Over the course of the campaign, as he’s internalized the idea that opposition to abortion is a drag on Republicans, President Trump has been tempted to revisit his old pro-choice positions. Up until now, however, he has calibrated his statements in the way that could still be defensible from a pro-life perspective.
That all changed today, however, with a single post on Truth Social:
He continues:
The latest Truth Social post is different. The idea that his administration would be “great” for “reproductive rights” is hard to interpret in any other way than as an affirmatively pro-choice statement. By the common usage of the term, if you support reproductive rights it means you want broader access to abortion.
For an account of how the pro-life position was excluded from the 2024 GOP platform, see “Is the Republican Party Becoming Pro-Choice,” First Things. Included in the piece is this observation:
Trump claims to hold a federalist position on abortion, but in practice he condemns only states that pass pro-life protections—such as Florida—while saying nothing about states with permissive abortion regimes. During the presidential debate, he expressed his support for the abortion pill; Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, a potential running mate, followed suit in a Meet the Press interview.
For addtiional articles on the exclusion of the pro-life position from the 2024 GOP platform, see:
Asked later that day if the post represented a change in his stance on abortion, Trump gave a rambling answer in which he reiterated his desire to bring the issue to the states. “I’m very strong on women’s reproductive rights, the IVF, very strong. I mean, we’re leaders in it, and I think people are seeing that,” he said at a press conference in Nevada.
Asked on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” about GOP lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who would want Trump to advocate for and sign an abortion ban, Vance told moderator Kristen Welker that Trump has “explicitly” said he would veto a ban.
“I mean, if you’re not supporting it, as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it,” Vance argued.
If you consider the game from Trump’s point of view, embracing social leftism might be rational. This is because Trump knows that the leading voices of purported social conservatism would never abandon him. From his perspective, they have no leverage. And he’s right. By becoming unabashedly pro-choice, Trump plays to the center of the electorate without sacrificing his base, because there is nothing he could do to sacrifice his base.
In Michigan on Thursday, former President Donald Trump promised to subsidize or mandate insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization treatment and suggested he would vote for a ballot measure in his home state of Florida that would overturn the state’s ban on abortions after six weeks of gestation.
“I think the six-week is too short. It has to be more time, and I’ve told them that I want more weeks,” Trump told NBC News during an interview before a campaign event in Potterville, southwest of Lansing. He was pressed on how he would vote on the ballot measure, which would amend the Florida constitution to protect the right to abortion before fetal viability but contains broad exceptions that some have claimed could allow abortion through all nine months. The Republican nominee replied he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks.”
Florida has a six-week ban on abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life. A ballot initiative would restore a Roe-like sweeping right to abortion that extends throughout pregnancy. Asked how he would vote today, Donald Trump said he would vote that six weeks is not enough time. His campaign later explained that his statement did not imply that he would vote yes.
Trump also announced that if elected, he would have either the government or insurers (which is to say taxpayers, workers, and Americans generally) pay for in vitro fertilization, which inevitably will mean the deliberate destruction of many more human embryos.
The long-term consequence for the pro-life movement covering for Trump, rather than calling him out, will not just be the massive repetitional hit of continuing to ally with someone who is uniquely odious to many college-educated suburban women. It will be that he is realigning the G.O.P. along his effectively pro-choice personal stances. Republican House members will be put under tremendous political pressure to go along with Trump’s stance when they get back from recess, according to reporting from Politico’s Sarah Ferris and Olivia Beavers.
……….
If there are those in the pro-life movement want to argue the short-term consequences of a Harris administration are so great that they outweigh the long-term damage posed by Trump, they are free to. But too many pro-lifers greet each time they have been thrown under the bus by Trump with more justifications and excuses. They will have to ask themselves at what point having to rely on a likely razor-thin Republican Senate majority to forestall much of the policy damage will be worth the benefits of starting with a clean slate in 2028. For some of us, that hour seems to have arrived.
The most helpful resource on the pretribulation rapture is Craig Blaising’s chapter in the revised Three Views on the Rapture (see below). For a much abbreviated argument, see his excellent talk, “The Rapture and the Day of the Lord.”
Ryan Meyer of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has recently published a series of posts interacting with John Hart’s argument that Matthew 24:36-44 refers to a pretribulation rapture. In general, I agree with Meyer’s assessment (including his disagreement with Hart’s sixth argument). My one minor difference with Meyer is that I see 2 Peter 3:10-12 as referring to the events of the tribulation period rather than to events following the Millennium.
Pratt provided the final chapter to this Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. I found the arguments presented later in the chapter more persuasive than the arguments presented in the beginning of the chapter. His argument that texts like 1 Thessalonians 5 and Revelation 3:10 promise that God will spare his people from going through the period of time in which the final day of the Lord judgment is poured out on the earth is convincing. Likewise, Pratt makes a convincing case from the immanency of Christ’s return.
Pratt begins his chapter by arguing that John 14:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7; Revelation 12:5 support a pretribulational rapture. These arguments are shakier. John 14:1-3 fits well within a pretribulation rapture scheme, but it is difficult to prove the pretribulation rapture from this text because doing so requires the having already established particular interpretations of related texts.
The argument from 2 Thessalonians 2 is even less compelling. Even granting that the restrainer is the Spirit, how does the rapture of the church remove him from earth? The Spirit is omnipresent. A further step in the argument is needed such that the Spirit working in and through the church is the restrainer. But it is not clear that such an argument could be mounted from the text. Nor do I find Darby’s interpretation of Revelation 12 plausible. I don’t find any of the proposed double referents convincing. The dragon refers to Satan, not the nations. The woman refers to Israel, not to Mary. And the male child refers to Christ, not to the church.
Pratt does mount a convincing argument for the pretribulational position in this chapter, but it is burdened, in my view, by some accompanying less-than-convincing arguments.
This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the Counterpoints series. The quality of argumentation in this book is high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents’ argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the first edition.
Summary
Blaising’s case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the teaching of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel’s seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse as the parousia of Christ. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event that spans many years. The rapture will begin the parousia and will not be preceded by signs, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign (which can also be called the parousia) will be preceded by signs.
Hultberg says that “the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath” (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions (letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation); and (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the claim that the rapture will occur before the wrath of God is poured out Hultberg argues: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.
Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel’s seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God’s people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God’s people on earth during the tribulation under anyone’s scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo’s article argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ’s return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it’s one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which Moo interprets to largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.
Evaluation
Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.
Strengths of Moo’s position
1. Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.
2. The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo’s position.
3. Moo’s is correct that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath and that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others.
Weaknesses of Moo’s position
1. Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn’t seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.
2. In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel’s seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. However, since the previous 69 sevens in Daniel 9 refer to periods of seven years that lead up to the time of the incarnation, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time between the two advents of Christ. With regard to the Olivet Discourse, even if one grants that the abomination of desolation referred to the destruction of the temple (a debated interpretation), it would seem, given the context of the prophecy in Daniel, that the destruction of the temple was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach more compelling than generally idealist approach that Moo adopts. See my “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue” and “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Evidence from the Seal Judgments’ Reliance on the Olivet Discourse.”
3. Moo consistently downplays the tribulation as a time of God’s wrath, and he relegates the day of the Lord to Christ’s return to earth. This disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.
4. Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo’s understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53, but it also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52). Or to put it another way, 1 Thessalonians 4 has the saints rise before Christ descends to earth while Revelation 20 has them rise after Christ has descended to earth.
I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period. In addition, I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation). Thus, I find his view less than persuasive.
Strengths of Hultberg’s position
1. The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).
2. His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God’s wrath is convincing. On this point the pretribulation and prewrath positions are aligned.
Weaknesses of Hultberg’s position
1. It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.
2. I find it unlikely that the first five seals are not the outpouring of God’s wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God opens the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God’s wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open.
3. Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present. The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord. (See Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3.)
Hultberg’s arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God’s wrath mirror Blaising’s own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.
Strengths of Blaising’s position
1. Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel’s seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.
2. Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God’s wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation is sound.
Weaknesses of Blaising’s position
– Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church) being on earth during the outpouring of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord.
Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I also found Blaising’s argumentation more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of saints in the tribulation period. However, the tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising’s position.
This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture, and Blaising’s article may be the best current defense of the pretribulation position.
Glenny contributed an excellent brief articulation of a premillennial reading of Revelation 20. I began this chapter wondering about the value of this chapter. It did not seem that Glenny would be contributing anything new to the debate. However, upon completing the chapter it would be fair to say that Glenny has contributed an excellent, clear articulation of the premillennial position coupled with brief but cogent critiques of Amillennial readings of this chapter. For someone who wanted an introduction to the premillennial position, this chapter would be an excellent place to start. Those who took the time to track down the sources mentioned in the footnotes would be led to some of the best resources from all sides of the debate as well as to several of the most significant Revelation commentaries.
I won’t try to summarize Glenny’s chapter since it is already a succinct summary of the premillennial approach to Revelation 20, but I do commend it to all.
Ryan Martin contributed a chapter on Romans 9-11 in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, a Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. In this chapter Martin exegetes Romans 9-11 to demonstrate that Paul does not view the church in Christ as the New Israel which will inherit all the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament. Instead, he argues that these chapters demonstrate that Paul distinguished ethnic Israel from the church and envisioned a future fulfillment of promises for ethnic Israel.
Martin begins by surveying Romans 1-8, paying special attention to the significance that Jew and Gentile play in Paul’s argument. In the course of that survey Martin defends the view that the Jew in Romans 2:28-29 is not a reference any true believer in Christ but to believing ethnic Jews:
Four considerations, however, indicate that Paul is referring to ethnic Jews who believe in Jesus Christ and are part of the church of God. First, Paul’s argument in Romans 3 continues to focus on Jews, their advantages, and their unfaithfulness. Second, later in his argument (4:11-12; 9:6-8; 11:5-7) Paul makes the same point he is making here, namely that biological ancestry alone neither qualifies nor disqualifies one from receiving God’s promises. Third, if these verses are about Jews who believe, then they set up a relevant contrast to Paul’s subsequent observations, which focus on the Jews who relied on their physical ancestry and circumcision to put them right before God. Finally, the interplay between Jew and praise (the name Judah means praise) confirms that 2:28-29 is a reference to Jews who have believed in Jesus Christ (199).
In this survey Martin demonstrates that that the “Jew-Gentile” motif is prominent in Romans 1-4. Romans 9-11 is thus resuming a theme that Paul had begun to develop earlier in the book. Second, Martin observes that “every reference to a Jew in Romans 1-8 is a reference to an ethnic Jew” (201). Since these opening chapters of Romans do not replace ethnic Israel with the church, the book of Romans raises a significant question: If the Jewish people as a whole continue to pursue justification according to the Law, what will become of God’s promises to the nation. This is the question that Romans 9-11 seeks to answer.
As he begins his survey of Romans 9-11 Martin observes that Paul’s designation “kinsmen according to the flesh” indicates that the topic of these chapters are ethnic Jews. He further denies the claim that the statement “for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Rom 9:6) indicates that Israel can be used to refer to Gentile believers. Rather, in context, this phrase is referring to two groups: unbelieving ethnic Jews who are descended from Israel but are not properly designated Israel in a more narrow sense and believing ethnic Jews who are descended from Israel and are properly designated Israel in the more narrow sense. This truth of about Israel leads Paul to defend the doctrine of election in Romans 9.
Gentiles do not enter the discussion until Romans 9:24, where Paul asserts that God has called people not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. Paul supports this statement by quoting from Hosea 1:10; 2:23 and from Isaiah 1:9; 10:22-23. Martin denies that these passages are directly applied to Gentile believers. Romans 9:27 specifically says, “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel.” Paul’s point is to highlight that just as not all Jews were truly God’s people, and he elected a remnant to be saved, so also with the Gentiles.
Martin continues the survey into Romans 10, which demonstrates Israel’s culpability for its unbelief.
Martin finds in Romans 11:1-6 a significant answer to the question of supersessionism:
The opening paragraph of Romans 11 is pivotal. It asks the very question at the heart of this study: “Has God rejected his people?” If the church actually has replaced Israel in God’s program—if God’s promises to Israel are now fulfilled in the body of Christ (cf. Rom. 9:4)—then rather than denying that God has rejected Israel, Paul should try to explain how the church is spiritually fulfilling all the promises that God made to Israel. Instead, Paul advances his own election as evidence that God has not utterly forsaken his people” (210).
However, the salvation of individual Jews like Paul does not fully resolve the dilemma that Paul has raised. Martin notes, “Paul’s presentation of himself as exhibit A that God has not rejected his people is an important part of his defense of God’s justice, but it is not the end of his argument” (209, n. 33).
Martin rightly notes that the root in Paul’s metaphor of the tree and the branches cannot be Israel because Israel is identified as the branches. The root, as Martin understands it, refers to “God’s covenant promises to the patriarchs” (214). He further notes that though the unity of believing Jew and Gentile is symbolized by the single tree, the distinction between natural branches and grafted branches remain. He also observes that though some natural branches are grafted in at present, this does not negate what Paul will say about the future salvation of Israel.
As he comes into Romans 11:25-32 Martin interacts in more detail with those who do not envision a widescale conversion of the nation of Israel.
O. Palmer Robertson argues that when Paul says that Israel’s hardening will continue “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” he is simply saying that Israel will remain hardened “until the end of time.” The “until” is not marking a new stage in God’s redemptive plan. However, given 11:26, Martin replies, “This interpretation must equate the ‘partial hardening’ of Israel and the salvation of all Israel. Such theological gymnastics—where two radically opposing notions are treated as complementary—strains credulity. If the hardening of Israel is actually a good thing, and if it is the same thing as the salvation of Israel, then why did Paul need to begin this defense of God’s dealings with Israel at all?” (218).
Martin also addresses Robertson’s interpretation of “In this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26). Martin summarizes Robertson’s argument as follows: “He suggests the phrase addresses the manner Israel will be saved.” Robertson insists that kai houtōs does not have a temporal meaning. Furthermore, “For Robertson, all Israel means the ‘Israel of God,’ which comprises true believers in the body of Christ (Gal 6:16). Thus, when Paul says, ‘in this way all Israel will be saved,’ he refers to the fullness of the Gentiles who receive salvation through faith in Christ” (220).
Martin responds: First, he notes that “whether kai houtōs is temporal has relatively little bearing on the interpretation of Romans 11:26. The best clue concerning timing lies in the future tense verb ‘will be saved'” (220).
Second, Martin observes, “To take Israel in Romans 11:26 as the Christian church is to take it in a totally different sense than Paul has used it throughout chapters 9-11″ (221).
Third, Martin notes that Robertson’s interpretation undermines the defense of God’s integrity in these chapters. Robertson’s view is that God will not fulfill promises to ethnic Israel for ethnic Israel but for the church.
Martin turns next to meaning of “all Israel.” After surveying the various views he settles on the reference being to the nation of Israel as a whole in the future. Martin observes that this is not a uniquely dispensational viewpoint. It was held by Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Michael Horton, and Kim Riddlebarger.
In the course of discussing the Old Testament quotations in 11:26-27, Martin observes, “one should not limit Paul to saying that only these four lines of prophecy will be fulfilled when ‘all Israel will be saved.’ Romans 9-11 has been a defense of God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel” (228), which means that promises regarding land and kingdom will also be fulfilled for Israel. Though this is not typically understood to be a dispensational viewpoint, it was held in the past by non-dispensationalists such as Jonathan Edwards.
Martin also ably handles the objection that this places too much focus on Israel alongside Christ in the fulfillment of prophecy: This claim misrepresents dispensationalism. [Michael] Horton [who made this claim] ignores dispensationalists’ Christological emphasis in their vision of the millennial kingdom. For example, Alva J. McClain wrote, ‘All [the future kingdom’s] spiritual blessings will be centered in the royal Man…. And since He will be King over all the nations, His spiritual blessings will be extended to all men.'” This, Martin discerns, is precisely the point of Romans 11:26.
Martin has provided a fine exegetical survey of Romans 9-11, and I believe he ably demonstrated that Romans 9-11 disallows any supersessionism. My only slight disagreement would be with his interpretation of Paul’s use of Hosea in Romans 9.
Andrew Hudson contributed a chapter on Acts in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, a Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Hudson explains that this chapter was written to do four things. “First, it considers the historical setting of Acts. Second, it reviews the argument of Acts. Third, it addresses the use of the Old Testament in Acts. Fourth, it explains the transitional nature of Acts” (168).
Most of the conclusions in this chapter are not unique to dispensationalism. However, Hudson does survey different approaches to Peter’s use of Joel 2 in his Pentecost sermon, he takes the view that events of Pentecost did not fulfill the prophecy of Joel 2. Instead, he holds that what happened at Pentecost is analogous to what Joel prophesied. He provides four reasons for this interpretation. First, he notes that not all that Joel prophesied was fulfilled at Pentecost. Second, he claims that the NT often draws analogies with the OT. Third, he claims that the word “is” can be used to indicate such analogies. Thus, Peter’s statement, “this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel” need only mean “this is analogous to what was uttered through the prophet Joel.” Fourth, Joel said that the Spirit would be poured out after the eschatological day of the Lord. Since the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost preceded the eschatological day of the Lord, it cannot be a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.
Response
First, all interpreters acknowledge the fact of prophetic telescoping, which could account for the fulfillment of some but not all of what Joel prophesied. Further, Peter knew that he had entered the last days and the inauguration of the new covenant, but he did not know how long the last days will extend. We know that there will be thousands of years separating the fulfillment of these events, but Peter did not know this.
Second, while it is true that the NT can draws analogies to events in the OT, it is not clear that this is what Peter is doing here. The pouring out of the Spirit was a promised eschatological event. What happened at Pentecost was not merely analogous to what was promised. It was what was promised. The giving of the Spirit cannot simply be analogous to the giving of the Spirit. (And in this case, the Spirit is poured out on Jews, so the argument cannot be made that the pouring out of the Spirit on Gentiles is only analogous to the pouring out of the Spirit on Jews.)
Third, while the term is can be used to indicate analogies, no sufficient argument has been made that that is how is functions in this context.
Fourth, Hudson’s argument from the chronology of Joel 2 is his strongest argument. However, if Joel 2:18-27 is read as telescoping together the restoration of the land after the locust plague recounted in chapter 1 as well as the restoration after the final day of Yhwh judgment from the first part of chapter 2, the “afterward” in verse 28 could take place anytime after the original restoration. In fact, it must precede the eschatological restoration because some of the events in Joel 2:28-32 must take place before the eschatological restoration. To use technical theological terminology, the day of Lord/tribulation must precede the millennium and consummated new creation.
Soulen’s chapter can be summarized in his own words:
Barth challenged Christians to speak of the mystery of eternal generation in every available way. I have proposed that in practice this means cultivating three patterns of scriptural speech: one that emphasizes the First Person and the mystery of divine uniqueness at the source of the triune life; one that emphasizes the Second Person and the mystery of divine copresence at the heart of the Trinity; and one that emphasizes the Third Person and the mystery of connection mutual blessing that glorifies the Trinity in eternity and time. My hope is that by cultivating these three forms of speech Christians might speak of the mystery of eternal generation—not adequately, but perhaps a little less inadequately. (146)
Pierce examines the quotation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1, giving particular attention to what is meant by, “the Son was begotten today.” She notes two interpretations of the phrase: “(1) the “day” is the day of Jesus’s enthronement and exaltation or (2) the “day” is eternity—the span of Jesus’s existence” (117). The first option she associates with adoptionist Christology. She positions herself against this view and against scholarship which argues for approaching the text in an unbiased, critical manner (and thus rejects the influence of orthodox theology on interpretation). I share Pierce’s concerns about critical scholarship and adoptionist Christology, but I don’t think view 1 is necessarily linked with either.
Pierce begins setting the quotation of Psalm 2:7 by Hebrews 1:5 in the context of Hebrews 1:3, which she understands, with Athanasius, to reveal the relationship of the Son to the Father. Hinted at here is the idea that Hebrews 1:3 teaches the eternal begotteness of the Son from the Father.
Pierce then turns to modern interpretations of Hebrews 1:5, which serve as a foil for her own approach. She notes that most exegetes today understand locate the speech of Hebrews 1:5 at the exaltation of Christ, noting that the catena of quotations closes with a quotation of Psalm110:1 in Hebrews 1:13. This is a statement at the exaltation of Christ after the resurrection. Pierce takes exception to the conclusion that the “begetting” cannot be eternal begetting if the speech recorded in 1:5 took place at the exaltation.
Pierce observes that Hebrews 1:5 brings together quotations of Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, which thus places both in a context of “a metaphorical father-son relationship between God and the [Davidic] human king” (122). Pierce then raises a potential problem: “If one or both elements [the statement is timed to the enthronement of a human Davidic king and the nature of the sonship is metaphorical] are intended to carry over into the use of these passages in the New Testament, then Jesus too might be God’s metaphorical offspring who is praised as Son only at his exaltation and not in his preexistence or earthly life” (123).
The problem with Pierce’s concern can be found in the word “only.” These passages could be about the Davidic sonship of Jesus in his humanity in connection with his enthronement as the Davidic king upon his resurrection and other passages would affirm his divine Sonship and eternal begottenness.
However, Pierce contends that the author of Hebrews was using “prosopological exegesis” by identifying the son in these passages with Jesus. Pierce distances this kind of reading from contextual exegesis of the Old Testament texts, noting, “the author suggests that something is distinct about God’s bestowal of the title son here—it is unfit for a (human) king,” and, “If the author of Hebrews is not using every element of the Old Testament context, and is perhaps even creating some distance between his reading and common readings of Psalm 2, then the assumption that numerous elements of Psalm 2 obviously influence other elements for Hebrews 1 requires further evaluation” (126). Thus, she argues that the sonship in view in the Hebrews context is the divine sonship of the one who is “the exact representation of God’s being,” is “superior to the angels,” can be called “God,” and can be called Lord (=Yhwh).
Once again Pierce makes some valid points. I would agree that someone more than a human king is in view, but I would argue that this conclusion is not at odds with a contextual reading of both Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7—the one being a direct messianic prophecy and the other containing a messianic prophecy. Therefore, I would argue that the author of Hebrews is keeping the OT context in view. Furthermore, while Jesus’s deity is emphasized in Hebrews 1 and 2, so is his humanity. Pointing to verses that highlight the deity do not negate the verses that refer to his humanity.
Having argued that the Hebrews is using Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 acontextually, Pierce then argues that Hebrews 1:5 should be read as speaking of eternal generation. First, she notes that the speech “You are my son; today I have begotten you” is “reported speech from the past” (127). Though she understands this speech to be “contemporaneous with his appointment,” she distinguishes that from the subsequent “report [of] the Father’s speech” and a still further even of the inheritance of the promise (127-28). Pierce then turns to the word “today,” which seems to complicate this reading. She argues that the other uses of “today” in Hebrews (1:38; 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7-8) points to an eternal today. Thus, she paraphrases the verse: “You are my Son; forever I have begotten you” (130), concluding that this verse “is not just a claim about Jesus reaching an exalted status. It is a declaration of his eternal relationship with the Father that is always in effect” (131).
This interpretation is a false reading for a number of reasons. 1. As noted above, it opts for an acontextual reading of the Old Testament material. 2. It neglects the reality that both divine and human sonship are in view in Hebrews. 3. It neglects the language in verse 4 that relates the session at the Father’s right hand with his “having become as much superior to the angels.” In other words, not only is Pierce reading Hebrews 1:5 apart from the context of Psalm 2, she is also reading apart from the context of the previous verse. 4. The author of Hebrews argues for his use of “today” in chapters 3-4, which he does not do in 1:5. Furthermore, even in chapters 3-4, “today” does not refer to eternity. 5. Acts 13:32-33 specifically says that the statement, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled “by raising Jesus.” In other words, Jesus was “begotten” as the Davidic Son when he was raised and enthroned as such. 6. This reading does not necessitate an adoptionist Christology, as Pierce seems to think. Numerous evangelical scholars affirm this interpretation and explicitly reject adoptionism.
The reality to which eternal generation refers is spoken of when Hebrews says that the Son “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3), but Hebrews 1:5 is not teaching eternal generation.
Irons begins by asserting that eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit are “an essential component of Trinitarian orthodoxy” since they provide for personal distinctions that do not undermine the unity or simplicity of the Trinity. He then raises the problem of modern exegetes interpreting differently the texts that the church fathers saw as grounding the doctrine. Irons wishes to address this problem by arguing that monogenēs as used in John’s writings of Christ supports the doctrine of eternal generation.
Irons first notes the high frequency of monogenēs in the Greek fathers. He also claims that Latin translations of this term favor the understanding of “only begotten.” Tyndale translated monogenēs as “only begotten” in John 1:14, 18; 1 John 4:9 and as “only” in John 3:16, 18. The KJV translated “only begotten” in all of these verses. The shift away from the translation “only begotten” to “only” began with an 1886 commentary by B. F. Westcott. (Irons notes that Hort authored an essay defending the sense “only begotten.”) A 1938 Southern Seminary dissertation expanded on Westcott’s argument, and the translation “only” was adopted in the RSV. Dale Moody wrote an influential 1953 article defending this decision. After this point the NIV also adopted the translation “only,” and Richard Longenecker defended the translation. Since then the CEV, ESV, HCSB/CSB, NAB, NLT, NRSV, RSV have also followed this line.
Irons rebuts the claim of Westcott, Moody, et al. that monogenēs was interpreted as “only begotten” due to the Arian controversy. He quotes Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 105, “I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things (μονογενὴς γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος), being begotten (γεγεννημένος) in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin” (102). Here monogenēs is interpreted by γεννάω/”being begotten.” Tertullian also used the Latin equivalent of monogenēs, unigentius, in a way that clearly means “only begotten” (Against Praxeas 7, 15).
Those who claim that monogenēs means only or unique Son argue that “monogenēs is derived from μόνος + γένος (“kind”), understood as deriving from γί(γ)νομαι (“be, become”) rather than γεννάω (“beget”), with the result that it means “only one of its/his kind”” (103). Irons responds: 1. γί(γ)νομαι and γεννάω are from the same root and both can refer to birth. 2. Many Greek words contain the -genēs stem: “Examples include θαλασσογενής (“sea-born”), κογχογενής (“born from a shell,” picture the Birth of Venus by Botticelli), μοιραγενής (“favored by destiny at birth, child of destiny”), νεογενής (“new-born, newly produced”), πατρογενής (“begotten of the father”), προτερηγενής (“born sooner, older”), and πυριγενής (“born in or from fire”). Fewer than 12 of the 145 –genēs words involve meanings related to “kind” (e.g., ὁμογενής means “of the same genus”), and there are a few with miscellaneous meanings (e.g., διγενής, “of doubtful sex”)” (104). 3. There are Greek names that contain -genēs and they tend to indicate the idea of birth (e.g., “Hermogenēs (“offspring of Hermes”).”
Irons clarifies that he is not claiming that monogenēs never means “unique” or “one and only” and always means “only begotten.”
Irons then turns to survey usage (noting that the etymological argument was given to remove objections; he will substantiate his thesis based on usage). He claims that the “earliest meaning” of the term is “in reference to an only child” (105). He cites Hesiod’s reference to son without siblings with whom he would need to divide the inheritance with.
The word is used most frequently as an adjective modifying the nouns “son,” “daughter,” and “child.” This can be seen in the ordinary, non-Johannine, non-Christological uses in the New Testament (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38).30 If the word meant “only,” then we would expect to find it used to modify many other nouns that do not involve the concept of being begotten or being an offspring, for example, “only wife,” “only brother,” “only friend,” “only slave”; or “only eye,” “only foot,” “only hand” p 107 (for a person missing one eye, foot, or hand); or a man’s “only garment,” “only house,” “only sword,” and so on. But such collocations are completely absent in extrabiblical Greek. This suggests that the literal meaning, which is by far the most common usage in extrabiblical Greek, is the straightforward biological meaning: “only begotten,” that is, “without siblings” (106-7).
Irons notes that the “basic meaning” “only begotten” is extended metaphorically. But this extended meaning is extending from the basic biological sense (107-8). Thus μονογενης can be used of Isaac even through Ishmael preceded him because Isaac was the only heir of Abraham (108). He finds a similar usage in Agamemnon (109). This is how Irons understands Hebrews 11:17 (109).
A second metaphorical extension occurs when something is metaphorically “only begotten,” as in the universe of God (Plato) or wisdom as God’s “only begotten” (Wisdom of Solomon 7:22; cf. prov. 8:25) (110).
The third metaphorical sense is “only one of its kind,” which Irons says is found primarily, though not exclusively, in scientific literature (111). Irons observes, “The scientific meaning, ‘only one of his kind,’ is the meaning that modern scholars and English versions attempt to find in the five Johannine passages. But the five Johannine passages clearly do not fit under the third nonliteral extension. The genre and context are not scientific. The Gospel of John is dealing with the relationship between the Father and the Son, not botany. We are not dealing, like Theophrastus, with genus/species analysis. The father-son analogy is very strongly attested in these contexts, as opposed to the scientific usage, where this analogy has dropped from view” (112).
Irons then turns to John 1:14, 18. His conclusion regarding John1:14: “It is difficult to see how the meaning “only” or “one and only” fits in a meaningful way unless the notion of sonship or begottenness is part of the meaning of the word. Indeed, many of the modern English versions (like the Old Latin—see note 4 above) bring back the supposedly banished concept of begetting by adding the word “Son” even though it is not present in Greek: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (ESV), and “the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father” (NIV). Both these English versions, though refusing to see “begetting” as part of the meaning of monogenēs, nevertheless cannot avoid inserting the word “Son,” even though it is not present in Greek. In like manner, C. H. Dodd—though taking monogenēs as “only of his kind”—recognized that “one who is μονογενής relative to a πατήρ can be no other than the only son.” The context is pushing the translators and the commentators in the right direction, almost against their will (112-13).
In John 1:18, Irons holds that “only begotten” is the best sense whether the reading ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός or μονογενὴς θεός is adopted (113). He notes, “The NIV renders monogenēs as “the one and only Son” and takes theos in apposition to it, “who is himself God.” Again, as we saw in verse 14, the context is pushing the translators to recognize that the concept of sonship is present in the pregnant word monogenēs (114). However, he objects to the ESV’s rendering, “the only God,” “First, perhaps without fully realizing it, the ESV translators have removed this one occurrence of monogenēs out of the frame of reference of the other four Johannine occurrences, in all of which monogenēs is used in reference to the uniqueness of the person of the Son: “the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14 ESV), “his only Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9 ESV), or “the only Son of God” (John 3:18 ESV). On the ESV’s rendering of John 1:18 (“the only God”), the adjective “only” is an attributive modifying God (generic deity) rather than the Son” (114). Irons also thinks that the ESV could be misread as teaching “modalistic monarchianism or the “Jesus only” heresy” (114) and as excluding the Father from “the only God” (114).
Irons concludes that these texts do, in fact, teach the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: “John views Christ as the only begotten Son of God in the sense that he is the Father’s only proper offspring deriving his divine being from the Father. The fact that John 1:18 adds that he “is” (ὤν, present participle) in the bosom of the Father (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός) underscores that his sonship transcends time and is not to be interpreted as a temporal event like ordinary human begetting. The phrase εἰς τὸν κόλπον reinforces this by emphasizing the profound intimacy and love between the Father and his only begotten Son. We may conclude that, for John, the Son is eternally generated by or begotten of the Father” (115).
Irons also clarifies what eternal begetting doesn’t and does mean: “like all metaphors, there are notable points of discontinuity: unlike a human begetting, this begetting (1) had no beginning, (2) did not occur in time, (3) does not grant the Father chronological priority over the Son, and (4) lacks the involvement of a mother. But there is an analogy between human biological begetting and intra-Trinitarian begetting. The main points of continuity are: (1) the Father is the source or cause of the Son, (2) the Son possesses the same nature (homoousios) with the Father who begat him, (3) the Father delights in his Son and calls him “beloved,” and (4) it is fitting that the Son is the one sent on a mission from the Father to do the Father’s will” (116).
Finally, Irons concludes by noting that the doctrine of eternal generation rests on a broader foundation than the lexical meaning of monogenēs.
Like others, I found Iron’s argument convincing, and it led me to revise the understanding of monogenēs that I came to in seminary (though, I must confess that our systematic theology professor was skeptical of the modern consensus view, and that I came to my position via Reymond and Grudem).
