summer trip as a staff member :) .
Todd,
What am I missing? You say, “But he [Piper] has them ultimately damned, not saved. They never turn to him.”
But here Piper says, “[T]here will be a great and stupendous national conversion of Israel some day.” And then he proceeds to give five reasons why “Israel” in Rom 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel, which fits with what I’ve heard him say.
Matt
Matt – in his summary statement of God’s purpose in creation, he explicitly says that Israel shows the depth of human sin and God chose another people to bring him glory. Citing something else does not change what he said here. If, however, he does believe that all Israel will be saved, I am glad for it. My concern then would be 1) with those who do not believe this and 2) that it is integrated more into the way that Piper expresses the future glory of God. Don’t miss either Piper’s statement that of the systems he is furthest away from dispensationalism (http://tinyurl.com/6orzm5), and the key issue with that is the future salvation of Israel. The question is: would he agree with my additions to his summary? If the answer is yes, then all I’ve simply made explicit what he left unsaid. If the answer is no, then I disagree. But this isn’t for him or about him in any case; it’s for my readers and helping them to thinking biblically about God’s purpose and glory.
Todd,
Thank you for your defense of Scripture! The Church is desperately in need of this very truth. If this teaching of Israel ‘s ultimate salvation is disregarded, God ‘s character is impugned.
The salvation of national Israel is utterly indispensable to any hope that we as the Church would have. IF God is not faithful to completely fulfill His promises in the Abrahamic, Davidic and the yet-future New Covenant with His chosen nation, there is no basis for us to believe that our salvation will one day be complete. God is true to His word and never changes. The sinfulness of man does not alter His plans for creation. Israel has failed and the Church has failed quite as much. God does not fail. Scripture is clear that at the end of the Tribulation God will bring national Israel to salvation when Christ returns to earth. He will institute the New Covenant with them and bring about in them a profound change, such that no people has experienced to date. They (Israel) will ALL know the Lord, the Law will be written on their hearts, they will finally inhabit the Land promised to Abraham, and they will have clean hearts that even the Church does not today experience. She will be that light to the nations that God called her to some 4000 years ago. The salvation of Israel and the return of Christ to reclaim the earth for righteousness is the unbending hope of every Christian (or so God intends).
Blessings, Karan Brunson
G. M. – Piper suggests that he answers your question in a forthcoming book and he talks a little about it in his essay this week here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3144_Thoughts_On_Why_Everything_Exists/
Thanks, Todd. I’m sure this online article only touches on the subject of his forthcoming book, but it seems that he really believes God wanted to create humans to sin so that grace via the crucifixion of Jesus could be exalted; in fact he goes so far to say that “[t]his is the point of the universe.”
I disagree with this interpretation, but admit it’s a very subtle point, & doesn’t matter much in the big scheme of things from our limited perspective. As a designer, it makes perfect sense for God to incorporate a failsafe plan for sin, but it makes no sense for God to create creatures to sin so a Savior could be exalted.
If that’s the correct interpretation of Piper’s point (& I readily admit that either he’s not explaining himself well, or I’m not understanding him), then it’s a dumb, egotistical purpose: “Here, let Me create you & put you in a situation where you’ll suffer so you can see what a great Savior I can be; & if you’re not smart enough to choose my salvation, then go to Hell.”
We would not make a hero out of anyone who throws somebody into a raging river just to prove how great they are at a rescue-operation.
Contrast this with: “Here’s a place full of pleasure where you can choose to not trust Me, & if you don’t, you’ll suffer consequences, yet I still have a plan whereby you can be rescued.” That is a good, loving, reasonable God.
Piper states, “Did God know before creation that his creatures would ‘forsake him.’ Yes, he did.” Again, I disagree emphatically. Adam & Eve & all their descendants had the opportunity to be faithful. Good vs. bad (i.e., “sin”) wasn’t even an issue! They didn’t even know what that was! God didn’t even care if we were good or bad! Piper does not seem to understand this fundamental concept conveyed in Genesis 2-3. All God cared about was whether we would be faithful/trustworthy.
Has anyone ever heard a sermon or read a book about this point (i.e., that God initially didn’t care whether Adam & Eve knew they were doing something bad or good), by Piper or anybody?
“Matt – in his summary statement of God ‘s purpose in creation, he explicitly says that Israel shows the depth of human sin and God chose another people to bring him glory. Citing something else does not change what he said here.”
No, it doesn’t change what he said, but it does explain what he meant by what he said. He clearly does not mean that God set aside Israel forever, just that they are a branch temporarily broken off. True Israel consists of whoever calls upon the name of the Lord, including those part of the coming mass conversion of ethnic Israel (which is why it cannot be said that God’s promises have failed).
A future mass conversion of Israelites is not excluded in Piper’s statement, “And then I will gather a people who believe in him for myself.” That statement simply doesn’t say enough on its own to determine whether he believes there will be a future mass conversion–which is why it’s useful to see how Piper interprets Rom 11.
“If, however, he does believe that all Israel will be saved, I am glad for it.”
Be glad for it. :-)
Though it’s worth clarifying: how would you define “all Israel”? Would you it as all Israelites who have ever lived, or all (or most?) who are alive when the coming mass conversion happens, when they look on him whom they have pierced? Piper holds to the latter.
“My concern then would be 1) with those who do not believe this and 2) that it is integrated more into the way that Piper expresses the future glory of God.”
I agree that God’s promise-keeping to his chosen people would be a good thing to emphasize. I see it implicit in his statement as it stands.
“Don ‘t miss either Piper ‘s statement that of the systems he is furthest away from dispensationalism (http://tinyurl.com/6orzm5), and the key issue with that is the future salvation of Israel.”
I saw that, but what is said there is not specific enough to indicate whether he believes there will be a future conversion of ethnic Israel.
“The question is: would he agree with my additions to his summary? If the answer is yes, then all I ‘ve simply made explicit what he left unsaid. If the answer is no, then I disagree.”
From everything I know, I think he would agree.
“But this isn ‘t for him or about him in any case; it ‘s for my readers and helping them to thinking biblically about God ‘s purpose and glory.”
Amen!
Yet it might help your dispensational readers not to write Piper off if you add an update to this post clarifying that Piper does indeed believe in a future mass conversion of Israelites, does not have them ultimately damned, never turning to him, his purpose for Israel “didn’t work,” etc.
Matt – my assumption here is that many of my readers are Piper fans. My goal is not to get them to write him off, but to carefully evaluate what is said by even the best preachers. One danger with popular Reformed speakers is that they can lead others to accept doctrines and systems that are not biblical (e.g., infant baptism, amillennialism). So while I encourage others to listen to some of these men, I also encourage them to think while they listen.
I’m not sure that I can accept your conclusion about Piper’s position. In a prepared paper about doctrine, Piper says he is furthest away from dispensationalism. The most distinguishing feature of dispensationalism is that it believes in a future salvation of ethnic Israel (dispensations are essentially irrelevant; hermeneutics is what gets you to future salvation of Israel; so the single “litmus test” is Israel’s future). Maybe he has changed his position (and I agree that his Romans 11 sermon seems closer to dispensationalism than not), but I’m not seeing it clearly enough in statements like the one that started all of this.
As for “all Israel,” I believe it means the large majority of living Jewish people at the time. It can’t include those who have died (there are no second chances), nor do I think it means every single last individual, as “all” is used many times in the Bible to indicate a vast majority but not every single person.
Matt (& Todd), you may want to read the entries from Pulpit Magazine. Nathan Busenitz and Matt Waymeyer wrote some excellent articles on this very subject.
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/15/a-little-history-on-israel ‘s-future/
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/13/israel-reborn-part-1/
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/14/israel-reborn-part-2/
And then, Matt Waymeyer has written a journal article and Th.M. thesis on this subject which can be downloaded at the following link.
http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/the-future-of-israel-in-romans-11/
Mike – thanks for these links. Those articles you referenced are very good. The first link didn’t seem to work for me, so for those interested, try this one: http://tinyurl.com/56tszx
Matt – my assumption here is that many of my readers are Piper fans. My goal is not to get them to write him off, but to carefully evaluate what is said by even the best preachers. One danger with popular Reformed speakers is that they can lead others to accept doctrines and systems that are not biblical (e.g., infant baptism, amillennialism). So while I encourage others to listen to some of these men, I also encourage them to think while they listen.
Yes, I like that about you. I didn’t mean to imply that writing someone off was your goal, just that that would be the effect for some readers by leaving it uncorrected the assertion that Piper has Israel damned, etc.
I ‘m not sure that I can accept your conclusion about Piper ‘s position. In a prepared paper about doctrine, Piper says he is furthest away from dispensationalism. The most distinguishing feature of dispensationalism is that it believes in a future salvation of ethnic Israel (dispensations are essentially irrelevant; hermeneutics is what gets you to future salvation of Israel; so the single “litmus test” is Israel ‘s future). Maybe he has changed his position (and I agree that his Romans 11 sermon seems closer to dispensationalism than not), but I ‘m not seeing it clearly enough in statements like the one that started all of this.
Ah, I think I see why we seem to be talking past each other: did you understand me to be arguing that Piper is dispensational? To clarify: I am not arguing that Piper holds to dispensationalism or identifies himself as a dispensationalist, just that he believes in a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel, as is obvious from his Rom 11 sermon and elsewhere.
“All men are liars” does not imply that all liars are men. Neither does the fact that a dispensationalist believes in a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel imply that all who believe in a future mass conversion of ethnic Israel are dispensationalists.
For your enjoyment:
Also see the section “Excursus: The theological unity of Romans 9 and 11” (pp. 25ff) where he argues against Dinkler and others who do not see a reference to ethnic Israel in Rom 11:26.
Hi Mike! and thanks for the links. It says something that Matt Waymeyer closed the article in that third link with a Piper quote. :-)
Todd, if you were writing this blog article today, would you still write this:
“But he has them ultimately damned, not saved. They never turn to him. The purpose of Israel, apparently, was solely to show the depth of human sin. God tried for thousands of years, even sending his Son. But it didn ‘t work (Israel didn ‘t repent) and God moved on. There is no place for a redeemed Israel in this summary.”
Matt – your comment is very helpful, especially the quote from Piper. I take that to be more significant than what he said in the sermon on Romans 11. Yet it baffles me how he can claim to be further from dispensationalism (D) than from covenant theology (C) if he believes in a future conversion of ethnic Israel. Maybe I have simplified D vs. C too much, or maybe Piper thinks D is something that it is not.
Would I still write this? Let me answer that this way. I think that a Covenant Theologian who denies a future conversion of Israel would be supremely happy with Piper’s summary. And I think an OT believer could read the summary as denying his people a future. So, while you have shown that in places Piper does not believe this, I would still say that his summary is not specific enough to know that. How about changing my statement to:
“But in this summary, they are ultimately damned, not saved…”
If the quote you gave above from TJOG is his view today, then I erred in inferring his view based on his summary (and what I thought I knew from other statements of his). I, of course, am very glad that he does, and would love to hear him proclaim that even more as one of the ways that God will glorify himself.
I have found this discussion to be quite interesting and am enjoying reading it. Todd thank you for your good points – considering Israel’s massive role in doxological history, we need to do better at incorporating them into our summaries of biblical theology.
However, the debate contained in the last few comments whether Piper holds to the mass salvation of ethnic Israel is on topic and yet does not completely embrace the entire point Todd is making. Todd is not only arguing for the mass salvation of Israel but also the fact that the Lord will fulfill every promise that He has made the nation (note Todd’s final modification of Piper’s quote). You can believe that Israel will be saved (spiritually) but NOT believe that God will grant Israel all the national promises He made to this nation.
Although Piper does believe in a millennium (cf. http://tinyurl.com/6orzm5), I do not know whether or not he believes in a future national Israel receiving the promises God made in the context of being a real political distinctive nation. For example, in the millennium, will Israel have a preeminent place amongst the Gentile nations (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Isa 2; 11)? Will they be the great nation promised to Abram? Or does Piper believe that these types of nationalistic promises are just really characteristics that both redeemed Jews and Gentiles will equally experience together in the millennium? I am not saying that I know Piper does or does not believe these things. I am saying that a critical part of this discussion is not merely if the Jews receive salvation (I know quite a few people who would argue that in the Reformed camp) but whether they, as a nation (emphasis here), receive the fulfillment of their national promises as the Lord originally gave them. If Piper’s answer is no (and I am not saying that it is), then you can understand why he says he is far away from the dispensational camp. Hope this helps us gain a better grasp on the issues that need to be discussed.
Abner – I appreciate your comment/clarification. As the discussion progressed, I lost sight of a key component that you have brought back into focus.