by John Piper
It is clear in [Barrett’s] table that his listing is almost identical to the number of languages which in his opinion need translations [of the Bible]. Now let’s see where that leads us. Wycliffe Bible Translators, for example, go into South Sudan and count how many languages there are into which the Bible must be translated, and presented in printed form, in order to reach everybody in that area. Wycliffe’s answer is 50 distinct translations. What does “50” mean in this instance? Does it mean 50 groups of people? Certainly not, if we are speaking of unreached peoples, because in many cases quite alien groups can read the same translation.
How do I know this? Gospel Recordings also goes into South Sudan and counts the number of languages. Their personnel, however, come up with 130. Why? Because they put the gospel out in cassette form, and those cassettes represent a more embarrassingly precise language communication than does the written language. Different authors for different reasons, and different organizations for different purposes, are counting different things.31
So we can see that the reference to “languages” in Revelation 5:9 will not yield a precise definition of people groups. Neither will the other designations for people groups in that verse.
“People” (laou) and “nation” (ethnous), for example, are virtually synonymous and interchangeable in Genesis 25:23 (“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided”). Sometimes Israel as a whole is called a “people,” but in Acts 4:27 we read about the “peoples (laois) of Israel.” Nevertheless, in Revelation 21:3, “peoples” (laoi)32 refers to all the groups and individuals in the new earth. These facts prevent us from forming precise definitions of the people groups missionaries are to reach.
How Small Is a Family?
The fact that all the families of the earth will be blessed alerts us to the fact that the groupings God intends to reach with his gospel may be relatively small. The modern nuclear family is not in view but rather something like a clan. For example, Exodus 6:14–15 reveals the sort of grouping that is probably in mind:
These are the heads of their fathers’ houses: the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi; these are the clans [“families” in RSV and NASB] of Reuben. The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul, the son of a Canaanite woman; these are the clans [“families” in RSV and NASB] of Simeon.
Thus, “families” are smaller than the tribes of Israel (cf. also 1 Sam. 10:20–21). But they are not as small as households. The case of Achan in Joshua 7 shows this. After Achan had sinned and was to be found out, Joshua said that there would be a test of all the people to find out who the culprit was.
In the morning therefore you shall be brought near by your tribes. And the tribe that the Lord takes by lot shall come near by clans [mishpehot (“families” in RSV and NASB)]. And the clan that the Lord takes shall come near by households. And the household that the Lord takes shall come near man by man.
Joshua 7:14
What this shows is that the “family” of the Old Testament is better thought of as a “clan” (which is why the ESV has translated it this way). Its size is between the size of a tribe and a household.
Thus, the missionary task of the New Testament is to reach not only every people the size of Israel and every tribe the size of Reuben or Simeon or Judah but also all the clans, such as those of Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi, and Achan.
The fact that ethn is used so often in the Old Testament and the New Testament to designate the focus of missions should not limit our focus to the larger groupings. The word is flexible enough to provide an inclusive designation for groups of various sizes. In fact, Karl Ludwig Schmidt concludes his study of ethnos in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by contrasting it with laos, glssa, and phyle: “Ethnos is the most general and therefore the weakest of these terms, having simply an ethnographical sense and denoting the natural cohesion of a people in general.”33 Thus, panta ta ethn would be the most suitable term for including the others, which is in fact what we find in Revelation 22:2. Here ethn refers to all the people in the new earth, including the “languages” and “peoples” and “tribes.” So panta ta ethn is probably the simplest way of giving a summary designation not only to the larger but also to the smaller groupings.
What Do “Reached” and “Unreached” Mean?
If the task of missions is to reach all the unreached people groups of the world,34 we need to have some idea what “reached” means so that the people called to the missionary task of the church will know which people groups to enter and which to leave. Paul must have had some idea of what “reached” means when he said in Romans 15:23, “I no longer have any room for work in these regions.” He must have known what it means to complete the missionary task when he said in Romans 15:19, “From Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ.” He knew his work was done in that region. That is why he headed for Spain. The 1982 Unreached Peoples Meeting, referred to earlier, defined an “unreached” people group as “a people group within which there is no indigenous community of believing Christians able to evangelize this people group.”35 Thus, a group is reached when mission efforts have established an indigenous church that has the strength and resources to evangelize the rest of the group.
Patrick Johnstone points out that in a strict sense “reaching has nothing to do with response. . . . Reaching is really an indication of the quality and extent of the effort to evangelize a people or region, not of discipling and church planting.” But he admits that “because of popular usage, we have to extend [the meaning of] reachedness.”36
Both the narrow and broader meaning are warranted from Scripture. For example, Mark 16:15 renders the missions mandate as, “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.’”37 This does not say anything about response. If we had only this word, the missions mandate would be fulfilled if the message were universally proclaimed. Similarly, Matthew 24:14 says, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Again, there is no mention of response (cf. Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). In this limited sense, therefore, a people group is reached if the message is proclaimed in it as an understandable testimony.
But this is not the only way the missions mandate is expressed in Scripture. Matthew 28:19 says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” Here the mandate clearly includes a response. The missions task is not complete until at least some individuals in a people group have become disciples.38 This is also the implication of Revelation 5:9 and 7:9, which portray the final company of the redeemed as coming “from every tribe and language and people and nation.” If there are converts from all the peoples, then the missions mandate must include making converts, not just proclamation.
Most missions leaders define a people group as “reached” when there is an indigenous church able to evangelize the group. This is because the New Testament clearly teaches that a people must continue to be evangelized once the missions task is complete. For example, when Paul finished his missionary work among the peoples of Ephesus, he nevertheless left Timothy there and told him to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). Paul’s specific missionary task was evidently to plant the church, which would then be able to go on with the task of evangelism (cf. 1 Cor. 3:6–10). But the task of evangelism is not the same as missions. Missions is what moved Paul away from the peoples of Asia Minor and Greece (even from those who were still unconverted!) and pressed him toward the unreached peoples of Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).
There is a difficulty with defining the specific task of missions as planting an indigenous church in every people group. The difficulty is that our biblical definition of people groups includes groups that may be so small and so closely related to another group that such a church would be unnecessary. How large was the family or clan of Carmi in the tribe of R
euben, or the family of Achan in the tribe of Judah? And are we sure that the families in Genesis 12:3 are so distinct that each must have its own church? When Paul said that his special missionary work was completed from Jerusalem to Illyricum, had he in fact planted a church in every family or clan?
These questions show that there will always be some ambiguity in the definition of “reached” and in the aim of missionary work.39 For some families or clans, “reached” may mean that there are converts among them and that the church in an adjacent kindred clan suffices as an effective ministry of worship, fellowship, and equipping. The task of missions with regard to such near-kinship families may not be to plant a church among each one but to plant a church close enough in culture and language that they can be effectively evangelized. It seems that this must have been what Paul had done when he said that he no longer had room for work in that vast territory. Surely there were some families or clans that had not yet been touched. He would probably have said, “This is the work of the nearby churches.”
What this implies is that the dividing line between missionary tasks and the tasks of near-neighbor evangelism are sometimes unclear. This is why the terms “E-1,” “E-2,” and “E-3” evangelism have been invented.40 They show that there are not two clearly distinct tasks (domestic evangelism vs. frontier missions) but rather gradations of cultural distance from the Christian community. Where that distance becomes so great that we start calling its penetration “missions” is not always clear.41
Implications
But the fact that there is a distinct calling on the church to do frontier missionary work among all the remaining unreached people groups is crystal clear from the New Testament. Our question today should be: What persons or agencies in the various churches and denominations should pick up this unique Paul-type mission? It is not the only work of the church. Timothy-type ministries are also important. He was a foreigner working at Ephesus, continuing what Paul had begun. But Paul had to move on because he was driven by a special commission42 and by a grasp of God’s worldwide mission purpose revealed in the Old Testament. There is no reason to think that God’s purpose has changed today.
Who then is to pick up the mantle of the apostle’s unique missionary task of reaching more and more peoples? Shouldn’t every denomination and church have some vital group that is recruiting, equipping, sending, and supporting Paul-type missionaries to more and more unreached peoples? Shouldn’t every church and denomination have a group of people (a missions agency or board) who sees its special and primary task as not merely to win as many individuals to Christ as possible but to win some individuals (i.e., plant a church) among all the unreached peoples of the earth?
The Supremacy of God in the Worship of the Nations
What does this chapter have to do with the supremacy of God? God’s great goal in all of history is to uphold and display the glory of his name for the enjoyment of his people from all the nations.43 The question now is: Why does God pursue the goal of displaying his glory by focusing the missionary task on all the peoples of the world? How does this missionary aim serve best to achieve God’s goal?
The first thing we notice in pondering this question is how the ultimate goal of God’s glory is confirmed in the cluster of texts that focus missionary attention on the people groups of the world. For example, Paul said that his apostleship was given “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [Christ’s] name among all the nations” (Rom. 1:5). Missions is for the glory of Christ. Its goal is to reestablish the supremacy of Christ among the peoples of the world. Similarly, in Romans 15:9, Paul says that Christ did his own missionary work and inspired Paul’s “in order that the Gentiles [or nations] might glorify God for his mercy.” The goal of Christ’s mission and ours is that God might be glorified by the nations as they experience his mercy. Accordingly, the consummation of missions is described in Revelation 5:9 as persons from “every tribe and language and people and nation” worshiping the Lamb and declaring the infinite worth of his glory. All of this is in accord with the repeated Old Testament calls: “Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!” (Ps. 96:3). The goal of missions is the glory of God.
Diversity: Intended and Eternal
Another thing we notice as we ponder this question is that the diversity of the nations has its creation and consummation in the will of God. Its origin was neither accidental nor evil.44 And its future is eternal: The diversity will never be replaced by uniformity. The evidence for this is found in Acts 17:26 and Revelation 21:3.
To the Athenians Paul said, “[God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). This means that the origin of peoples is not in spite of but because of God’s will and plan. He made the nations. He set them in their place. And he determines the duration of their existence. The diversity of the nations is God’s idea. Therefore, for whatever reason, he focuses the missionary task on all the nations; it is not a response to an accident of history. It is rooted in the purpose he had when he determined to make the nations in the first place.
God’s purpose to have diversity among nations is not a temporary one only for this age. In spite of the resistance of most English versions, the standard Greek texts of the New Testament45 now agree that the original wording of Revelation 21:3 requires the translation: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples.” Most versions translate: “They will be his people.” But what John is saying is that in the new heavens and the new earth the humanity described in Revelation 5:9 will be preserved: persons ransomed by the blood of Christ “from every tribe and language and people and nation.” This diversity will not disappear in the new heavens and the new earth. God willed it from the beginning. It has a permanent place in his plan.
How Diversity Magnifies the Glory of God
Now, we return to the question, How does God’s focus on the diversity of the peoples advance his purpose to be glorified in his creation?46 As I have tried to reflect biblically on this question, at least47 four answers have emerged.
1. First, there is a beauty and power of praise that comes from unity in diversity that is greater than that which comes from unity alone. Psalm 96:3–4 connects the evangelizing of the peoples with the quality of praise that God deserves. “Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples! For great is the L ord , and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods.” Notice the word “for.” The extraordinary greatness of the praise that the Lord should receive is the ground and impetus of our mission to the nations.
I infer from this that the beauty and power of praise that will come to the Lord from the diversity of the nations are greater than the beauty and power that would come to him if the chorus of the redeemed were culturally uniform. The reason for this can be seen in the analogy of a choir. More depth of beauty is felt from a choir that sings in parts than from a choir that sings only in unison. Unity in diversity is more beautiful and more powerful than the unity of uniformity. This carries over to the untold differences that exist between the peoples of the world. When their diversity unites in worship to God, the beauty of their praise will echo the depth and greatness of God’s beauty far more than if the redeemed were from only a few different people groups.
2. Second, the fame and greatness and worth of an object of beauty increases in proportion to the diversity of those who recognize its beauty. If a work of art is regarded as great among a small and like-minded group of people but not by anyone else, the art is probably not truly great. Its qualities are such that it does not appeal to the deep universals in our hearts but only to provincial biases. But if a work of art continues to win more and more admirers not only across cultures but also across decades and centuries, then its greatness is irresistibly manifested.
Thus, when Paul says, “Praise the Lord all you nations, and let all the peoples extol him” (Rom. 15:11, author’s translation), he is saying that there is something about God that is so universally praiseworthy and so profoundly beautiful and so comprehensively worthy and so deeply satisfying that God will find passionate admirers in every diverse people group in the world. His true greatness will be manifest in the breadth of the diversity of those who perceive and cherish his beauty. His excellence will be shown to be higher and deeper than the parochial preferences that make us happy most of the time. His appeal will be to the deepest, highest, largest capacities of the human soul. Thus, the diversity of the source of admiration will testify to his incomparable glory.
3. Third, the strength and wisdom and love of a leader is magnified in proportion to the diversity of people he can inspire to follow him with joy. If you can lead only a small, uniform group of people, your leadership qualities are not as great as they would be if you could win a following from a large group of very diverse people.
Paul’s understanding of what is happening in his missionary work among the nations is that Christ is demonstrating his greatness in winning obedience from all the peoples of the world: “I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles [or nations] to obedience (Rom. 15:18). It is not Paul’s missionary expertise that is being magnified as more and more diverse peoples choose to follow Christ. It is the greatness of Christ. He is showing himself superior to all other leaders.
The last phrase of Psalm 96:3–4 shows the leadership competition that is going on in world missions. “Declare his glory among the nations. . . . He is to be feared above all gods.” We should declare the glory of God among the nations because in this way he will show his superiority over all other gods that make pretentious claims to lead the peoples. The more diverse the people groups who forsake their gods to follow the true God, the more visible is God’s superiority over all his competitors.