Matthew 6:33’s “One Thing”

The Bible in several places speaks of “one thing” that believers are to focus on. Jesus alludes to it in Luke 10:42, where he tells Martha that “one thing is necessary.” The apostle Paul in Philippians 3:13-14 is more explicit: “But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” The Scriptures exhort believers to have singular focus, because being “betrothed to one husband” (2 Cor 11:2) entails “a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (v. 3); more practically, singular focus enables effective discipleship. 

Matthew 6:33, however, presents an apparent conundrum. It tells us to “seek first” not one thing, but two—“the kingdom of God” and “his righteousness.” Not only is this logically contradictory, as two objects cannot both be given highest priority, but it is also impractical, as human beings are generally unable to focus on two things at once. The problem is even more pronounced when one considers that people have historically acted in unrighteous ways in the pursuit of what they thought was the kingdom of God. One can think of the atrocities committed by the crusaders in their efforts to advance or retake the kingdom or church leaders who exploit their congregants to build their own ministries, which they equate to God’s kingdom. In such instances, “kingdom” and “righteousness” seem to be competing, even contradictory interests, with the former usually prevailing as people succumb to their more fleshly desires. 

An elegant solution presents itself when we consider the nature of the kingdom of God. If we understand the kingdom not as a present reality that needs defending or promoting, but as an eschatological one arriving with the return of Jesus on the day of judgment, then kingdom and righteousness no longer conflict. The logical and practical difficulties are avoided and the verse is harmonized, as seeking first the kingdom and seeking first his righteousness are functionally equivalent. This is because righteousness is the means by which we enter the eschatological kingdom. In telling us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, Jesus in Matthew 6:33 is indeed instructing us to focus on “one thing,” which is to enter the kingdom by his righteousness. Thus, we are to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to the cross, the source of our righteousness, in hope of the glory of the coming kingdom.

Part of: Contending for the Kingdom of God

"This is Eternal Life"

I believe eternal life is a future reality—we have eternal life when we are resurrected from the dead into new bodies that will never die. Eternal life means, literally, never dying, forever living. That is our reward as followers of Jesus. Hence, we hope to “inherit eternal life” (Matt 19:29). Those who leave behind house, wife, brothers, etc. will receive many times more now and “in the age to come eternal life” (Lk 18:30). As “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Tit 3:7), we are “waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (Jud 1:21). 

Yet, it is commonly believed that eternal life begins now, when we believe in Jesus and experience new life in him. One verse that is often quoted to support this is John 17:3: “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” The problem, however, is that the Greek word for “that” is ἵνα (hina), which denotes not equivalency, but purpose. Additionally, the word “know” is in the subjunctive mood, indicating a desired outcome. Thus, Jesus is saying “this is eternal life, so that (or in order that) they might know you...” If Jesus were saying that eternal life is the same as knowing God, which the English translation can appear to be saying, then he would have more likely used the word ὅτι (hoti) and “know” would not be in the subjunctive. 

This actually parallels the construction of the preceding verses: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that (ἵνα) the Son may glorify (subjunctive) you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to (ἵνα) give (subjunctive) eternal life to all whom you have given him” (Jn 17:1-2). Of course, there remains interpretive difficulty because it is not immediately clear what Jesus means when he says “this is eternal life, so that they might know you.” What exactly is being done in order that people might know God? Still, whatever Jesus means here, he is not equating eternal life to simply knowing him. 

To be sure, knowing God is a wonderful thing! Right now, by faith in Christ, we can enjoy a personal relationship with God and new life in the Spirit. However, this is not our ultimate inheritance and reward. Rather, we must persevere in this faith and life in the Spirit until we obtain eternal life, when “the mortal puts on immortality” (1 Cor 15:54). Eternal life is thus the goal, the “end” of our sanctification (Rom 6:22). We live “in hope of eternal life” (Tit 1:2), which God has promised to those who believe in his Son (Jn 3:16).

Little Timmy and the Sailing Trip

Little Timmy’s father was a decorated naval officer who had one last deployment at sea. Wanting to celebrate his retirement and also thank his wife and son for their forbearance toward his frequent absence over the years, he promised Timmy that he would take them on an extended sailing trip upon his return. Little Timmy was ecstatic. He could not wait to spend time with his father traveling, exploring the seas, and visiting new places. While on his final deployment, Timmy’s father regularly called back home, and every time he would be bombarded by Timmy’s questions. What would life at sea be like? What boat would they be traveling in? What destinations did his father have in mind? His father happily answered these questions, delighted at his son’s excitement, which in turn made him all the more eager to return home. 

Finally, the day arrived. Little Timmy was bursting with anticipation. But then, in a groundbreaking turn of events, Timmy’s father usurped expectations by revealing that his promise to bring the family sailing was not meant to be taken literally! Rather, the promise was to be fulfilled in his own person and presence, and in his renewed relationship with his son. Timmy’s father would fulfill his word not by actually taking the family on a sailing trip, but by simply being back home and being present, never leaving for extended periods again. Though they would not be sailing the seas, he and Timmy would still be “riding the waves” of quality time spent together. Little Timmy of course felt rather confused. What could he say? Wasn’t he glad to have his dad back? Shouldn’t that be enough? Isn’t that better than sailing? 

This, in fact, is the same kind of reasoning that is often applied to promises and prophecies about Israel. Consider, for example, the claim that “God’s covenant and blessing promised to Abraham is being fulfilled in the person and ministry of Jesus and his followers.”¹ According to this, God’s promise that Abraham and his descendants would inherit the land was being fulfilled in Jesus, even though the Jews were expelled from the land within a generation and Abraham is still dead, to this day never having possessed any of the land (Acts 7:5). Consider also the future glorification of Jerusalem that is spoken of numerous times (e.g. Isa 62:1, 65:18). Yet when it is claimed that “the church does not replace Israel, but it does fulfill the promises made to Israel,”² then we have to believe that somehow Jerusalem has been glorified through the church, even though the actual city of Jerusalem remains as imperfect as ever. 

At what point does this become blatant trickery? Somehow Abraham and his descendants have inherited the land without actually inheriting the land. Somehow Jerusalem has been glorified without actually being glorified. We are like little Timmy who has to think he is sailing with his dad even though in reality he is not. It may sound pious to say that the promises were fulfilled “in the person and ministry of Jesus,” that it is “all about Jesus,” and that Jesus is enough and even better than what Israel was hoping for—who cares about land when you have Jesus? But in the end, the problem remains: God did not do what he said. Ultimately, Timmy’s father did not bring him sailing. Of course, salvation in Jesus and the ministry of the Spirit are wonderful things. Yet God in his wisdom has chosen to administer this salvation within a story in which Israel has a special place. Jesus does not nullify Israel’s distinctiveness under the guise of fulfillment; rather, he affirms God’s calling upon the Jews and invites Gentiles to join in anticipating the fulfillment of Israel’s promises.

¹ Schnabel, Eckard J., “Israel, the People of God, and the Nations,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 1 (2002): 50.

² Parker, Brent E., “The Church as the Renewed Israel in Christ: A Study of 1 Peter 2:4-10,” SBJT 21, no. 3 (2017): 46.  

Hannah’s Peculiar Prayer

1 Samuel opens with Hannah’s grief over her inability to bear children. In her distress, she prays to the Lord at Shiloh, promising to devote her child to him if he gives her a son. Eli the priest notices her and, despite an initial misunderstanding, blesses her. Afterward, God opens her womb and Hannah conceives and gives birth to Samuel. After Samuel is weaned, Hannah brings him back to Eli to serve at the temple at Shiloh as she promised.

Then, in the second chapter, Hannah prays a rather peculiar prayer. She speaks of her joy and triumph in the Lord and then declares, “My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in your salvation” (1 Sam 2:1). What enemies? Is she referring to her previous infertility? Or does she mean Satan? Yet later on, she says that “the bows of the mighty are broken” (v. 4), “the wicked shall be cut off in darkness” (v. 9), and “the adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces” (v. 10). She appears to have in mind actual people. But this seems rather excessive. All that happened is she had a baby. What does that have to do with the destruction of God’s enemies?

Not only that, but Hannah also proclaims that “the feeble bind on strength” (v. 4) and “those who were hungry have ceased to hunger” (v. 5). Indeed, God “raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes” (v. 8). Yes, God blessed Hannah greatly, but what does that have to do with the poor and hungry of the earth? God delivered her from her barrenness, but how does that equate to deliverance for the oppressed? Is Hannah out of touch with reality?

The answer, of course, is no. Hannah is being neither overdramatic nor irrational. Rather, as an Israelite who believes in God’s promises, Hannah anticipates a time when God will bring complete justice to the earth, judging the wicked and rescuing those who are broken and downtrodden. She therefore prays according to her faith, speaking prophetically about what she believes God will do in the future. The conclusion of her prayer sums it up quite well—note also the messianic overtones: “The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed” (v. 10).

Hannah prayed this way not because the birth of Samuel fulfilled these promises, but because it confirmed them. If God was faithful and able to give her a child, then he will certainly keep his promises concerning ultimate deliverance! In fact, anything that God does is meant to reassure us not only that he exists and is powerful, but also that he will bring about the day of the Lord. After all, the day of the Lord is the ultimate implication of God’s existence and power—a God who is loving and all-powerful surely will destroy evil, rescue the righteous, and redeem his creation (less obvious and more intriguing is why he has not done so yet). Whenever God works and does miracles, then, we too should anticipate the salvation he will bring on the last day and, like Hannah, proclaim this hope in our prayers.

Problems With “Already But Not Yet”

The most dominant theological framework among Christian scholars today is inaugurated eschatology. Also known as “already but not yet,” this idea is typically applied to the kingdom, as opposed to the other major elements of traditional Jewish eschatology. Rarely do you find declarations of an “already but not yet” day of the Lord, resurrection of the dead, or judgment of the wicked, probably due to inherent difficulties. It would be quite hard to argue, for example, that Jesus inaugurated the lake of fire at his first coming and will bring it to complete fulfillment when he returns!

But the kingdom gets special treatment, likely because it has historically been interpreted in ways that make it easier to fit into the inaugurated schema. This interpretive flexibility is in fact necessary because the kingdom of God as 1st century Jews understood it could not have been inaugurated at Jesus’ first coming. We can demonstrate this by considering what the coming of the kingdom entailed according to Jewish expectations at the time: 1) the Messiah would rule from David’s throne in a glorified Jerusalem, 2) Israel would be regathered to live safely in their land, 3) judgment on the enemies of God, 4) world peace and prosperity, 5) the Gentile nations would recognize and worship the God of Israel, 6) the healing of the nations. Let us go through each one.

1) Is Jesus “already but not yet” ruling from David’s throne in Jerusalem? No, he is not there at all. Nor has Jerusalem been “already” partially glorified. 
2) Did Jesus inaugurate the regathering of Israel at his first coming? No. They actually got expelled from the land afterward. 
3) Did Jesus begin judging his enemies at his first coming? No, he came to offer forgiveness to his enemies. Judgment comes later, at his return. 
4) Is there an “already but not yet” world peace and prosperity? 
5) Are the nations (i.e. governments, for example) “already but not yet” recognizing and worshiping the God of Israel? 

6) Has the healing of the nations begun?

It should be quite evident that the kingdom as Jews at the time understood it could not have been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus. For “already but not yet” to work, then, it must not have been that kingdom that was inaugurated, but a different kind. In other words, for “already but not yet” to be plausible, the definitions have to change. For example, rather than the Messiah’s rule from a throne in Jerusalem to the nations, which is not “already” happening at all, the kingdom is recast to mean Christ’s rule in general. Only then can it be said that the kingdom has begun because Jesus “already” rules now in heaven, through his Spirit in the church, or in some other way, though his rule has “not yet” been consummated. Similarly, while the actual healing and rebuilding of nations did not begin when Jesus came, physical and spiritual healing at an individual level did happen. And so the kingdom can be defined as God’s healing power in general, which Jesus introduced in his first coming and will finalize at his second. Likewise, though world peace remains as elusive as ever, we can have a measure of peace now in Christ, and in this way the kingdom is “already” here in part, though “not yet” here in full.

Do you see what is happening here? Proponents of inaugurated eschatology take present blessings that are like the future blessings contained in the traditional understanding of the kingdom as indications of the kingdom being partially realized now and then redefine the kingdom around those blessings. But this will not do. You cannot on the one hand claim that Jesus realized the eschatological kingdom that the Jews anticipated and on the other hand conceptualize the kingdom as something else entirely. You cannot claim two different definitions for the kingdom of God at the same time. Thus “already but not yet” has a problem. If the kingdom is the messianic, eschatological kingdom, then, as previously demonstrated, it cannot be said to have “already” begun. Jesus is not presently on a throne in Jerusalem at all. But if the kingdom is simply God’s rule, power, authority, or presence in general, then the kingdom is not eschatological to begin with, which means what is being realized is not eschatology, but simply some feature of God that is always existent in his nature. Additionally, you would have to make the case that Jesus worked with a definition of the kingdom that was foreign to his Jewish audience.

There are two further problems worth pointing out. Some will argue that the kingdom is “already but not yet” because there are certain aspects of the future messianic kingdom that are present now. But this reasoning is fallacious. Yes, there are blessings that are of the same nature as those received in the kingdom that can be experienced now, but it does not follow from this that the kingdom, then, is present. We can draw an analogy using dating and marriage. Marriage is where love is consummated in shared life and sexual intercourse. Yet love and affection are also present while dating. Does this mean that a couple who is dating has already begun married life before the actual wedding? Are they “already but not yet” married because they love each other, spend time together, and enjoy some measure of physical intimacy, like holding hands, now, though fullness of intimacy still awaits? The answer is no, because marriage is not reducible to its parts. The preliminary enjoyment of benefits that are characteristic of marriage does not mean marriage has partially begun. Similarly, the present experience of blessings that find consummation in the kingdom of God does not mean that the kingdom has arrived.

Another problem with “already but not yet” is that those blessings that supposedly mark the arrival of the kingdom were present even before Jesus came. Did God not display his authority and power on many occasions well before Jesus arrived? And surely there were believers who experienced the Holy Spirit and had peace in God before the first coming of Christ. Also, has not God ruled all creation from the very beginning? Indeed, God has always been sovereign, active, and working. The idea that Jesus initiated the kingdom at his first coming is therefore suspect, as all the indications of this “already” kingdom were operative before Jesus ever showed up on the scene. What has never existed and still does not, however, is a perfectly righteous king on a throne ruling from a glorified Jerusalem, bringing healing and justice to the nations. That is altogether “not yet.”

Part of: Contending for the Kingdom of God