#14 The Refugee Solution
Show Notes
In this episode, Cody and Anthony discuss the concept of refugees in the Bible, exploring how the Bible portrays believers as spiritual refugees who leave behind the Kingdom of the World to seek shelter and citizenship in the Kingdom of God, where we will find some profound implications of God’s refuge, the scriptural background for this idea, and what it truly means to live as a refugee in Christ’s Kingdom.
Music: Creepy Mood by SoulProdMusic
Podcast TranscripT
Anthony Delgado: "This light momentary affliction is preparing an eternal weight of glory for us beyond all comparison as we look not to the things that are seen, but to the unseen" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). In a post-materialistic world filled with immense spiritual noise, we're here to uncover the ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible and recover the truly mystical faith of our spiritual forefathers.
Welcome to the Biblical Re-Entrapment Podcast, where we bridge the gap between the ancient Hebrew story and modern insights. I'm Anthony Delgado, your host for this journey into the often overlooked mystical dimensions of the Bible.
Cody Urban: And I'm Cody Urban, co-host and spiritual refugee.
Anthony Delgado: Awesome. So this is episode 14, and we’re titling it "The Refugee Solution." Today, we’re going to discuss the concept of refugees in the Bible and explore how the Bible portrays believers as spiritual refugees. These are individuals who leave behind the kingdom of the world to seek shelter and citizenship in the kingdom of God.
We’ll also dive into the outpourings of what all that means. To start, I want to talk about the definition of a refugee. Cody, why don’t you take that? What comes to mind when you think of refugees?
Cody Urban: Someone who’s had to leave their home for a big, often negative reason—war, famine, or maybe an oppressive, tyrannical dictator. Essentially, it’s the idea of saying, “I can’t live here. It’s dangerous for me and my family.” So you’re fleeing that danger to find a place of safety and shelter where things are much better.
Anthony Delgado: That’s a good definition. And that’s the framework we have when we look at the New Testament, especially. There’s this clear dichotomy: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, always pitted against each other.
Where this comes from actually has roots in the Old Testament, although the way it’s expressed in the New Testament is a little different. I want to jump to Deuteronomy 32 and talk about how the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God became adversaries in the New Testament. If you go back to the times of the patriarchs, it seems that everyone understood there was one eternal, almighty God.
Anthony Delgado: So, in Deuteronomy 32:8, we get this commentary on the Tower of Babel, where Moses writes, "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."
What we see here is the idea that God has his people—Jacob, or Israel—who are essentially the nation of God. They belong to Yahweh, the Almighty. But the other nations seem to be governed by these divine judges. If you look at Psalm 82, their role was meant to be one of judging as Yahweh would judge.
However, they didn’t judge as Yahweh would. Instead, we’re told they judged unjustly. God placed them there to act as good judges, but they failed in their role. Sometimes, people mistakenly think God intentionally placed fallen angels over the nations. That wasn’t the original design. These beings seem to have fallen after their appointment.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: Right. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," as the saying goes. So, what we have is a situation where these nations are ruled by unjust divine beings. If we look at the literature of the nations—their myths and stories—it becomes clear that these rulers often set themselves up as the Almighty God. But they’re not. They’re created beings—divine, yes, but not eternal or almighty.
Jumping down to Deuteronomy 32:17, Moses gives us an interesting insight. He refers to these beings as demons. He’s talking about the sacrifices of the nations and says, "They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded."
Now, imagine how this looked to the people at the time. They were aware of an almighty God, and they were aware of other spirits and beings. But suddenly, as the nations formed from the people groups scattered at Babel, these nations started aligning themselves with these so-called gods. As Paul will later say in 2 Corinthians, they were "so-called gods," meaning they were called gods, though they were not truly divine in the same way as Yahweh.
Anthony Delgado: So now all the nations have their own gods, which is what it means when Moses talks about these “new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.” You can imagine a generation suddenly realizing, “Wait, we have our own god now? I thought we worshipped the Almighty.” There must have been a time when people were aware of both—the true God and these new entities.
Cody Urban: Well, especially with the confusion of languages at Babel. Suddenly, everyone’s speaking differently. It’s like, “We’re all saying this, but those people over there sound like gibberish now.”
Anthony Delgado: Right. I mean, I’m not sure exactly how it played out historically, but the biblical theology reads like it happened overnight. So, that’s what we see here. Then, in verse 18, Moses says something really interesting: “You were unmindful of the rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth.”
I think verse 18 is directed at these demons—the gods of the nations, these so-called gods. Moses is essentially saying, “You’re not gods like I am God. You are not the almighty, eternal Creator.” From a New Testament Christological perspective, we understand the “rock” to refer to Jesus, the one who created all things—the Christ.
So, Moses is saying, “You were unmindful of the rock that created you, the rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth or being.” This seems aimed directly at those demons. What we see is these gods setting themselves up as the Almighty, but they’re not. They stand in opposition to the God of Israel and the nation of Israel.
It’s fascinating because, if you read the mythologies of these nations, these so-called gods aren’t just fighting against Israel; they’re also fighting with each other. It’s very much like the world today.
Cody Urban: Yeah, in those stories, if one nation overpowered another, it was interpreted as their god defeating the other nation’s god. It all seems like a battle for power.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. It’s a case of, “As on earth, so in heaven.”
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: The idea is that the only reason your armies can conquer another nation is because your god has already won a victory in the heavens. These ideas are inseparable. That’s what’s happening in these ancient contexts—different nations vying for ultimate power, both on earth and in the spiritual realm.
But when we get to the New Testament, we see something a little different. Now, it’s just the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of the world. This shift happens because Israel wasn’t faithful to Yahweh. They demanded, “Give us a king like all the other nations,” by which they meant a giant king who was a son of the gods.
Cody Urban: Someone tall. That’s Saul.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly, Saul. And, as we know, that didn’t work out very well. Saul, incidentally, wasn’t even a Yahwist, which is part of the reason it went so poorly. But then we get to the New Testament, and somewhat ironically, God does give Israel a king who is his own Son. That king is Jesus.
We’ve already talked quite a bit about Jesus’ kingship, and we’ll continue that discussion more in the next episode. For now, the key point is this: Jesus is the king of God’s kingdom, and this king is God himself—Jesus Christ. His kingdom isn’t tied to a physical land. If we read Paul in Romans and Galatians, it’s clear that God’s people are no longer defined geographically. In fact, I’d argue they were never meant to be defined that way. Israel was always supposed to be a light to the nations, bringing them back under the worship of Yahweh.
Cody Urban: A kingdom of priests, right?
Anthony Delgado: Exactly—a kingdom of priests. That was always the purpose. Paul emphasizes this when he says that being Abraham’s child isn’t based on genealogy but on faith. He also says that being part of Israel isn’t about bloodline but about being spiritually connected.
Jesus and Paul both use this imagery of the grapevine—or the olive tree, for that matter. Some branches are cut off, and others are grafted in. The wild olive branches, for instance, are brought in. But what are they grafted into? Into Israel.
True Israel, then, is a spiritual entity—it’s the faithful. That’s how we’re meant to understand it today. Now, the faithful in all places make up the kingdom of God, while the unfaithful in all places represent the kingdom of the world.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: Juxtaposed to God’s kingdom, we have a ruler—the devil—who is called the ruler of this world. In the Old Testament, we see scenes like in Job, where the sons of God come before the divine council and Satan is among them. But in the New Testament, this dynamic shifts. Now, it seems these angels—or rebellious divine beings—have come under Satan’s authority. Not because he earned it or was given it, but presumably because he’s rallied them against the kingdom of God.
What we’re witnessing is a shift where the nations are no longer opposing each other as much as these rebellious divine beings uniting under Satan’s authority to oppose the kingdom of God.
Cody Urban: Especially after they’ve lost their authority, right? Jesus defeats death, rises, and says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” It sounds like these beings have been stripped of whatever rank they once had. Yet, they still act as though they’re the powers and principalities Paul mentions, even though they’re lost.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. They no longer have God-given authority.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: Now they rely on a different kind of power—their ability to collectively influence. It’s important to note that even though all authority belongs to Jesus, the final condemnation of the sons of God hasn’t occurred yet. The New Testament doesn’t seem to suggest that this has already happened. However, they still have influence, even without God-given authority.
This brings us to a similar paradigm in the New Testament. Cody, can you read Romans 1:18–23?
Cody Urban: “For God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Since what can be known about God is evident among them because God has shown it to them.”
Right, as you mentioned earlier, the patriarchs understood there was a divine Elohim. They had to. They were aware of spiritual beings, but they also knew there was one ultimate source behind it all. And they didn’t even have the Bible yet. Moses wrote Genesis much later.
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: “For his invisible attributes, that is, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what he has made.”
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: “As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or show gratitude.” Right? Even for the basics of existence. Like, “Thank you, God. I can’t make my heart beat—it does that on its own. I can’t create oxygen to breathe.”
Anthony Delgado: Right.
Cody Urban: So much to be grateful for, yet they reject even the simple act of showing God gratitude. Instead, “Their thinking became worthless, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.”
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. You can see that playing out here. I appreciate your commentary on this because you’re absolutely right—during the patriarchal times, they simply understood the one true God through the things that had been made. But what do you do if you don’t like what that God says?
What humanity seems to have done is what we see over and over in the biblical narrative: they deny the glory of the immortal God and exchange it for what we call idolatry. They worship images resembling mortal man, birds, animals, and creeping things.
This doesn’t look the same in every culture—it’s not exactly universal—but the general pattern of idolatry is similar. Whether or not the idols were actually imbued with the spirits of the gods, people believed they were. Worshiping an idol was functionally the same as worshiping the god it represented in the temple. So, instead of worshiping the true God, they chose to worship gods of their own making.
They turned to these gods, who often ruled unjustly—fallen, rebellious gods. These beings gave their favor to those who sought to accomplish their will, furthering their rebellion against Yahweh. That’s what we see playing out here: humanity suppressing the truth of God, replacing his glory with idols, and pledging allegiance to these other gods.
Cody Urban: It’s like pledging allegiance to another god instead of Yahweh. Sorry, I stepped on your point.
Anthony Delgado: No, no, you’re absolutely right. I appreciate that. In doing so, they become enemies of God.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: We often want to say, “Well, people are good people.” Like, “Buddhists are really nice, Hindus are really nice, and I have this Muslim neighbor who’s great.” But that’s not really the point we’re talking about.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. It’s not about whether someone is nice or not. There are wars going on all over the world, and really nice people are dying in those wars. That’s the reality.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: Hence, refugees, right?
Cody Urban: Escaping that.
Anthony Delgado: Right. And this is the kind of calling we’re talking about. The logic of Romans 1 plays out through the entire book of Romans. It says, essentially, there is a war, and the wrath of God is coming upon the kingdom of the world. The world is already condemned.
If you want to escape that condemnation, you have to transfer your allegiance. You can stay in the kingdom of the world, which is condemned and will come under God’s wrath, or you can come into the kingdom of God. It’s that straightforward.
Cody Urban: That pattern runs throughout the Bible. I’m looking at Isaiah 26:20: “Go, my people, enter your rooms and close your doors behind you. Hide for a little while until the wrath has passed. For look, the Lord is coming from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity.”
Isaiah’s saying, “Go, my people.” That refuge language is everywhere in the Old Testament. It’s one of hundreds of moments where the prophets use this imagery. They speak of God’s wrath as something real, and we’ve talked about this before—God’s wrath is a good thing.
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: People want to avoid it, and for good reason. But they often hide from it by burying their heads in the sand, instead of understanding what it means.
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: Nope. God’s all love.
Well, yes, he is love. And it’s in his love that he has wrath. Think about it: if I’m a parent and someone harms my child, and I feel no anger whatsoever, what kind of a terrible dad am I?
Anthony Delgado: That’s true.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: God does have wrath, and it’s also true that God loves all people. But, as my apologetics professor in seminary, Dr. John Frame, used to say, “Every theologian needs to learn to say, ‘in a sense.’” There is a sense in which God loves all people, but it’s not the same sense in which he loves his people.
I’m a high school teacher because I love high schoolers. They’re in such an interesting stage of life—they’re learning, growing, and it can be a very life-giving vocation. But when I say I love my students, I don’t mean the same thing as when I say I love my children. The same principle applies here. God loves all people in the world, but not in the same way he loves his own people.
To your point, God will bring wrath upon those who are condemned, even those he “in a sense” loves, because his wrath ultimately enacts what is best for his people. It’s what rescues us from this world. It takes us from being refugees within the world to finding ultimate refuge with him in the new heaven and the new earth. This expectation of wrath is consistent throughout Scripture—from the Old Testament to the New Testament. It was the expectation of Second Temple literature and the early church fathers as well. Wrath must come; it’s part of God’s justice.
David captures this refuge language so well in the Psalms. Take Psalm 71, for instance: “Be to me a rock of refuge, to which I may continually come; you have given the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.” Here, David is crying out to God for rescue. He’s living among people who hate him—some of whom are his own children.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: These people want to take the kingdom from him. David is just trying to honor God in how he rules the kingdom and lives his life, though he fails at times. Yet, his faith in Yahweh remains steadfast. He calls God his rock of refuge and continually seeks him, believing God has commanded his salvation.
This is exactly the disposition we’re discussing. The refuge motif falls under the broader gospel motif of the kingdom. When we talk about leaving the kingdom of the world for the kingdom of God, it’s about transferring citizenship. It’s saying, “I’m going to take refuge in God’s kingdom.” Psalm 71 provides a beautiful example of this process when David cries out, “Rescue me.”
Anthony Delgado: “Oh my God, from the hand of the wicked, from the grasp of the unjust and cruel man.” You get to a point where you say, “I’ve had enough of this world,” and you long to come over to the kingdom of God.
Cody Urban: Because if you’re not in the kingdom of God, you’re part of the kingdom of the world. It’s like a Tale of Two Cities, or really, a tale of two kingdoms. If you’re part of the kingdom of the world, which is at war with the kingdom of God, then you are an enemy of God.
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: Before seeking refuge in God’s kingdom, we’re enemies. As Paul says in Romans 5:10, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life?”
But that term—“enemies”—can make people uncomfortable. They might say, “I wasn’t an enemy of God.” But if you’re not part of his kingdom, then by default, you’re part of the kingdom of the world, which is at war with God. That makes you an enemy.
Anthony Delgado: It’s a location issue. It really is. Adam became an enemy of God when he rebelled and was sent out of the garden.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: He was removed from God’s presence and sent into the world. In a sense, the gospel motif of refuge is God calling Adam—and all of us—back into the garden.
But don’t miss what that requires. For David, it demanded devotion. We don’t receive eternal salvation, rescue from God’s wrath, without being devoted to him. Imagine if the kingdom of God were no different from the kingdom of the world—if everyone got in regardless of their loyalty.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: Citizenship in God’s kingdom demands allegiance. You can’t be a citizen of the world and simultaneously a citizen of God’s kingdom.
To illustrate this, think about the Israel-Palestine conflict. There are plenty of very nice Palestinians and very nice Israelis—people who are probably moral and decent individuals. Yet, despite their personal virtues, these two groups are enemies because they belong to opposing sides.
We often resist this idea, saying, “No, people aren’t enemies of God. I have this really nice Muslim neighbor. How can you say she’s an enemy of God?” But I can say that because she’s living in a different kingdom.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: It’s just the reality of it. You hear debates about open border policies, but God does have an open border policy. However, it requires signing on the dotted line, so to speak—giving your allegiance to Jesus and entering his kingdom. That’s the transition. You can’t be in the kingdom of God while worshiping another faith.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: That’s why I like the refugee metaphor. It helps address these kinds of issues. Let’s explore the New Testament concept of refugees a bit more. We’ve already touched on how becoming a refugee involves switching allegiances. I find it interesting that there are two primary perspectives on kingdom engagement: the Two Kingdoms view and the Transformationalist view.
I want to note that while these views are sometimes seen as opposites, they aren’t entirely contradictory. There’s truth in both. That’s often my approach—it’s the heart of The Gospel is Bigger than You Think: many Christian traditions argue over atonement theories and gospel interpretations when, within orthodoxy, they actually complement each other. These views often work together. Let’s break down the differences, though.
The Two Kingdoms view is what we’ve been discussing—there’s the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God. The kingdom of the world has already been conquered by God’s kingdom. However, we’re in a period where the gospel goes forth, bringing refugees into God’s kingdom. Eventually, the ultimate destruction of the kingdom of the world will occur, and the new heaven and new earth—the new kingdom of God—will come. This view emphasizes the distinct separation between the two kingdoms.
Now, the Transformationalist view takes a different approach. It’s an eschatological system that envisions the kingdom of the world becoming the kingdom of God. Transformationalists believe we are called not to separate from the world but to transform it. This perspective often emphasizes social justice, politics, and community engagement. Some transformationalists adopt what’s known as theonomy, which has two variations: hard and soft.
Cody Urban: What’s that?
Anthony Delgado: A hard theonomist believes the Mosaic Law should govern the land. They see transformationalism as the world returning to God’s law as outlined in the Torah. Opinions vary on how that applies, especially regarding sacrifices, but at minimum, they hold that the moral law should rule society.
A soft theonomist takes a more principle-based approach. They believe the moral principles behind the law should guide society, much like Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus emphasized the heart of the law, revealing God’s character more than the letter of the law itself.
Transformationalists who don’t engage politically may instead focus on embodying God’s work by addressing societal needs. For them, the gospel becomes a mission to rescue the oppressed, feed the hungry, house the homeless, and so on. In some cases, this view equates gospel belief with performing these works.
For example, they might say someone who engages in philanthropic work—even without professing faith in Jesus—is still a product of Christian transformationalism. Some might even go further, suggesting that person is a Christian in practice, whether they realize it or not.
Cody Urban: Interesting.
Anthony Delgado: Yeah, so that’s transformationalism. And you can probably already see some of the issues with it. What I think is that our desire for transformation is actually a product of our kingdom citizenship. When someone leaves the kingdom of the world and enters the kingdom of God, they begin to embody the heart of God.
When you have the heart of God, you naturally start to do what Christ would have done. What does Jesus do? He feeds the hungry, rescues the oppressed, heals the sick—you see these works throughout his ministry.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: That’s why I don’t fully agree with creating a hard divide. But I will say that the Two Kingdoms view aligns more closely with biblical theology. When you blur the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world by focusing solely on transforming the world, you miss the central point of biblical theology.
This is where the softening of wrath language comes into play. Many theologians today shy away from it, likely because of the influence of transformationalist thinking.
Cody Urban: I can see that.
Anthony Delgado: And dare I say, transformationalism often leans toward “wokeness.” I don’t want to dwell on that too much, but it’s worth noting. If the church’s message becomes, “We’re here to do good things because that’s what God stands for,” the hope is that the world will think, “Maybe we don’t hate the church as much as we thought.” But where does that leave us?
Cody Urban: I’ve definitely felt that pressure, almost like I’m doing PR work for the church. When talking to nonbelievers, there’s this temptation to highlight the church’s social impact. For example, I might say, “Look at how many homeless folks we’ve fed or clothed, how we support shelters, or run programs for adopting and fostering families.”
These are all great things, but I’ve felt tempted to use them as a way to convince people that the church is worth their time—like, “Hey, look at all the good we do under Jesus’ name. Isn’t that amazing?” But honestly, the reaction I sometimes get is, “Good for you. Other groups do that too—like the government, with welfare programs.”
Anthony Delgado: Right.
Cody Urban: At that point, it starts to feel like the church is just another social justice club.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. And that’s the problem. When the church becomes a social justice club, we need to ask: Is the kingdom’s purpose to transform or to rescue?
Cody Urban: Hmm.
Anthony Delgado: If you throw out the wrath of God and the opposition between the kingdoms, then what are we being rescued from?
Cody Urban: Sure.
Anthony Delgado: Why do we talk about soteriology—the doctrine of salvation? Why does the New Testament and the Church Fathers repeatedly use the language of being “saved”? Why does David cry out, “Rescue me, save me”? If the focus is merely on transformation, why isn’t David crying out for God to transform the nation rather than to rescue him from it?
This approach undermines biblical theology and damages our evangelism. Let’s consider what evangelism looks like under the motif of refugees. First, we need to reflect on Jesus’ defeat of the powers of hell. When Jesus died, descended, and rose again, the power of death over humanity was broken.
As Acts 2:24 says, “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death.” Or in 1 Peter 3:18-19: “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison.”
In his death, Jesus takes away sins; in his resurrection, he breaks the hold of death. This victory over hell allows us to come into God’s presence. It’s captured in the early Christian story of the Harrowing of Hell, which you can find referenced in texts like the Epistle of Barnabas. While not part of Scripture, it elaborates on the idea of Jesus descending into the underworld.
Cody Urban: Hmm.
Anthony Delgado: This connects directly to Matthew 27:52-53. Can you read that passage?
Cody Urban: “The tombs were also opened. Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and they came out of the tombs after his resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many.”
This verse has huge implications. It’s one of those texts that you read and think, “Wait, what just happened?” And then we move on like it’s no big deal.
Anthony Delgado: I know, right? It’s easy to skim over because it’s just a couple of verses, but it’s so strange—and if it’s weird, it’s important.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: Here’s why it matters. Those who had died and entered Sheol—the natural result of death in this world—were brought back because Jesus broke the power of death. This moment demonstrates that his victory wasn’t just spiritual but also physical. The saints of the Old Testament—those who had fallen asleep—were raised.
David once prayed that the Lord would not abandon his soul to Sheol, and I think this passage fulfills that prayer. Imagine David, Abraham, and other Old Testament saints walking around Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection, appearing to people. This is the narrative. This is what’s happening.
Cody Urban: What a scene.
Anthony Delgado: Absolutely. I hope it’s depicted someday. I’m curious to see how it would be handled.
Cody Urban: Yeah, I have a feeling they might not include this. I mean, they didn’t even depict the transfiguration, but that’s another conversation.
Anthony Delgado: True.
Cody Urban: We tend to skip over things like this, as you mentioned.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. The same goes for the transfiguration—it’s often avoided in church settings because it can sound too “Catholic” or “Eastern Orthodox.” Protestants might dodge it for that reason, which is a shame because when it comes to other faith traditions, we’re more alike than different in many ways.
As for this passage in Matthew, I’ve heard preachers dismiss it, saying, “Oh, it’s not that significant. It’s just about recent saints who died.” But where does it say that? The text describes a physical resurrection, with these saints literally walking around Jerusalem. Most people would agree that when Jesus ascended, they ascended with him.
However, the phrase “and appeared to many” is interesting. It suggests something beyond just walking around. You wouldn’t naturally describe entering a room and interacting with people as “appearing to many.” That phrasing might indicate something more ethereal about their resurrection.
Cody Urban: Like ghosts, to put it in modern terms?
Anthony Delgado: Possibly. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:8 that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That implies a sense of being apart from the physical body, which we call the intermediary state, or heaven. When people talk about going to heaven or hell after death, they’re referring to the body going into the ground while the soul—or being—goes to be with God. This state is conscious but doesn’t seem to be physical, at least not in the way we understand physicality.
When 1 Corinthians 15 describes the resurrection, it’s about Jesus’ return, when we’ll be raised immortal and given physical bodies. The intermediary state is distinct from that, and this resurrection in Matthew seems to share some characteristics. While Jesus was raised physically, his resurrection body wasn’t bound by normal physical limitations—he could pass through locked doors and appear differently, as seen on the road to Emmaus.
Cody Urban: Mm.
Anthony Delgado: So, the saints raised in Matthew 27 were probably not as ethereal as our concept of ghosts, but also not as physical as we are now. It’s something in between.
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: So they were raised differently, appeared to many, and I believe it was all the saints of the Old Testament who were raised. That’s the only way this makes sense—they were raised and then ascended with Christ. This event signifies the breaking of death’s hold on the kingdom of this world. In the Old Testament, everyone went into the grave, but David prayed, “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol.”
Now, when a saint dies, they are no longer abandoned to Sheol. Instead, they are immediately taken to heaven. As Paul says, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” This state lasts until the day when all things are made new, when the resurrection occurs, and we receive our eternal, physical bodies. That’s the biblical theology—it’s the sequence of events.
This framework is crucial for understanding evangelism. It’s where we derive the concepts of heaven and hell. The kingdom of the world is headed toward hell, toward condemnation, the lake of fire. Meanwhile, the kingdom of God is headed toward heaven, the eternal kingdom—the new heaven and new earth described in Revelation 21 and 22.
This dichotomy of condemnation or rescue hinges on the idea of refuge. Evangelism is about offering refuge in God’s kingdom. It’s not about cultural transformation, even if there’s intrinsic goodness in transformation. While there’s value in those efforts, they are not evangelism. Evangelism is the act of inviting people to take refuge in God’s eternal kingdom.
Now, this gets tricky. In the transformationalist view, people often say that inviting someone into the church for a meal or to receive clothing is an invitation to experience God’s kingdom. They see the church as the refuge of God’s kingdom on earth—and to a degree, that’s true. The church is the expression of God’s kingdom on earth.
But here’s where we need to be careful. Just because the church offers a temporary refuge doesn’t mean we can dismiss the two kingdoms framework. When we provide someone with a meal, they will eventually get hungry again. When we give them water, they’ll thirst again. When we clothe them, those clothes will wear out. These are momentary acts of refuge—they’re fleeting and temporal.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: What we must understand is that evangelism under the banner of refuge is about more than meeting temporary needs. It’s not just “God loves you, so here’s a meal” or “God loves you, so here’s freedom in this world.” It’s about offering freedom for the eternal kingdom. It’s about pulling people out of the lake of fire and bringing them back into the garden, into paradise.
Cody Urban: And then they will be transformed.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly.
Cody Urban: If I’m understanding this correctly, the Transformationalist view seems to put the cart before the horse.
Anthony Delgado: Hmm.
Cody Urban: Yes, we are called to “be transformed by the renewing of our minds” and not conformed to the world, as Paul says. Transformation is definitely a big part of being a Christian, but that transformation comes after we believe and switch our citizenship, not before.
Anthony Delgado: You’re absolutely right. That change in allegiance has to take place first. But it’s tricky because, in some cases, we do see fruit—like when justice ministries in the church minister to the world. These ministries often become a means of evangelism leading to greater things. So, I’m not saying we shouldn’t offer these types of ministries.
Cody Urban: Right, and I’m not hearing you say that.
Anthony Delgado: Good. Because these ministries are valuable, but they can also be misleading if not framed properly.
Cody Urban: I see them as offering samples. It’s like giving people a small taste and asking, “Do you want the full thing? Do you want to make this commitment?” Feeding someone or meeting their immediate needs is a sample of God’s love, but the goal is to invite them to experience the real thing.
Anthony Delgado: Exactly. “Taste and see that the Lord is good,” right?
Cody Urban: Yeah.
Anthony Delgado: But we know from Hebrews 6 that tasting isn’t everything. Let me read this real quick, starting in verse 4: “It is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”
It’s a complicated passage that raises a lot of theological questions. But what’s clear is that people can taste eternity, share in the presence of God, experience the goodness of his word and the powers of the age to come, and still, like Adam and Eve, choose to go their own way.
That’s the difference between finding temporary refuge in the church and eternal refuge in God’s kingdom. Temporary refuge is a taste—helpful and meaningful—but it must lead to persevering faith that results in eternal refuge. It’s not one or the other; it’s both. Be the kingdom of God here on earth, invite people into the church to experience that temporary refuge, but always point them toward eternal refuge.
On a practical note, that’s the key takeaway for evangelism under this refugee motif. We must invite people to taste and see, but also ensure they know what it means to belong to the eternal kingdom.
Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap up?
Cody Urban: Just one. What does it mean to live as a refugee when your true citizenship belongs elsewhere? It makes me think of biblical examples like Joseph and Daniel. Joseph, sold into slavery, lived in another kingdom under a foreign government with its pantheon of gods. And Daniel, definitely a refugee, yet faithful to Yahweh in exile.
Anthony Delgado: Yeah.
Cody Urban: Joseph and Daniel didn’t shift their allegiance from Yahweh, the one true God, even though they lived as refugees. Joseph, sold into slavery, ended up living in another kingdom under their governance and gods. Daniel, similarly, was taken as a prisoner to Babylon, where he lived in the world but not of the world.
For any listeners, I’d encourage us all to truly believe that our citizenship is in heaven. Yes, I live in America, and if you’re listening from another country, you’re likely a citizen there, but our first and foremost citizenship is in heaven. Living as a refugee in this world means walking a fine line—submitting to the authorities above us while recognizing that our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus.
Most nations are better off with Christians in them. Orphanages and hospitals, which we take for granted today, originated from Christian missions. These institutions were built by followers of Christ and have since become secularized, but their roots are firmly in the gospel.
Anthony Delgado: Absolutely.
Cody Urban: Christians can invite others into the kingdom and offer them refuge. Joseph and Daniel are excellent examples of being good citizens in their respective earthly kingdoms while maintaining ultimate allegiance to God.
Anthony Delgado: That’s true, but it’s also tricky. In ministry, we often counsel people who ask, “Am I really saved? How do I know?” My first thought is, if you’re worried about it, that’s often a good sign. But Jesus warns us about tares among the wheat—those who are part of the visible kingdom of God on earth for the wrong reasons.
The real question is: Are you taking refuge in the kingdom of God on earth to fix only the temporal struggles in your life, or are you seeking eternal refuge? If your allegiance to Christ is focused solely on improving your current circumstances without extending to an eternal commitment, then your allegiance might be shaky.
True allegiance means a desire to obey God on every level—moral, ethical, and spiritual. When we sin, the Holy Spirit convicts us, leading to repentance and confession. As 1 John 1:9 reminds us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”
The key isn’t sinless perfection but a genuine desire for transformation. Are we content to hold onto areas of our lives where we retain our own kingship, or do we strive to surrender those areas to Christ? Those truly transformed by the gospel will be people of prayer, confessing their sins and seeking God’s character in his word. They become people who not only receive refuge but also provide it to others.
Cody Urban: Right.
Anthony Delgado: That’s where the church’s calling—to start hospitals, serve communities, and bless others—comes into play. Whether it’s on a larger scale or in small church settings, these acts of service are an expression of the gospel. They reflect God’s kingdom by offering temporary refuge and pointing people toward eternal refuge.
Anthony Delgado: That’s the balance we’re called to maintain. The church, whether through large-scale efforts like hospitals or small, local acts of service, is embodying the gospel by meeting immediate needs. But those efforts must always serve as a pathway to point others toward the eternal refuge found in Christ.
The key is not to conflate temporary relief with eternal salvation. Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, or clothing the needy are expressions of God’s love and a reflection of his kingdom, but they are not the ultimate destination. Our calling is to use those acts of service to draw people into the eternal refuge of God’s kingdom. That’s what makes the difference. We are not just called to provide refuge; we are called to point people to the ultimate rescuer—Jesus.
As recipients of eternal refuge, we now take part in God’s mission, bringing others into that refuge. Transformationalism, then, becomes an expression of the refuge we’ve received within the Two Kingdoms framework.
I hope that makes sense. That’s what I think we should see—a heart of repentance, a desire to confess sins, and a life lived out in offering refuge in both practical and evangelistic ways. Those are my thoughts.
Thank you, Cody, for sharing your insights today, and thanks to all our listeners for joining us. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review—it helps us reach more people. Don’t forget to visit anthonydelgado.net to sign up for the mailing list. You’ll receive updates on new episodes, resources, and insights delivered monthly to your inbox.
If you’re looking to dive deeper, check out past episodes, books, videos, articles, and other content on the website. Next time, we’ll continue this conversation by exploring how Jesus’ unique kingship impacts the mission of the church and the world today. You won’t want to miss it.
We’ll see you next time!
