Showing posts with label kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kingdom. Show all posts

Friday, 3 August 2018

Obstacle 3: Hebrew "Divine Combos"

In the endearing little love story between Tina and Archie we saw Tina is the church and Archie is the Lord Jesus Christ. The old-fashioned name "Archie" that Archie wants to change is "Lord". 

I believe a translation overhaul is needed for "Lord" in many modern Bible translations both in English and other languages. This overhaul is necessary for a relevant and yet faithful religious institution like Christianity.

The Number 1 question was how to translate the Hebrew name for God, "Yahweh". I finally arrived, after two years of researching the issue, at the idea that GOD, all caps, would be a good solution. Eugene Peterson got there first though!

This only makes the suggestion all the more palatable, as I have arrived at the same destination as Peterson but via, I am sure, a different route, bringing more grammatical substance than Peterson's work had access to.

Overcoming Hurdle 3: "Divine Combos"

If you make this move - to switch the Yahweh translation from "The LORD" to "GOD", then there are some fresh problems to solve - I identify five of these. Overcoming the first obstacle, we established that it is more than faithful to ancient tradition to apply the lower case "g" to god, permitting the possessive "GOD, our god". Overcoming the second, we realised that often "Lord of lords" can be replaced by "king of kings", condensed or even "Commander-in-Chief". This now leaves us excellently placed to approach the third hurdle, which I collectively refer to as "Divine Combos". What do I mean by such a wacky descriptor?

Although I counted 6,867 Yahweh occurrences reflecting by far the greatest and favoured appellation for the Israelite god, we would do well to remember that this people hung every success and failure, even the right to live, on the say-so of their supreme god who even chose *them* as his people.

This was a deep and mysterious connection, but it certainly caused a worshipful and awed response from the Israelites. The Name of Yahweh was a privilege to have and it was used extensively, especially early on before its "ultra-sanctification". But the worship context caused the priests, Levites and people generally to probe further suitable language options to expand their own perception of how great he was. 

We already saw that he was even referred to a few times as "God of gods", but also we hear of "Lord of the Heavenly Armies", The Almighty, *the* God, and so on. Another way to "magnify his holy Name" was to go ahead and group the titles or names, the clusters serving to say that one accolade is simply not enough, which presents us with my "Divine Combos".

Ok, so why does that present us with an obstacle? Simply because when we accept Peterson's suggestion of GOD, we move to a word that is already used to translate another word, which is also best translated "God", El (or Elohim, in Hebrew). Previously there was no issue with "the LORD God", but now "GOD God" is clearly a non-starter.

But before we worry too much about that, we have another affected divine combo in the form of "Adonai Yahweh". 

It makes more sense to start here because this *has* represented a challenge to English translators who have been deeply committed to the language of lordship. Here also, "Lord LORD" " would have been a non-starter, so we can learn from the solutions already developed by their insightful teams of scholars over time. Let's take an Adonai-Yahweh verse at random - Amos 1:8 - and see how it has been translated:

...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” saith the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord Jehovah.
...And the rest of the Philistines [in Gath and the towns dependent on these four Philistine cities] shall die,” Says the Lord God.
...and the rest of the Philistines [in Gath and the towns dependent on these four Philistine cities] shall perish, says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
....and the remainder of the Philistines will perish. The Lord God has spoken.
...and the Philistines who remain will perish, says the Lord God.
...and the rest of the P’lishtim will perish,” says Adonai, God.
...and that will be the end of the Philistines. I, the Lord, have spoken!
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord Jehovah.
...the rest of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
.... Then the Philistines who are still left alive will die.” This is what the Lord God said.
... and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” says the Lord God.
...and the ·last [rest; remnant] of the Philistines will ·die [perish],” says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
...The rest of the Philistines will die. The Almighty Lord has said this.
... and all the Philistines who are left will die.”
...and the remainder of the Philistines will perish. The Lord God has spoken.
...I will punish the Philistines until they are all dead,” says the Lord God.
... and the rest of the Philistines will die,” says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Palestinians shall perish, said the Lord GOD.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines will perish,” says the Lord Yahweh.
...all Philistines left will perish.” The Lord has spoken.
... and what’s left of the Philistines will die.” God’s Decree.
...and the remnant of the Philistines will perish, says the Lord God.
... The rest of the Philistines will die. Adonay Yahweh has said this.
...and the last of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord God.
... And the remnant of the Philistines will perish,” Says the Lord God.
...and the last of the Philistines will die,” says the Lord God.
...the rest of the Philistines will also die.” The sovereign Lord has spoken!
...Every single Philistine will die,” says the Lord and King.
....till the last of the Philistines are dead,” says the Sovereign Lord.
...till the last of the Philistines are dead,’ says the Sovereign Lord.
...And the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” Says the Lord God.
...and the rest of the Philistines will die,” says the Lord God.
...and the few Philistines still left will be killed,” says the Sovereign Lord.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord God.
...and the she’erit Pelishtim shall perish, saith Adonoi Hashem.
....and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” says the Lord God.
...and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” says the Lord God.
...and the rest of the Philistines will perish. My Lord Adonai has said it.
...and the rest of the Philistines; even those in the formerly great city of Gath will perish. So says the Eternal Lord about Philistia, Israel’s enemy in the southwest.
...and the remnant of the Philistines will perish,” says the Lord Yahweh.
...and the remnants of Philistines shall perish, saith the Lord God
...And perished have the remnant of the Philistines, Said the Lord Jehovah.


There is a clear preponderance for "the Lord God". Sometimes LORD is all capitalised, sometimes GOD (but never both). The definite article "the" is always present before the title "Lord". However, it naturally disappears when combined with the names (and their derivatives) Adonai and Yahweh. Some translations permit a condensing approach, mirroring the methodology we have already discussed for the Septuagint translators so many centuries before.

Indeed, if we also added the LXX translation here, we would see that Amos 1:8 concludes: "λέγει κύριος". The unique characteristic that we see in the Septuagint is that the word translated "the Lord", κύριος, condenses both Adonai and Yahweh from the Hebrew (like CEV, MSG and TLB). However, it also dispenses with the article, the Greek equivalent of "the", like the many translations that choose to keep a reference to Adonai or Yahweh (or both).

Thus we see in the plethera of English translations commonly read today a diversity or even tension between the desires to:

  • absolutely avoid redundancy
  • transmit some of the Lordship language 
  • maintain the name aspects denoted by both the Hebrew and the anarthrous Greek translation, λέγει κύριος. 


However, no-one ventures to remove the article before the antiquated title "Lord". Only Peterson in MSG realised that condensation and article dispensation could be legitimately and accurately rendered, God.

So, as I suspected, we arrive at our first solution via this second redundancy-risk scenario. There is indeed legitimate scope within the biblical translation tradition to condense when Lord LORD occurs, thus when Adonai Yahweh occurs in the Hebrew, and if God is acceptable for Yahweh and anarthrous κύριος, then it is also acceptable for Adonai Yahweh and, by inference, for Yahweh Elohim. 

However, as with my proposed solutions for "Lord of lords", I would also like to provide some other possibilities based on this rich translation tradition that do not lean on antiquated Lord.


  • Almighty GOD
  • Awesome GOD
  • All-Powerful GOD
  • GOD our King

There is at least one other common divine combo to consider, curiously rendered "the Lord Sabaoth" in the NETS translation. I don't want to overextend this post with another full examination of the English renderings, but you can consult a sample verse of Isaiah 1:9 here. The classic idea is "the LORD of hosts", but "hosts" is vague. The Old Testament, however, is filled with allusions to a whole "host" (please excuse the pun) of heavenly action and agents that do not fit well with our modern ideas of monotheism (and maybe a splattering of angels and demons for the more "spiritual" Christians and churches). I have also discussed this in more length in response to Michael Heiser's work on the Divine Council worldview, clearly held and developed by the Israelites in the ancient Middle East.

Since this combo includes the proper Name "Yahweh", it is also a problem for our GOD rendering. Here, however, we can legitimately ask the question: to what extent does the English translation in question want to restore that worldview? Let's first assume that some representation is necessary. Although "host" is not as antiquated as Lord, it sure is outdated in this sense of "host". Worse, in fact. So it has to go. Options we can see emerging through the biblical translation tradition that I see as helpful and also relatively faithful to the Divine Council worldview, are "GOD of Heaven's Forces" (or Armies or Contingents). If context requires the subject to be the armies, GOD's Heavenly Forces (or Heaven Forces).

However, if the answer to the question is uncertain, then God's ultimacy over the Heavenly powers (also a possibility) is certainly included by the rendering provided in the all-caps GOD.


Conclusion:


"GOD" is sufficient to render most divine title combinations involving Yahweh, Adonai, El and Sabaoth


In my next post I will proceed to the 4th obstacle in the path of the Yahweh translation, GOD.



Thursday, 19 July 2018

Obstacle 2: Lord of Lords

In the endearing little love story between Tina and Archie we saw Tina is the church and Archie is the Lord Jesus Christ. The old-fashioned name "Archie" that Archie wants to change is "Lord". 

I believe a translation overhaul is needed for "Lord" in many modern Bible translations both in English and other languages. This overhaul is necessary for a relevant and yet faithful religious institution like Christianity.

The Number 1 question was how to translate the Hebrew name for God, "Yahweh". I finally arrived, after two years of researching the issue, at the idea that GOD, all caps, would be a good solution. Eugene Peterson got there first though!

This only makes the suggestion all the more palatable, as I have arrived at the same destination as Peterson but via, I am sure, a different route, bringing more grammatical substance than Peterson's work had access to.

Overcoming Hurdle 2: "Lord of lords"

If you make this move - to switch the Yahweh translation from "The LORD" to "GOD", then there are some fresh problems to solve - I identify five of these. Overcoming the first obstacle, we established that it is more than faithful to ancient tradition to apply the lower case "g" to god, permitting the possessive "GOD, our god". This now leaves us excellently placed to approach the second hurdle, Lord of lords.

But if we are moving "Archie" away from "Archie", then doesn't "Archie of Archies" present a double problem?! Fortunately, as impressive as it sounds, it is a very rare title in the Bible, and even there applied in various ways (adapted from ESV version):

Applied To God:

Deuteronomy 10:17
For GOD your god is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome god, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psalms 136:3
Give thanks to the Lord of lords,
for his steadfast love endures forever

Applied To God or Jesus:

1 Timothy 6:15
...which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords

Applied to Jesus

Revelation 17:14
They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Revelation 19:16
On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords

Lord of lords as a poetic device

Notice how in only one instance is Lord of lords not paired up with another grand title; either "God of gods" or "King of kings". There is a poetic insistence in there to draw out a response from the listener. In other words, although given in title language, there is no actual or rather static title of Lord of lords but rather an insistence that this is as important as a person can get and as high an authority level as a person can exert.

Interestingly, exactly the same profile results if you stick "King of kings" into a search field in a Bible concordance. You get human references (not just Jesus!) and you get divine references (the Israelite god, Yahweh), and you also get that pairing up with other adulating or poetic "titles".

It is not straight forward to replicate all that into English. As rare as "Lord" is today in non-religious contexts, the title "Lord of lords" is purely religious (and really confirms the overarching premise to be honest, of the need for a Lord overhaul), but that is sadly still the way many translations still feel safest: stuck inside the religious bubble of Lord. Peterson clearly sensed the need to break God and Jesus out of that bubble when it came to single-use "Kyrios", but for these five, even he only managed to scrap two of the "lords". To his credit, it is always nuanced and adapted. Let's see how he did it.

Deuteronomy 10:17
God, your God, is the God of all gods, he’s the Master of all masters

Psalms 136:3
Thank the Lord of all lords.

1 Timothy 6:15
Undisputed Ruler

Revelation 17:14
Lord over all lords

Revelation 19:16
Lord of lords

Already in Deuteronomy Peterson is giving the reader a hint of how he is going to give modern readers a breakout method from the crusty old "Lord": Master. Apart from GOD, this is the other special card he has to play and he is going to play it hundreds of times with Jesus. That part of the Lord Overhaul Operation is something we will be examining in a separate post and our hardest of obstacles of all, Obstacle 5: The Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy introduces a title that I regularly return to in my musings, that of ruler. I quite like it, even though, sadly, "Ruler of rulers" sounds ridiculous and actually creates a clash with another Greek word that can be helpfully translated ruler, Dynastēs.

One of the grand titles that everyone still gets is King. History doesn't always noticed that the poetic titles and the literal executive power titles have slowly been separated. So whereas before kings and queens had more or less ultimate say over their countries (think taxes and wars especially) and it was up to local governors to execute their commands, nowadays, kings and queens are more symbolically or religiously invested. It is their head executors are really the ones in charge (like Prime Minister, which, by the way, is also ridiculous sounding, way too British and, in contrast with the observations made of the cumulative poetic adulation in the biblical framework, it is perfunctory and static). 

But I have a couple of fresh suggestions, if I may. It's my blog and piece, so I may as well, but I really do feel that for these five instances we have two quite decent candidates:

  1. Commander-In-Chief.
  2. Condensing into or substituting "King of kings".

Commander-In-Chief

A commander-in-chief, also sometimes called supreme commander, or chief commander, is the person or body that exercises supreme operational command and control over a nation's military forces. As a technical term, it refers to military competencies that reside in a nation-state's executive leadership—a head of state, a head of government.

Commander-In-Chief I think is an interesting contender as it manages to contain the aspect of awe and accumulation with other grand titles like "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" (curiously I note that the Queen is no longer "Lord High Admiral" of the Royal Navy - did she resign?!). It also has an official power. She has to give her green light to important acts like going to war.

We also can note that in the context of 1 Timothy 6, we already have "I charge you to keep this command", thus Commander-in-Chief fits all the more nicely. Some of the translations around this verse are somewhat messy, perhaps in part because of the ambiguity of the text and the theological-motivated ambiguity desired by apologetics. I propose the following translation of this section, starting verse 13 through 16:

In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until God, in his own time, returns and reveals Jesus Christ our King as the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Commander-in-Chief. To him alone who is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see, to him be honour and might forever. Amen. 

Here descriptions are more clearly separated and grouped. Now divested of his direct rule,the closing exultation is for the invisible and immortal God.

King of kings

My second suggestion is to say that sometimes the repetition is not necessary in the target language. The most famous example for Septuagint scholars is that of Adonai-Yahweh. Since both were translated as Kyrios, the translators ummed and ahhed between "kyrios kyrios" and a simple "kyrios". There are also other examples of where since earliest times translators of the Bible have been sensitive to the issue of redundancy. What this, therefore, legitimises us to do is ask the following question: does a simple "King of kings" suffice to translate what was previously emphasised in parallel language ("King of kings and Lord of lords")? I would go further to say, yes it does suffice (see my suggestions below for the New Testament examples)!

Since we only have the five instances, we can write out the suggestions in turn, again in adaptation of the ESV:

Deuteronomy 10:17
1. For GOD your god is God of gods and Commander-In-Chief, the great, the mighty, and the awesome god, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

2. For GOD your god is God of gods and King of kings, the great, the mighty, and the awesome god, who is not partial and takes no bribe.

Psalms 136:3
1. Give thanks to the Commander-In-Chief,
for his steadfast love endures forever

2. Give thanks to the King of kings,
for his steadfast love endures forever


1 Timothy 6:15
1. ...which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Commander-In-Chief

2. ...which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings

Revelation 17:14
1. They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Commander-In-Chief and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

2. They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

Revelation 19:16
1. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Commander-In-Chief

2. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings

And not a "lord" in sight!


Conclusion:


Lord of lords can either be rendered King of Kings or Commander-In-Chief.

In my next post I will proceed to the 3rd obstacle in the path of the Yahweh translation, GOD.

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

"The Kingdom of Heaven"

The Gospel of Matthew is fairly well known for its particularity of speaking of "the Kingdom of Heaven" as opposed to the more classic expression found elsewhere in the New Testament of the kingdom of God. A common reason given concerns the Jewish nature of Matthew and his purposes for ensuring there is a special respect reserved for the name of God implied by the writer. Have you heard that theory? Or do you simply think that these gospel accounts vary in ways similar to different people describing different perspectives, like blind-folded people describing an elephant by its various parts? Sorry, both of these views are unlikely in this case.

I have been studying now the characteristics of Yahweh, the name of the Israelite deity, for some time now. I have also had a special interest in the Gospel of Matthew. Something needs to be clarified in these explanations (I am focussing on the first one here) which really do not satisfy, in my view, the actual biblical data available to us. Here's why.

First, although Matthew doesn't use the expression Kingdom of God very much, he still does do so, five times in fact! Secondly, he uses the word "God" just as much as any other gospel writer. Compare Matthew's usage with that of Mark for example. Matthew uses the word
God 56 times, including the 5 occurrences I just mentioned of the Kingdom of God. Mark mentions the word god 52 times. So that is, for instance, less than the author who supposedly has drawn a ring of fire around the name of God. Thirdly, the issue of pronouncement of God's name is not about saying or not saying G-O-D (or T-H-E-O-S), but rather the name of Yahweh.

So why did Matthew substitute quite often the words kingdom of God with the Kingdom of Heaven? I believe an alternative explanation can be grounded in Ephesians 5:5 in the context of what we know of Matthew more generally. Let's read this remarkable passage now, then return to it after looking at some of that "first-gospel"-context:

Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: no immoral, impure or greedy person – such a person is an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
As we have seen before, "the Gospel of Matthew", or whatever it was originally known as, is most likely a late first century text that is deeply reverent and devoted to a hellenised Jewish proclamation, confirmation and clarification of the Good News concerning God's sent, annointed, crucified, resurrected and exalted Messiah-Son. The author is careful to clarify and develop a number of things, such as "the fulfilment" of the stories already circulating about Jesus as fulfilment of Jewish Scripture (sometimes to the extreme), the certainty that Jesus outlived John the Baptist, the truth contained in Mark and Luke's accounts, and most significantly for my own journey over the last three years, quite what being baptised meant over and above John's baptism (in the name of the trinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit), all of which is set in ordered teaching blocks more accessible to excommunicated Jewish-Christian groups with a desire to learn and share. That sentence was getting a bit long, but on this understanding, let us stress there is also the Matthean desire to not forget the Jewish homeland in which the Christ story took place. Just because Paul's (and others) efforts to retake the nations for God and Christ has had a very outward focus these last few decades, those Judean and Samaritan (=northern Israelite tribes) lands and inhabitants mustn't be forgotten in the missional endeavour.

This endeavour has always been, despite Paul's general reluctance on its usage, about the Kingdom of God. However, the authority of the one in charge of said kingdom is understood to have been entrusted in its entirety to the exalted Messiah, God's very own Son and Heir. Thus Paul describes the Kingdom as in joint ownership in the above passage. It's not like God has washed his hands of this great work of his - he nearly did this in Noah's day! - rather the Project is shared perfectly, and still extended further to the saints through their annointing and baptism in the Holy Spirit. But like everyone else writing and teaching (and thinking and praying and....) in the first century, no-one had yet devised this trinitarian action in terms of a "Triune God" - that was a later "clarification". Hence, for me, it is very plausible that "the Kingdom of Heaven" is a widening of the viewpoint about whose Kingdom this is - thus imputing still more divine status to Jesus via this incredible kingship appointment and sonship.

Matthew's contribution to the eventual development of the doctrine of the Triune God never ceases to amaze me and should be considered a huge stepping stone.

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

Fatscript Episode 11, Joel 3, roundup and an announcement


Today we wrap up our short series on the Old Testament prophetic book of Job. A few key gleanings to take away with us:

  1. Joel was important in shaping Jewish-Christian theology, particularly with respect to the Holy Spirit's wide outpouring. How wide was perhaps the greatest task for early Christianity.
  2. As with other OT prophetic books of same genre, the day of Yahweh cannot mean a 24 hour period. Generations are concerned; major restoration and condemnation that…..
  3. Involves both natural and supernatural realms
  4. A stage of deportation seems already realised with some "Elders" left to oversee the precious land, although there is some movement through divine "timescape"
  5. Literal locust infestation seems unlikely, but remains possible.
  6. Not a full prophetic picture. Restoration where other nations are reclaimed. Link perhaps also with Peter's initial limitations.

Heiser's excellent Divine Council overview:


Download my sample chapter on the "Triune Hub" Jewish Christian religious mutation for free at https://www.academia.edu/34726445/Trinitarian_Interpretation_Mutated_Faith_and_the_Triune_Hub_Re-examining_the_Foundations_Chapter_1_


Monday, 12 December 2016

Coregency



I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation

Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah

This morning I woke up much too early because of congestion. My stuffy nose had meant that my breathing had been entirely through my mouth, completely drying it out. However, it got me pondering about the neurological authorities involved in the incredible breathing apparatus with which we are all endowed. Think about it for a moment. You can take total control of your breathing. Speed it up, slow it down, make it shallow, make it deep, breathe through your mouth, breathe through your nose (or even do both) or even stop it entirely to consume food and drink or take a plunge underwater; most importantly, while exhaling, manage your breath past your vocal chords in such a way as to make distinct sounds that we call "talking". And yet: 99% of the time (my made-up statistic), we are totally unaware of our own breathing and it is operated from an unconscious neurological location in a similar way to the beating of our hearts - to which we have no access whatsoever. In sum, not only is breathing amazing, but its authority distribution is seamless.

It then occurred to me that there could be some theological mileage in this as a helpful way to understand God's kingdom. The book of Revelation, right at the back of our Bibles, paints the clearest picture of all the New Testament of this coregency dynamic at work. God's kingdom has been entrusted to his Messiah, to whom he has given full authority for actual rule. This is not me trying to twist an interpretation into today's post, it is simply me trying to give good credence to the above passages. Coregency is what allows both regents to graciously assert that it is their kingdom. Some people today, including in the world of Christian apologetics, would like to temporarily suspend the possibility of concepts like co-ownership and coregency, before continuing with their lives in which such power-sharing practices continue to shape the fabric of our societies.


Saturday, 3 December 2016

A couple of trinitarian quotes


1. God inspired and required a remodeling of his people's faith into a new trinitarian shape, now including two others.

2. God is now working in his multiethnic people through his messiah Son and his promised Spirit, and they advance his kingdom and righteousness in the world through his people, the church.