Are Christians/Gentile believers “spiritual Jews” or “Israelites?” – Part II
Follow this link for Part I of this series.
In the book of Galatians we see apostle Shaul (Paul) writing to Gentile believers in that locale, and he was describing certain Jews (or possibly Gentile Judaizers) who were trying to force the Gentiles to be circumcised. Shaul said that circumcision has no value for them, and then he pronounced a blessing of peace and kindness on all who follow this rule of not becoming circumcised. Shaul was specifically speaking to Gentiles, and in fact only the Gentiles could follow this rule of not becoming circumcised because the Jewish male followers of Yeshua had already been circumcised on the eighth day of life according to the Jewish law (Leviticus 12:2-3, Luke 1:59, 2:21, and Philippians 3:2-5, for example). Notice that in Galatians 6:16 (below), Shaul was speaking a blessing of peace and kindness upon two groups of people:
“neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, … and as many as by this rule do walk– peace upon them, and kindness” (Galatians 6:15-16a, YLT)
In the above verse Shaul pronounced a blessing on Gentile believers who follow this rule by not becoming circumcised.
“and on the Israel of G-d” (Galatians 6:16b, YLT)
And so Shaul pronounced that same blessing on Jewish believers (i.e. “the Israel of G-d”, as we have already seen in several other passages).
In Galatians 6:16, Shaul pronounced a blessing of peace and kindness on two groups of people in the Body of Messiah: Gentiles and Jews. It is the faithful Gentiles who are told to obey this rule of not trying to follow the Torah in the manner of Jews (since it was not given to them nor is required of them), and it is the faithful Jews who are “the Israel of G-d” who were expected to remain Jews in every respect, including in their obedience to Torah.
What this all boils down to is that the New Testament does not teach that the Gentile believers have replaced Israel or have become Israel, spiritual or otherwise. In fact, the New Testament often makes a distinction between the nation and people of Israel and the believers from all nations (the Ekklesia), as in the following examples:
“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Messiah for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.” (Romans 9:3-4)
The apostle Shaul was a follower of Messiah, and therefore he was a member of the Ekklesia. Yet he described the people of Israel, those of his own race, as largely blinded to Yeshua. Since the word “Israel” is referring to the people of Israel, Shaul’s own people, then there is obviously a distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia.”
“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to G-d for the Israelites is that they may be saved.” (Romans 10:1)
Shaul ‘s desire was for Israel to be saved. The word “Israelites” is referring to the people of Israel, Shaul’s own people, so once again we can see that there is a clear distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia.”
“But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “L-rd, who has believed our message?”" (Romans 10:16)
Shaul implied that some Israelites had accepted the Good News (and were therefore members of the Body of Messiah), but not all of the Israelites had accepted the Good News. The word “Israelites” is partially referring to those in Israel who have not accepted Messiah, so once again we can see that there is a clear distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia.”
“Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.” (Romans 11:11)
Shaul said that salvation has come to the Gentiles in order to make Israel envious. Why? Because the majority of the people of Israel have not embraced Yeshua as Messiah. Once again, the word “Israel” is referring to the people of Israel, so there is obviously a distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia.”
“I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.” (Romans 11:13-14)
Shaul was talking to saved Gentiles (who were therefore in the Ekklesia), and he was distinguishing them from his own people (the people of Israel) whom he hoped would receive Messiah. Once again, Shaul was referring to those among Israel who have not embraced Yeshua as Israel’s Messiah, so there is a clear distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia (the Church).”
“Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the Ekklesia of G-d” (1 Corinthians 10:32)
The above passages are examples where the New Testament distinguishes between Israel and the Ekklesia, the overall Body of believers from all nations. In addition, the New Testament also provides a number of examples where saved Jews are distinguished from saved Gentiles within the Ekklesia:
“I ask then: Did G-d reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. G-d did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2)
The apostle Shaul was a follower of Messiah, and therefore he was in the Ekklesia. But he was also an Israelite. As a faithful Israelite, Shaul was a member of “the Israel of G-d” (see Galatians 6:16, above). Shaul said that G-d did not reject Israel, so once again he was making a distinction between Israel and the Ekklesia. The Ekklesia (Church) has not “replaced” Israel.
“They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jewsto share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)
Shaul specifically pointed out that Gentiles share in the Jews’ spiritual blessings. The Gentile believers (Christians) have inherited the spiritual promises of Abraham by faith, but they have not inherited the physical, material, or national promises that G-d made to Abraham and his physical descendants (the Jews) in the line of Isaac and Jacob.
“Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Yeshua the Messiah. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.” (Romans 16:3-4)
Shaul made a specific mention of “the churches (communities) of the Gentiles.” Again we can see that Shaul made distinctions between Gentiles and Jews within the body of Messiah. He never referred to Gentile believers as “spiritual Jews,” and he never referred to the Ekklesia (Church) as the “new Israel,” or the “continuation” of Israel, or the “replacement” of Israel, etc.
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (Galatians 2:11-14)
The apostle Peter, a Jewish believer, used to eat with Gentile believers. But he began to draw away from them so that he wouldn’t receive criticism from other Jews for associating with Gentiles. Notice that Peter did not defend himself by making the argument that saved Gentiles are “spiritual Jews” (meaning that he should be free to associate with his fellow “Jews”). Notice that he also did not make the argument that saved Gentiles are part of the “new Israel” (so he should be free to associate with his fellow “Israelites”). Instead, in the minds of the apostles and the early believers there was a clear distinction between Jews and Gentiles, even within the body of Messiah. Peter was wrong to separate himself from Gentile believers in order to appease certain Jews, but it shows that he did not try to argue that the Gentile believers had become Jews in any way, whether spiritual or otherwise.
“This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Yeshua the Messiah.” (Ephesians 3:6)
This passage says that Christians/Gentiles believers are heirs together with Israel and sharers together with Israel in the promise in Yeshua. It does not say that Gentiles become Israel.
Over and over we can see that the Apostolic Writings distinguished between Gentiles and Jews within the body of Messiah . Yes, Israel is one part of the Community of G-d (Ekklesia), and the saved Gentiles are the other part of the Ekklesia. We are all part of the same Body. Jews and Gentiles are sharers together in the promise in Messiah, which shows that the Ekklesia (Church) has not “replaced” Israel or “taken over” the promises from Israel.
Some scripture quotes used are from YLT and NIV. Some content is based on works of D. Root.
Wow! A long break between part 1 and part 2. This seems to be the day to talk about Jews/Gentile distinction in the body of faith since you, Derek, and I (and who knows how many others) have chosen this theme to blog on.
“Wow! A long break between part 1 and part 2.”
What’s a year here or there in the face of eternity?!
“This seems to be the day to talk about Jews/Gentile distinction in the body of faith since you, Derek, and I (and who knows how many others) have chosen this theme to blog on.”
Some people may think that all this talk of distinction will serve to create division between Jews and Gentiles. I think that the total opposite is actually the case. When people, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, know who they are and are comfortable being who G-d made them to be, don’t view themselves as somehow inferior or superior to their brothers or sisters, there is or will be no jealously, no resentment, no envy, no grass is greener on the other side. True peace, contentment, love and fellowship are the only outcome.
but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
and no one shall make them afraid,
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. -Micah 4:4
Amen.
Gene,
Are you up for makhloket l’shem shamayim today?
Sincerely,
Peter
“Are you up for makhloket l’shem shamayim today?”
Peter, if you disagree with something I wrote, comment away. Just keep it short and sweet, and try to avoid quoting “Rabbi Novak” if at all possible.
Gene,
Your argument is that (1) gentiles are excluded from Israel and (2) gentiles are prohibited from following Torah.
(1) RE: “Since the word “Israel” is referring to the people of Israel, Shaul’s own people, then there is obviously a distinction between “Israel” and “the Ekklesia.”
My response to your first point:
The Bible uses Israel and Ekklesia synonymously. See Acts 7:38 and LXX of Dt 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 5:22. See also pg. 42-43 of Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words and pg. 744 of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem.
(2) RE: “It is the faithful Gentiles who are told to obey this rule of not trying to follow the Torah in the manner of Jews .”
My response to your second point:
This rule is found in several places in Paul’s writings. We also find it in 1 Cor 7:19 “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.”
Notice the phrase “Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” This is a Biblical phrase that specifically means to keep the MOSAIC laws (see LXX of Ezra 9:4 where the phrase is used as a synonym for Mosaic Law; see also pg 82 of David Rudolph’s “A Jew to the Jews” in which Rudolph quotes Frank Thielman at length).
Therefore, you misstated Paul’s rule. He doesn’t prohibit gentile Torah observance but rather commands it.
In conclusion, your argument fails to prove that gentiles are excluded from Israel and that Paul prohibits them as a rule from following Mosaic Law.
“Your argument is that (1) gentiles are excluded from Israel and (2) gentiles are prohibited from following Torah.”
That’s not my argument. Gentiles who believe are included in G-d’s family (therefore connected TO Israel but are NOT Israel), and G-d expects Gentiles to obey Torah that is applicable to them, without taking on commandments required of Jews (i.e. living in the manner of Jews). Anyone who teaches Gentile OBLIGATION to circumcise/eat kosher/observe Shabbat, etc. is violating both the apostolic teachings AND teachings of Jewish sages.
Gene….could not agree more! All these scriptures paint a picture of distinction. Not in a denigrating way but as a fine woven masterpiece illustrating how we are one Ekklesia and at the same time different in Kadusha.
Thanks for articulating what so many of us already believe.
I just read a commentary on Korach written by Rabbi Morechai Dixler at ProjectGenesis.org that made me think.
Though the blurring of distinctions between Jews and Christians relative to their covenant relationships with God is not supportable (in my opinion), we see here that it’s possible that the motivation for some of these Christians to adopt Jewish religious practices is actually noble. However, as Rabbi Dixler points out, “pure and honorable intentions can sometimes lead to a deviation from the path of G-d.” We all have a path that God has assigned us to walk, but sometimes our own desires to draw nearer to God can cause us to actually lose our way.
As difficult as it may be for some of us, we sometimes have to stop listening to our own hearts and start listening to God.
Gene,
Being “connected TO Israel but…NOT Israel” is about as useful as being an illegal alien in America who is connected to American but denied American citizenship/rights. That ambiguous status (as opposed to the concrete citizenship status discussed in Eph 2) would only serve to hamper the process of conversion. You would demarcate between Jews (613) and Noahides (7 core). This is NOT the way Judaism operated in the past. The Noahide doctrine came into being in the second century. Before Noahide doctrine there was the gradual conversion process which the Talmud describes as degrees between ger toshav (one who is in process of conversion) and ger tzedeq (full proselyte) but which Torah records as simply “ger”. The Noahide distinction was invented as a response to the early Messianic movement which actually encouraged gentiles to attend synagogue and learn the Torah of Moses. The Torah, unlike the Noahide doctrine, encouraged gerim to learn even the Revealed Jewish Law (as opposed to the mere moral law of the Noahide). And this is the way the apostles taught the early gentile Believers–they taught them to learn much more than Noahide; the apostles taught the gentiles to be immersed and to attend synagogue to learn Torah, to imitate their practices, to keep Pesach, etc.
Let’s also keep in mind that the ger toshav was a second class citizen in ancient Israel because he could not own land—he could rent it until it Jubilee when it returned to its patrimonial owner–but, in the Messianic Kingdom, the prophets say that the gentiles will be reckoned as ezrach (citizens) and will actually INHERIT land:
“You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born [EZRACH] children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel” (Ezekiel 47:22) ESV
Therefore, we should treat the gentiles as fellow first-class citizens and landed heirs (who will actually inherit the Land along with the rest of Israel). If the prophets say we’ll have to treat them as ezrach (citizens) in the Messianic Kingdom then why not treat them as such now. The prophets knew very well that the Torah fully applies to an ezrach. Let’s keep this in mind.
Good Shabbos,
Peter
“gentiles as fellow first-class citizens and landed heirs (who will actually inherit the Land along with the rest of Israel”
Peter, you would like people to believe that Gentiles will all live in the Land of Israel, ignoring prophetic reference after reference to nations residing in their own lands (and only being required to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the Feast of Tabernacle) and the fact that only SOME Gentiles will settle in the Land (Gentiles always lived in the Land among Jews), and you make the classic supersessionist (Crusades anyone?) claim that the Land of Israel now belongs to EVERYONE in the “Church”. That’s Replacement Theology.
I wouldn’t claim anything beyond what Ezekiel said. What he said is not supersessionist. Notice he didn’t say all gentiles would reside in Israel but rather his statement that “those who reside among you” implies that others will not reside amongst Israel. My argument is based on the fact that we don’t really know which gentiles will ultimately reside in Israel and therefore we should treat the philosemitic and pronomian ones as potential Jews.
Shalom Gene. Congratulations on this Part II and wholly article as it is. Excellent work, and I could not more agree in every argument and point that you presented. Very foundationally and Scripturally don. We in Messianic Judaism need more such work and I do think that your work is very timely. Too many and too often “messianics” like Peter try to shlimazzle things around to fit their delusional opinions (no personal offense). It seems to me there to many of this “My argument is based on fact….” I’m too often deal with this kind of delusions and lunacy, so support completely what you saying. There is non Scripturaly I can add to your article, because all point right in the face to disprove any “messianic” fantasy. There much must be drown line between, otherwise all this shlimazzle will continue on and on. Seems to me there no end of philosophy of man. Mazel Tov and can I ask permission to use your article with your name.
Eli,
I am a follower of Yeshua. Are you as well?
Sincerely,
Peter
Eli, thank you and you have my full permission.
Eli,
By the way, I think you meant to say that I am a delusional, lunatic, *shlemiel*. Remember the shlemiel is the klutz and shlemazel is the unlucky one (e.g. the schlemiel spills his soup on the shlemazel). : )
G-d bless,
Peter
Peter, schlimazel means a fool who doesn’t do anything right. A loser, in other words.
The old saying for how to remember the difference between the two is “the schlemiel spills his soup on the shlemazel.” So the shlemazel is the unlucky one. It’s the opposite of good luck (mazel).
We’re arguing about this now? : )
A zohen vey Peter…”by the way…remember…” and on and on. Go be married to some nice girl, make children (may be 10) for yourself, or if even then you have too much free time on your hands, go and volunteer somewhere for good cause. If not come here to my farm, I will give you work to exhaust yourself, and you have no free time to be shlimazel then.
On another note. Peter character is not the one around. I met many of them even in last 6 years. It seems to me “messianic” movement managing production line somewhere. In our encounters with such a characters I found that this phenomena of spiritual suction/vacuumness prevalent in “messianic” circles. Friend of mine called them “Internet pests”. I agree. They going around Websites and Blogs and perform…….. Truly I wish this people get some work for themselves. There is no arguing…about it.
Gene, I enjoin your Blog very much!!!
Eli,
What have I said about you that you find so offensive? I haven’t said anything about you that I’m aware of. You are the one speaking lashon hara here. I have only blessed you. Are you mad about me discussing Torah with Gene? If Gene doesn’t want me to talk Torah with him then he can just tell me not to comment anymore. But he doesn’t seem to mind. Why do you mind so much that people are discussing Torah?
I pointed out your misuse of shlemazel because I’m trying to get you to lighten up a bit. I wasn’t trying to embarrass you.
Sincerely,
Peter
OK guys… everyone settle down and remember to be nice to each other. Peter may be wrong on some things, but I think he’s a nice fellow. He just needs to be guided to a more correct understanding.
Gene, thank you for blogging on this topic again. Peace to all. :-) I believe the most important goal which we all have is to protect the identity of the nation of Israel, or rather, the Jewish Identity.
I think, and I do not believe I am wrong in my assessment, that all sides of the argument within the various Messianic movements, hold the Jewish people in high esteem. Praise the Lord in this. :-)
It seems to me that we are all treading on an area of mystery that requires both sides of the argument in order to walk circumspectly.
I myself would lean more into the camp of Gentile believers not identifying themselves as “Jewish.” Here are some points to consider:
1. We are all speaking about both spiritual matters and physical matters. If I am incorrect in this assesment then I stand corrected. To be Jewish is a physical reality but it can also be a spiritual one. Consider converts to Judaism whose children were raised Jewish and their children raised Jewish, they would consider themselves Jewish.
2. Next consider the sayings of the Jewish Fathers: Pirkei Avot Chapter 3, Mishna 15b:
“Rabbi Elazar of Modin said, one who desecrates sacred objects, one who disgraces the festivals, one who shames his fellow in public, one who annuls the covenant of our forefather Abraham, or one who interprets the Torah not according to Jewish law — even if he has Torah [study] and good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.”
This is a statement which seems to be at odds with another Mishna. Sanhedrin 10:1 -
“All of Israel has a share in the World to Come,”
Clearly the implication is that “Israel” is more than just the physical reality.
3. I believe some Messianic groups still have not come to grips with the physical/spiritual implications of calling themselves Israel or Jewish. Of course many groups have clearly defined their beliefs on these matters, I can state from experience a general blurring of the physical and spiritual “Israel.”
Now I could go on with more points but the basic message is this: One side of the argument is very concerned with not trampling on the physical Jewish Identity and the other side of the argument is very focused on not dimishing the identity of the spiritual “Israel,” or stated in another way semantically, “The Body of Messiah.” Because I think that this is an issue too, that the term, “Spiritual Israel,” seems to be equal to the idea of the “Body of Messiah.” I would not agree with this idea, but it seems to be semantics at times.
And so at times the other side of the argument also clearly struggles with separating the physical and the spiritual aspects of Gentiles and Jews with Believers among the Nations and Jewish Believers. This is because one day, and I so look forward to that day, we will all leave our worries behind on this matter, and the physical and the spiritual will be united. But until that day arrives the spiritual and the physical are not fully united. The whole of creation growns in aticipation of the fruition of the World to Come.
I pray we all continue to stand with physical Israel and support Jewish Identity. I also pray that Israel would come to the revalation of the Divine Messiah. Peace to all. :-)
^ what a bizarre exchange.
Gene I have a question for you about the Messiah and if you’ve run into any dialogue about it (a specific subject). Would you prefer private email or somewhere on your blog to ask?
Benicho… email me to the email address on the Contact page.
truthceeker, thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Everyone should check out your blog.
My post above was partly prompted by the Christian supersessionism’s idea of Church being the “Spiritual Israel”. I see signs that Christian supersessionism is again becoming normative within the mainstream Christianity, especially among its growing leftist streams.