Jew & Gentile in The One New Man
Introduction
Does the Torah have any relevance for today? Is there any reason to retain any kind of Jew and Gentile distinction among believers? How do we deal with what seems like contradictory statements on these issues in the New Testament? One of the more complex tensions in scripture is the dynamics between Jews and Gentiles. This makes a certain amount of sense considering 1st-century followers of Jesus were primarily made up of Jews. Jesus dies, resurrects, and then ascends. Peter has a vision where God shows him to no longer call unclean what God has made clean, referring to the Gentiles. (Acts 10:9-16) Paul has his Damascus road experience, where he becomes the apostle to the Gentiles. This revolutionary transformation opens up the path for the gospel to be spread to the gentile nations, a people that previously had no understanding or access to an authentic relationship with God. In all of this, there is a wrestling that is taking place for how Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus should live. This complexity continues to be perplexing to the Church to this day.
On the one hand, there is a consensus that the entire New Testament is opposed to any observance of the Torah among believers. However, there are countless scriptures of James, Peter, and Paul continuing their Torah observance decades after Jesus's death and resurrection. I believe the Church lacks a clear and cohesive understanding of what is at play here and thus misses the mark on articulating what the N.T. seems to be highlighting. This lack of understanding creates many problems within the body and has seen a resurgence in gentiles attempting to observe the law, which I believe is a flawed conclusion. It has also caused the Church to try to erase any Jewish distinctions when Jewish people come to know Jesus. Both of these directions are out of line with what scripture seemingly teaches us. We will explore these ideas and ultimately look at the interplay with what this means regarding the One New Man mentioned in Ephesians 2:13-18.
In contrast to these differences being a place of friction, it is actually in this place of oneness-but-not-sameness, that we as the body, can answer the One New Man call authentically. Jack Hayford stated it perfectly when he said, "The Church is fully and authentically the One New Man only when it is made up of Jewish and Gentile followers of the Messiah who affirm each other in their respective identities." (Hayford 2014, #18) In this essay, we are going to explore Galatians, Acts, and Corinthians, as this is where most of the confusion lies. We will examine the ministries of Paul and Peter and other elements that require a more nuanced and contextual understanding of the text.
Laying Out The Contours of the Map
Before we start to divide scripture, it is important to contextualize a few things. We will examine the timeline of when Acts and Galatians were written, then we will look at who the audience was in the 1st century. We are also going to examine the ministry of Peter and Paul. These are three significant pieces of the puzzle as we look to scripture to help us understand who we are as the One New Man.
It is widely accepted among N.T. scholars that Galatians is the oldest book in the N.T. This timeline is important because Galatians, which primarily deals with the Gentile observance of the law, was a priority for Paul as he set out on his mission to the Gentiles. Galatians is the first recorded document from the 1st century. While somewhat debated, many think that Galatians pre-dates the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.
This council dealt with including Gentiles in fellowship and the standards that Gentiles would have to follow after their conversion. The reason Paul had to write out Galatians and did not lean on Acts 15 as the legal standard is that this Gentile standard had not been created yet. Galatians and Acts were taking place on parallel tracks, and both books should be read in light of each other.
Another significant component of Jew and Gentile relations is the distinct ministry between Paul and Peter. In Galatians 2: 7-9, Paul says the following: "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
On multiple other occasions (Ro. 11:13, 2 Tim 1:11), Paul confirms his specific call to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul exclusively ministered to the Gentiles (he did not) or that Peter had no influence on the Gentiles (he did). This call recognizes that the ministry to the Jews and Gentiles differed, and each had a unique focus. This distinction is essential, and it is helpful to understand it as we divide the text.
The final contextual piece that is helpful in understanding is knowing the audience. We are going to look at Acts 13:26, which lays out 3 prototypical members of the 1st-century audience that Paul and Peter would be interacting with: "My brothers, you descendants of Abraham's family, and others who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent." The above mentions 3 groups of people, and they should be seen as three distinct parts and not synonymous with each other.
Let us look at these 3 people as laid out in Lancaster's book on Galatians:
"Brothers" are Jews. In the context of the Pisidian-Antioch synagogue, Paul's brothers are his fellow Jews. He is referring to those who are legally Jewish. That is, born Jewish as physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
"Sons of Abraham" are Proselytes. The second type of congregant Paul found in the Pisidian-Antioch synagogue was the proselytes. Proselytes were those non-jews who had, for one reason or another, made a formal conversion to Judaism, thus becoming legally Jewish. According to Jewish law, they were no longer regarded as gentiles, but through the rituals of circumcision and immersion, they had taken on the religions and legal status of Israel. The Jewish community called them "sons and daughters of Abraham."
"God-fearing Gentiles" are Non-Jews. This third person in the audience describes non-Jews who, for some reason or another, were attracted to Judaism. They worshiped at the Synagogue with Jewish people and proselytes but chose not to undergo the ritual of conversion. They were not pagans anymore, but they were not Jews either. The God-fearers did not enjoy the rights and privileges of the Jewish people, nor did they have responsibilities with Judaism." (Lancaster 2024, #13)
Much can be understood by understanding the 1st-century audience. This audience was typical for the 1st century. Another point worth mentioning is that other reasons for converting to Judaism were not related to just the religious or spiritual aspects.
The reasons are as follows: Judaism was an accepted Roman religious practice, which means that Jewish status granted them legal status under Roman law to not worship other gods. Converting meant they did not have to partake in the sacrifices to the Roman gods that were culturally mandatory in Rome. Legal Jewish converts were also allowed to intermarry with other Jews when they converted to Judaism. Finally, it took away any social ambiguity. There is always a desire to be accepted fully into whatever community one is a part of. It is no different here. With this in mind, let us explore some texts within the scripture.
Paul's Rule In All The Churches
In 1 Corinthians 7:17-20, Paul lays out something he calls his rule for all churches. I would argue that this "rule" is a universal rule that should be in play today and should be one of the core features involved in Jewish-Gentile relations in the body of Christ. In this section of scripture, Paul says:
"Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called."
Far from trying to erase these distinctions, Paul encourages those who are Jewish (circumcised) to not try to erase the distinguishing marks of their Jewishness. A Jew does not need to become a Gentile. Likewise, if one is a Gentile, then there is no need for them to become Jewish (circumcised).
In regards to the soteriological issue (salvation), neither circumcision nor a lack thereof matters, but only keeping the commands of God. It was presupposed that Jews would continue to be circumcised as this was commanded to them by God, as far back as the Abrahamic covenant.
What is also interesting is that Paul is not trying to erase the distinctions between these two communities. In fact, Paul goes as far as to recognize that each group has a specific calling when he says each should remain in the condition in which they were "called." Paul is fighting for oneness, not sameness. Paul recognizes the differences in calling between Jews and Gentiles while continuing to fight for unity under the Messiah.
Augustine recognized something similar when he said: "Was one called having been circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised [1 Cor 7:18]; that is, let him not live as if he had not been circumcised. Was one called having been circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was one called being uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised [1 Cor 7:18], he actually conformed to obligations". (Augustine 1952, #323)."
Another way of communicating the heart behind Paul's rule is what Marquardt wrote when he said, "The distinction between Jew and Gentile, being intrinsic to God's work as the new Consummator of creation, is not erased but realized in a new way in the sphere of the Church. The Church regards the Jew as a Jew and the Gentile as the Gentile, not only initially or for the period of a few generations but essentially and at all times. Indeed, the Church's fundamental character is revealed in the fact that it is the place where Jews and Gentiles, with equal rights, are together with one another." (Marquardt 1998, #233)
I am particularly struck by what Marquardt is getting at in his statement. He is saying that only in the light of the recognition of the difference between Jews and Gentiles can we accurately see the character of the Church. This distinction is what sustains the Church's character and is fundamental to the DNA of what the Church is. To take this idea even further, were we successful in erasing these distinctions, we would be tampering with the character of the Church, which is supposed to highlight the unity in the differences between these two groups.
From a salvation standpoint, these differences do not matter, but from a carnal standpoint, there is still an outworking of design that God's purpose is living out between the two groups. To tamper with it would be like trying to erase the male and female distinctions within the Body of Christ.
David Rudolph of the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute has noted that this specific calling on Jew-Gentile distinction reflects the historical calling; "the Lord elected Israel to be his "treasured possession out of all the peoples" (i.e., set apart in identity and manner of life). The Jewish nation was called to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). This was Israel's service to God and is a permanent medium that exists today." (Rudolph 2008, #6) Kendall Soulen explores this distinction in his book, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, which I have reviewed here.
It is interesting to see how Rabbi Jacob Emden, a leading eighteenth-century Torah scholar, interpreted 1 Cor 7:17-24 in the following way:
"But truly even according to the writers of the Gospels, a Jew is not permitted to leave his Torah, for Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians (Gal 5) "I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, the Messiah will do you no good at all. You can take it from me that every man who receives circumcision is under obligation to keep the entire Torah." Again, because of this, he admonished in a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7) that the circumcised should not remove the marks of circumcision, nor should the uncircumcised circumcise themselves...You may therefore understand that Paul does not contradict himself because of his circumcision of Timothy, for the latter was the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father (Acts 16), and Paul was a scholar, an attendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, well-versed in the laws of the Torah. He knew that the child of a Jewish mother is considered a full Jew, even if the father should be a Gentile, as is written in the Talmud and Codes. He, therefore, acted entirely in accordance with the Halakha by circumcising Timothy. This would be in line with his position that all should remain within their own faith (1 Cor 7). Timothy, born of a Jewish mother, had the law of a Jew and had to be circumcised, just as he was enjoined to observe all commandments of the Torah, for all who are circumcised are bound by all the commandments; certainly, therefore, there is no doubt that one who seeks truth will agree with our thesis, that the Nazarene and his Apostles never meant to abolish the Torah of Moses from one who was born a Jew. Likewise did Paul write in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7) that each should adhere to the faith in which each was called. They therefore acted in accordance with the Torah by forbidding circumcision to Gentiles, according to the Halakha, as it is forbidden to one who does not accept the yoke of the commandments." (Emdens 1982, #107-109)
Far from trying to erase these differences, Paul's anti-circumcision language (directed at Gentiles) in Galatians can be understood as upholding Jew-Gentile distinction rather than collapsing it. "Circumcising Gentiles would have made Jews and Gentiles all the same. Paul's vehement rejection of circumcision demonstrates his commitment to maintaining Jews and Gentiles as different and distinct and militates strongly against seeing Paul's goal as creating human homogeneity." (Eisenbaum 2000, #508) Another way of viewing this is that Jewish believers in Jesus continue to keep the law as an ordinance and custom within their calling as Jews. Gentiles were free from this specific calling while also being included in Jesus's salvatory identity.
How does Paul's rule in the churches stand in tension between verses like Galatians 3:28, which seemingly contradicts the above idea when it says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female? Galatians should be seen in the light of Paul's emphasis on salvation. When Paul makes this statement, it is regarding salvation and specifically the lack of necessity for Gentiles to come under the law to access salvation. What is also true is that other issues exist outside of salvation.
For instance, Paul also discusses the differences in roles between males and females within the Church. These role distinctions did not relate to the value of being either male or female, nor did they have any bearing on salvation. Even in this light, it is still the orthodox Christian position that there are important male and female distinctions that exist by design. We do not erase these male and female distinctions in light of Jesus's advent. I would argue that this is the same for Jew and Gentile distinction.
Acts 15 & The Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem Council is the apostolic decree that the reigning legal body of believers established concerning how Gentiles should live post-conversion to Jesus. As mentioned above, the previous standard had been circumcision as a sign of the covenant for converting Gentiles, but that is about to officially change. Acts 15:1-2 lays the context for what is happening, and it seems to be a familiar N.T. pattern.
There were some Judiazers who were once again mixing with the believers, trying to coerce them into believing that they must be circumcised as taught by Moses if they were to be saved. Paul and Barnabas disagree with this, and so they go to Jerusalem to have a showdown conversation concerning circumcision and the "yoke of the fathers", which is the legal conversion to the Torah.
In this disruptive council, the output is that the leading Jewish council agrees that circumcision and, thus, the Torah is not necessary for Gentile salvation. The council lists only four ways of living in verses 28 and 29 that they encourage post-conversion for Gentiles: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials, that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
There are some key ideas to pull from this whole chapter:
Proselytes (Gentile Converts) no longer needed to be circumcised to be saved. Paul opposes anyone who tries to deviate from this rule for his entire ministry. This rule is the new permanent standard for Gentiles.
This rule was for Gentile converts only. This standard was stated in Galatians, ruled on in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, and affirmed again in Acts 21: 25. "But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Jewish believers are not in view at all here, and it is presupposed that Jews would continue to live as Jews. Jews would continue in the culture, lifestyle, and observance of the Torah. The law is not for the sake of salvation but for the sake of remaining nationally and covenantally Jewish. If you want to understand what covenantality means, I write about it in depth here.
This exchange lends weight to the idea that Paul's rule for the churches (1 Cor 7), to live in whatever distinction you were called (Jew or Gentile), stays in play.
In our Western Church, the message to the Gentiles seems to have been received loud and clear, but it seems less so regarding what our Jewish brothers in Jesus should be encouraged to do. Or, more specifically, how should the Church love its Jewish brothers and sisters? If there were any more questions surrounding this, Acts 21: 17-26 would seem to put to rest any deviation from Jewish believers in Jesus remaining as Jews.
In this section of scripture, Paul has returned to Jerusalem from his missionary work abroad. James, brother of Jesus and the principal apostle, relays to Paul that some in the Jewish Synagogue are worried that Paul is encouraging his brothers (believing Jews to not continue in the ways of Moses). Paul soundly refutes this, saying that among the Jewish believers who have received Jesus, they are all "zealous for the law." James then encourages Paul to take a ritual vow and purify himself at the temple to show that he continues to live in observance of the law. This affirmation to the Jews continues while affirming that Gentiles should only live under the four commands given in Acts 15.
The whole text of Acts 21:17-26 is as follows:
"When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.”
What is even more interesting about this vow that Paul took is that the vow Paul takes here is the Nazarite vow. This vow cost almost a year's wages; Paul took this vow with four other men and paid for all five of them, including himself. The Nazarite vow is also the vow with the maximum strictness and meaning. This is a clear outworking of the distinction established in the Jerusalem Council.
In this section of scripture, we see the following:
Jewish converts to Jesus continue and are encouraged to be zealous for the law, even after Jesus’s death and resurrection.
James, Paul, Peter, and all of the Jewish elders of the original group of believers continued to observe the law. At no point were they encouraged to forsake the law.
Gentiles were encouraged to not live as Jews, and this was re-confirmed in Acts 21.
The original apostles saw no problem with distinguishing lifestyles and callings among Jews and Gentiles while affirming the unity of the spirit through Jesus.
As F. Scott Spencer points out, "The representatives at the Jerusalem conference─including Paul─agreed only to release Gentile believers from the obligation of circumcision; the possibility of nullifying this covenantal duty for Jewish disciples was never considered." (Spencer 1997, #159). David Rudolph adds more weight to Scott by saying that he "interprets Acts 15:10-11 to mean that Jews experience soteriological blessing "through the grace of the Lord Jesus" and not by Torah observance according to the standards of Pharisaic halakhah (note the Pharisaic context of the demands in Acts 15:5). It does not follow from this statement that Peter considered Jesus-believing Jews exempt from the responsibilities of Jewish covenantal life stipulated in the Torah or that he considered these responsibilities necessary for salvation. He may have viewed them as commandments of God for Jews, the observance of which did not have a direct bearing on salvation. Similarly, the apostolic decree lists a number of ritual "requirements" for Jesus-believing Gentiles (Acts 15:28-29), but there is no indication that they are necessary for salvation." (Rudolph 2008, #12)
This discussion comes down to two main themes. First, that even among Jews, the only thing that saves is Jesus. This idea could be the allusion made by Paul to “the Israel within Israel” mentioned in Romans and the inner dimension of a true Jew in Romans 2. This standard is just as valid for Gentiles. When it comes to calling, Jewish believers in Jesus continue to see themselves as covenantally connected within a calling that compelled them to live out the Torah. This same calling does not exist for Gentiles. Adding one more voice, we can quote Michael Wyschogrod when he says,
"From this episode [Acts 15], a clear conclusion can be drawn. The Jerusalem community harbored two parties. There were those who believed that Gentile believers in Jesus had to be circumcised and accept full Torah obedience as part of their conversion to Jesus. Others in the Jerusalem community of Jesus believers believed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised but their faith in Jesus together with a version of the Noachide commandments was sufficient. But it is clear that both parties agreed that circumcision and Torah obedience remained obligatory for Jewish Jesus believers since, if this were not the case, one could hardly debate whether circumcision and Torah obedience were obligatory for Gentiles. Such a debate could only arise if both parties agreed on the lasting significance of the Mosaic Law for Jews. Where they differed was its applicability to gentiles. But both sides agreed that Jewish believers in Jesus remained obligated to circumcision and the Mosaic Law. The verdict of the first Jerusalem Council then is that the Church is to consist of two segments, united by their faith in Jesus." (Wyschogrod 1995, #170-171)
One Bride or Two?
The above ideas can potentially suffer criticism from a few perspectives. The traditional dispensational view, for instance, views two separate salvatory covenants. This position sees a soteriological distinction between Israel and the Church.
I do not believe that this position can be justified in any sense. On the issue of salvation, both Jew and Gentile come by grace through Jesus. According to Paul, the Torah is of no use in terms of the soul's salvation. In my view, dispensationalism takes the distinction between Jew and Gentile too far. It takes it further than Paul or the writers of the N.T. do.
On the other side of traditional dispensationalism lies covenant theology. Covenant theology seeks to erase all distinctions between Jew and Gentile. It sees itself (the Church) as becoming Israel. On its face, it seems to violate the entirety of the above points. The refrain I have often heard from covenant theology is that God does not have two brides, he has one. On this point, I wholeheartedly agree! Where I believe Covenant Theology has a current blindness is that it appears to believe that sameness is required for oneness. To be one does not necessarily mean to be the same. My wife and I are one, but we are also separate and distinct. The body has different parts with different callings and different functions.
This schism between Jew and Gentile started much earlier than either covenant theology or dispensationalism, both relatively new articulations of older ideas. Unfortunately, church history is rife with examples of church fathers breaking Paul's rules. Justin Martyr, Jerome, and Augustine are just a few of the church fathers who stated things like Jerome when he wrote to Augustine, "Since they [Jesus-believing Jews] want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians" (Schaff and Wace, n.d.)." I find Augustine's position somewhat perplexing since I quoted him above as recognizing Paul's rule in 1 Cor 7. Add to this the Council Elvira in (305 C.E.), which prohibited Christians from associating with Jews and observing Jewish ceremonies. "The Second Council of Nicea (787 C.E.) was the first ecumenical council to explicitly ban Jesus-believing Jews, who lived as Jews, from the Church (canon 8). Baptized Jews were expected to renounce all ties to Jewish life through confessions like the following:" (Rudolph 2008, #14)
"I do here and now renounce every rite and observance of the Jewish religion, detesting all its most solemn ceremonies and tenets that in former days I kept and held. In the future, I will practice no rite or celebration connected with it, nor any custom of my past error, promising neither to seek it out nor to perform it." (Parkes 2008, #61)
It seemed to take less than a few hundred years for the apostles' work concerning the Church's true identity to be ripped down. This caused a spiritual divorce and the start of the great schism between Jews and Gentiles.
Different but Equal
I have had the privilege of knowing many Jews. I have lived in both New York and Israel, and some of my closest friends are Jews—some believers in Jesus and some not. What becomes very clear, very fast, in any honest discourse with Jewish people is their self-awareness of their connection to being part of the historical Jewish family. They see conversion to Christianity as an abandonment of both their current family and their historical family.
In my view, their perspective on Jesus and what following him would like to look for them brings great shame to the witness of the Church. Not because the Jews themselves hold this view but because we, as the Church, have so reinforced this view to the Jewish people. On a personal note, I often wonder how much healthier the dynamics would be between the Church and Jewish people had we gotten this one perspective right. The Church also makes it extremely difficult for Jewish believers to spread the gospel to other Jews when the Church itself is trying to erase the Jewishness of the Jewish believer.
"In 1990, the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) interviewed a broad spectrum of the American Jewish community, including Messianic Jews. One survey question asked: "Is being Jewish very important in your life?" According to the findings, 100% of all Messianic Jews interviewed said "Yes" to the survey question. This was higher than any other Jewish group interviewed, including Orthodox Jews." (Rudolph, 19) This study is significant because even among modern Jewish believers in Jewish, remaining Jewish is of utmost importance to them. Rather than trying to burn this behavior at the stake, maybe the Church, after 2,000 years, should recognize that there is something of God in this idea.
What we can say with certainty is that there has been a great divorce between Jew and Gentile. I believe this problem will continue as long as the Church holds onto the idea that for a Jewish person to be saved, they must be rolled into the Gentile expression of the Church and not be encouraged to stay within their calling as a Jew.
Markus Barth wrote in 1969, "The church is the bride of Christ only when it is the church of Jews and Gentiles, the existence, building, and growth of the church are identified with the common existence, structure, and growth of Jews and Gentiles." (Barth, #90-91)
George Howard asserts that a Jew-Gentile community is the true articulation of the one new man. "The gospel, as Paul preached, demanded a continued ethnic distinctiveness between Jews and Gentiles in order that Adonai, the God of the Hebrews, could be conceptualized by both Jews and Gentiles as the God of all nations. This is certainly his point of view in Rom. 3:29-30 where he says: Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since God is one. His thought is that if God is one, he must be the God of both Jews and Gentiles. Belief in Adonai as the one universal God thus demanded mutual recognition between Jews and Gentiles that they both belonged to the same God. We may even go further and say that any attempt on either side to erase the ethnic and cultural nature of the other would be to destroy Paul's particular concept of unity between Jews and Gentiles. In Romans 11, Paul describes God as maneuvering Israel and the nations so that they will eventually be included within his kingdom (Rom. 11:11-36). Thus, it is necessary for Paul's thought to distinguish ethnically between Jews and Gentiles since each had an ethnic role to play in the salvation of the other. The ultimate goal, in Paul's mind, was the mutual recognition of each under the divine rule of Adonai, the God of Abraham. Paul's particular insistence on unity between Jews and Gentiles, as opposed to some nebulous concept of world unity, gives the continued observance of the law on the part of Jewish Christianity an important role to play within his gospel. All of this is to say that with Paul, salvation is the unification of uncircumcised, non-Torah-abiding Gentiles with circumcised, Torah-abiding Jews under the one divine headship of Adonai, the God of Abraham.” (Howard, #79-81)
As I quoted Kendall Soulen in my review here, he states that "Traditionally, the church has understood itself as a spiritual fellowship in which the carnal distinction between Jew and Gentile no longer applies. The church has declared itself a third and final "race" that transcends and replaces the difference between Israel and the nations...The proper therapy for this misunderstanding is a recovery of the Church's basic character as a table fellowship of those who are—and remain—different. The distinction between Jew and Gentile, being intrinsic to God's work as the Consummator of creation, is not erased but realized in a new way in the sphere of the Church. The Church concerns the Jew as a Jew and the Gentile as a Gentile, not only initially or for the period of a few generations but essentially and at all times." (Soulen, #169-170).
We are currently in a predominantly Gentile church. Therefore, a large part of any adjustment that will be made between Jews and Gentiles must come from the Gentiles. As Rudolph says, "A genuine post-supersessionist church would affirm the irrevocable calling of Jesus-believing Jews to live as Jews and raise their children as Jews. To put it another way, the Church needs to practice Paul's rule today if it is to renounce supersessionism fully and be restored as a body of Jews and Gentiles." (Rudolph, 16)
A Mystery Indeed
It is worth briefly exploring the why behind this idea. It could be a futile attempt in some ways, as there could be some mystery here. Suppose we can grasp that the work of the apostles was to expand the gospel while continuing to support the unified but distinct call of both Jew and Gentile.
In that case, we can see in a real sense what Ephesians 2 is saying when it talks about removing the dividing wall of "the law and its commands and regulations" between Jews and Gentiles. This idea should mean that in Jesus, a Jew does not need to become a Gentile or a Gentile to become a Jew to be in fellowship together under the Messiah. This idea should not be read to mean these distinctions no longer exist. The idea nestled into the One New Man is the gospel's good news. It comes to the Jew as a Jew and the Gentile as a Gentile and encourages us to live and have fellowship together. This place of fellowship serves as a community to Israel as Israel and the Nations as the Nations, a claim which God has on both, but God comes to each as they are.
Both groups must overcome the offense of the cross to the saving grace offered through Jesus. In my view, the dispensationalists are wrong in assuming that anything but Jesus saves anyone, and covenant theology is wrong in its absorption of distinction, spiritualizing many biblical truths, and its presumption that it assumes things that it does not. The victory of the One New Man is that we remain distinct parts of a unified whole. If we remove the distinctions, then we remove the victory of the One New Man. Oneness does not have to mean sameness.
On a very practical note, much can be said about Jews living as Jews over the last 2,000 years. It is a modern anomaly and perplexing that they have not been assimilated into any of the many places their wanderings have led them. Today, thousands of years later, in the urban core of Manhattan, one can see a Jewish man wearing a Tzitzit (4-chord fringe). One can see the unusual hats, the distinct observances, and the practices that the Jews have been mocked for keeping.
Say what you will about Talmudic Judaism, but this peculiar expression of the flesh of Abraham has retained its differences from the world wherever it goes. Even the most secular Jews, by and large, when examined closely, still see themselves as somehow historically connected to their Jewish people. During a church history that forced Jewish conversion or, at the very least, forced Jews to live as Gentiles to be saved, there is something supernatural about the stubborn refusal of Jews to assimilate.
I would argue that this is by divine design. What does a people need to do to be considered a people? I would maintain that they need 3 things: a land, a language, and a culture. Continuance in the Torah for the Jewish person is their culture, and through the covenant, it ties them to their land. In fact, it was a requirement for continued presence in the land. Against all odds, to the chagrin of replacement theology, and the center of all conspiracy theories lies Israel eternal, unassimilated, and back in a land surrounded by her enemies. Is it possible that in this place, the God of Israel will ransom the people of Israel within the land of Israel and write His law on their hearts, and they will be granted the gift of repentance and the chance to see the one whom they have pierced?
Our role as a predominantly Gentile church should be to both recognize and encourage the outflowing of this One New Man. Unfortunately, this perspective will most likely suffer under the accusation of legalism and salvation as an outworking of the law against our Jewish brothers and sisters. Both of these perspectives are woefully inadequate. It seems that a person can distinguish a million times that commands and observance do not equate to salvation, yet they will still be accused of legalism and fleshly works of the law. I would quickly argue this point by simply saying that even the Gentiles in Acts 15 were given commands, they were just given a different set of commands than what the Jewish believers followed.
The charge of legalism is interesting for numerous reasons. Mainly because a person can do anything in a legalistic way, but it is not commands themselves that make a person legalistic. Our inner Christian denominations testify that the spirit of legalism can be present in any kind of faith expression. Legalism is more of a position of the heart than an outflowing of an action.
We can look forward to the future when Jeremiah 31:33-34 says, " For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” In this prophetic new covenant, we see a confirmation of the law within the heart of Israel, but in a way that is ruled by the spirit, which is the missing piece of the current puzzle. In addition to this idea in Jeremiah of a new covenant, it is often been said that a better way of translating the word new, is that this will be a renewed covenant. The Jewish sages teach that it will actually be a renewal of the Mosiac covenant, but lived out in a new way.
As the Gentile Church, we should encourage our Jewish family in Jesus to continue to live out their calling as Jews. Recognizing this distinction is God-ordained. We can follow Paul's rule in 1 Cor 7 that each should remain as they are when they were called. As Jack Hayford stated: "The One New Man reflects a continuing relationship of interdependence and mutual blessing between Jewish and Gentile. Every effort should be made toward helping the whole Body of Christ recognize, embrace, and receive Messianic Jews with understanding." (Hayford 2014, #18-19)
References:
Augustine, Saint. 1952. Treatises on Various Subjects. Edited by Roy J. Deferrari. N.p.: Catholic University of America Press.
Barth, Markus. 2005. Israel and the Church: Contribution to a Dialogue Vital for Peace. N.p.: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Eisenbaum, Pamela. 2000. "Is Paul the Father of Misogyny and Antisemitism?" CrossCurrents & Jewish - Christian Relations 50, no. 4 (Winter): 506–524.
Emdens, Jacob. 1982. "RABBI JACOB EMDEN'S VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY* and THE NOACHIDE COMMANDMENTS." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19 (1): 107–109.
Hayford, Jack. 2014. Unity: Awakening the One New Man. Edited by Jonathan Bernis and
Robert Wolff. N.p.: Drawbaugh Publishing Group.
Howard, George. 1979. Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology. N.p.: Cambridge University Press.
Lancaster, Daniel. 2024. Galatians. N.p.: First Fruits of Zion, Incorporated.
Marquardt, Friedrich-Wilhelm. 1998. Das christliche Bekenntnis zu Jesus, dem Juden: eine Christologie. N.p.: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlag-Haus.
Parkes, James W. 2008. The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism. N.p.: Regents of the University of Michigan, Scholarly Publishing Office.
Rudolph, David. 2008. Paul's "Rule in All the Churches" (1 Cor 7:17-24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation. In Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. N.p.: Messianic Jewish Theological Institute.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. n.d. "CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 82 (Jerome)." New Advent. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001082.htm.
Soulen, R. K. 1996. The God of Israel and Christian theology. N.p.: Fortress Press.
Spencer, F. S. 1997. Acts. N.p.: Sheffield Academic Press.
Wyschogrod, Michael. 1995. "Letter To A Friend." Modern Theology 11, no. 2 (April): 165–171.