Salvation by Allegiance? Responding to the Gospel

In past articles, we looked at what the Gospel is and what it accomplishes at the cosmic level. We cannot stop there; however, we need to understand how we ought to respond to the Gospel. For if we do not respond to the Gospel correctly, we are lost and have no hope.

To recap, the Gospel is: That Jesus the King came in the flesh, lived a perfect life, was crucified, died, was buried, resurrected, ascended, is now on the throne, and will judge the world in the next age. The ultimate goal of the Gospel is the establishment of the Kingdom of God. This is accomplished through the actual Gospel events, which inaugurate and will in the future fully establish the Kingdom of God on Earth, while providing a pathway for us into the Kingdom, ending in our adoption as co-heirs.

It is vital that we understand the Gospel and what it accomplishes, for that will dictate how we view the Gospel and how we think we ought to respond. I will make that apparent further on in the article.

Repent and Believe!

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” (Mark 1:14–15)

“Repent and believe in the gospel”, a simple command by all appearances. Based on this single line, we can rightly think that salvation comes from repentance and belief, right? Well, yes, that is correct. However, some nuance is required, so let’s flesh out what exactly is meant by repentance and belief/faith.

What does it mean to repent? Is it saying “I’m sorry” when you have hurt or sinned against another? Or is it, as commonly defined, turning away from your sin? Being sorry for your sin? These are all partially true, but yet again, there is a need for nuance and further explanation.

The Greek word metanoeō is translated as ‘repentance’ in our English Bibles. Metanoeō is commonly defined as ‘to turn away’ or ‘to think differently’ or simply ‘to change one’s mind’. These are likely the best definitions to use in most instances, and repentance can often be a good word to use, particularly when we are discussing sin. However, when metanoeō is used in a Gospel context, as it is in Mark 1:15, is it best to understand it as turning away from sin?

Matthew Bates in his book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone^[1], makes a passing comment on the use of repentance in Mark 1:15. He argues that ‘repent’ is not used in reference to turning away from sins, but rather that to turn away from a certain course of action^[2], or as I would say to turn away from a certain allegiance. Is there any basis for this idea? I would argue there is.

Now, to be clear, metanoeō can be used in several ways and in different contexts. In our modern world, we often assume that one word has a very specific definition and it can only be used one way. An example would be repentance. Our common understanding of repentance usually has to do with sin and ungodliness. I am not saying that this is always incorrect. There are several passages that specifically mention repenting from sins.

For instance, John the Baptist is described as preaching a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) Often, repentance for the forgiveness of sins is directly tied to the Gospel itself. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19, 5:31) My point is that these are valid uses of repentance, metanoeō.

However, it does seem that the use of metanoeō, or repentance, can be stretched to include a person’s entire conduct, life, and will.^[3] What would be considered part of our life and will? Our allegiance, our loyalty, to something else or someone else besides God. Bate’s point seems to be that repentance in this instance implies turning one’s life and conduct away from that old allegiance toward God.

What is Faith?

This brings us to the crux of the article: What is faith? Like repentance, there are numerous definitions that we use in our modern world that shape our perspective on the Gospel and salvation. Many of us may describe faith as “belief”. Having faith in God simply means to believe in God. Is that all that is meant by faith? It does not seem so. Belief is typically understood to be the acceptance of the truth of a thing. Does God save those who merely ‘believe’ in him? It would seem not, for even the demons believe that Jesus is the Christ and that God is one. (Jam 2:19)

I would argue then that faith must be something more. Belief may be an aspect of it, but it cannot be sufficient. What about trust? Is trusting in God what is required of us? Are we to repent and trust in the Gospel? Paul seems to uphold Abraham as an example of trusting God.

“He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was ‘counted to him as righteousness.’” (Rom 4:19-22)

Paul is describing the faith that Abraham had in God to bring about future offspring. This heavily implies that trust is equivalent to faith. But again, is that fully what faith is? This brings us again to the Greek language. The Greek word we often translate as faith, pistis, can properly be translated as belief, trust, loyalty, faithfulness, and faith.^[4] The question then becomes, what is the correct definition of pistis in Gospel and salvation contexts?

Matthew Bates provides a strong case that pistis, in Gospel and salvation contexts, ought to be translated as ‘allegiance’, which is very similar to loyalty. Bates gives several arguments in favor of understanding pistis as allegiance in gospel contexts. I will briefly summarize four of them.

1) Bates argues that it carries this meaning several times in literature during the time of the NT. He points to works like the BDAG—a Greek dictionary focused on the NT time period, 3 Maccabees, which was written during the period of the NT, and to Josephus, who was a historian at the end of the 1^st century.^[5]

2) He notes that Jesus is most often referred to as King or Lord by Paul in his letters. When we see the name Jesus Christ, we must not misunderstand ‘Christ’ as an actual part of Jesus’s name. Rather, Christ is a title, meaning messiah. This would mean that to call Jesus the Christ, one is calling him Lord.^[6]

3) Translating pistis as allegiance can help us understand various puzzling passages in Paul’s letters. These passages include Romans 1:3, 5, and 16:25-26. Many of these deal with a phrase that is typically translated as the “obedience of faith”.^[7]

4) The declaration of “Jesus is Lord” fits with the current Roman propaganda in the NT. Bates notes how the Roman Empire was also spreading a type of gospel, but one that exalted the emperor as the son of a god. This means that the Christian gospel would have been highly controversial, because it called people to give their allegiance to Christ over the Roman emperor.^[8]

Allegiance to the King

If then Bates is correct, pistis, in a Gospel context, ought to be translated as allegiance. To make this clear, let’s connect the dots. The Gospel is the proclamation of Jesus the King and the future establishment of the Kingdom of God. The end goal of the Gospel is that Jesus will reign as our Lord bodily on Earth. This is and will be accomplished through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, which defeated the Kingdom of Darkness—the powers of Sin, Death, and Satan.

Being victorious and freeing us from captivity, Jesus the Christ makes a path for us to enter into his kingdom as one of his citizens, who will be adopted as sons and made co-heirs. What is the requirement for entrance? Faith, or as we have just clarified, allegiance. God chooses to save those who are allegiant to Christ.

Salvation through Allegiance

Now that we have established that pistis in the Gospel context is best understood as allegiance, a question may arise: What does saving allegiance look like? How is saving allegiance different from belief and trust? To restate, allegiance encompasses both belief and trust. Both are necessary for saving allegiance, but neither is sufficient.  

What is left out of belief and trust is loyalty and the submission that it implies. When we give our allegiance to Jesus, we are submitting to him as our Lord, our King. Through allegiance, we become citizens of the Kingdom of God. This is similar to modern nations. As American citizens, we are required to give a certain allegiance to the United States of America. There are certain obligations required of us: we pay taxes, we vote, we take care of our community, etc. Our allegiance is worked out in how we live. This is sometimes demonstrated through saying the Pledge of Allegiance. It is demonstrated through lawful behavior. It is also shown through a general support of the government, no matter the party currently in power. An example of behavior that would go against allegiance would be committing crimes or acts of terrorism.

Though that is not a perfect analogy, I think it demonstrates the point. Allegiance, by its definition, is in a sense active. Bates describes it as “embodied fidelity”^[9], meaning that a mere confession or mental assent is not enough. Rather, we are called to actual obedience. We are commanded to flee sin and to pursue righteousness. In his letter, James discusses the value of faith without works. He ultimately remarks that, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead”. (Jam 2:17)

Does this mean we are saved by our works? By no means! In fact, let’s take a closer look at James. A couple of passages before, James contrasts what he calls hearers and doers of the word. He describes a hearer as a man who looks into a mirror, but when he looks away, he immediately forgets what he looks like. A doer, however, not only hears the law but acts on it. (Jam 2:19-27) So are we ultimately saved by checking off a list of good deeds? No. But should our faith have works? Yes, for it is worthless without them.

Changing one’s perspective of faith—understood as merely belief and trust—to that of allegiance can be challenging. Many questions may have been raised on numerous assertions and comments made earlier in the article. I would highly recommend the books written by Matthew W. Bates. Three of his major works on this topic are: Salvation by Allegiance Alone, Gospel Allegiance, and Beyond the Salvation Wars. These were tremendously helpful to me and have shaped many of my thoughts on the subject.

But despite one’s opinion on the exact inner workings of faith, we do know that the good news of Jesus the Christ, the King of the cosmos, is the power of God for salvation. We serve a glorious King who will bring about the final victory over our foes and usher us into his kingdom and family. Long live the King!

---

Bibliography

Bates, Matthew W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2017.

Lee, ChoongJae. "Metánoia (Repentance): A Major Theme of the Gospel of Matthew." Journal of Reformed Theology, 2019: 149-165.

Notes:

^[1] You might now be able to tell where I got the title idea for this article from.

^[2] Matthew W. Bates. Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King. (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 4-5.

^[3] ChoongJae Lee. "Metánoia (Repentance): A Major Theme of the Gospel of Matthew." Journal of Reformed Theology, (2019): 153.

^[4] Bates notes that allegiance is synonymous to “faithfulness, fidelity, or loyalty”. Bates, 78.

^[5] Ibid, 78-80.

^[6] Ibid, 82-83.

^[7] Ibid, 85-87.

^[8] Ibid, 87-89.

^[9] Ibid, 98.