Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 2 of 2)
In the last post, we saw a number of passages that seem to pose an issue for Pauline dispensationalism, the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while he was on earth) and the other apostles. The differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel aren’t as large as some dispensationalists make them out to be — for example, although Paul never claimed that works are necessary for salvation (in fact he argued the opposite), he did claim that good works come from salvation. Furthermore, in many places throughout his epistles, Paul indicated that the body of Christ is included in true Israel (2 Cor. 3:6ff; 6:16; Gal. 3; Eph. 2:11-21; Phil. 3:3; Tit. 2:14), and only in one place did he possibly distinguish between the two (Gal. 6:16). [1] Yet there are differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel. How can this be explained?
Torah in the Israelite Writings
To understand this, we need to go on a little tangent. Jesus preached to Israel that in order to enter God’s kingdom, they needed to follow the entire Torah and Prophets (Matt. 5:17-20), and his disciples also taught that one must follow God’s commandments to be saved (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; Jas. 2:10-24; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). But what did it mean for Israelite believers in Jesus to follow Torah? When asked by a Jewish lawyer which commandment is the greatest, Jesus responded,
“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [Deut. 6:4-5] This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [Lev. 19:18] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-40)
In the Markan account, the lawyer responds that following these two commandments “is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Jesus “saw that he answered wisely” and said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:33-34). In his sermon on the mount, Jesus told the people of Israel that anyone who taught others to break the least of Torah’s commandments would be “called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). Even though the lawyer was denying the need for sacrifices and temple rituals, it seems that Jesus didn’t consider this to be disobeying Torah.
As the Messiah who spoke the very words of God (John 3:34; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10), the ‘second Moses’ to whom Israel was commanded to listen (Deut. 18:15-19; cf. John 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:20-23), Jesus has the power to authoritatively re-interpret the Mosaic Law for Israel. If he says that those who love God and their neighbor fulfill Torah, and this is much more important than temple rituals (as indeed he did), then this is the interpretation Israel is expected to follow. This is supported by Jesus’ sermon to his disciples in the gospel of John, in which he said,
“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you... I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.” (John 15:10-14, 17)
Jesus establishes here that for his Israelite disciples to abide in the love of him and his Father, they must follow his commandments; he also establishes that the commandment they must follow is to love one another.
John says the same thing many times in his other writings: “Whoever loves a brother or sister abides in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling” (1 John 2:10); “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers and sisters. Whoever does not love abides in death” (3:14); “this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he commanded us” (3:23); “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (4:7); “The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also” (4:21; cf. Matt. 22:35-40); as well as other examples.
James, too, said to the dispersed tribes of Israel, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (Jas. 1:1; 2:8). Therefore, Jesus’ disciples understood his teaching to mean that those who love others fulfill Torah, become part of the Israel of God, and God and Christ abide in them.
But what about the temple rituals? The epistle to the Hebrews, which is regarded as an Israelite writing by Pauline dispensationalists, was written as a polemic against those who saw earthly temple rituals as still necessary. It’s bookended by statements about the purification of Israel’s sins through Christ’s blood (Heb. 1:3; 13:20-21). Jesus is the heavenly high priest (2:14-3:6; 4:14-5:10; 6:19-20), who has no need to offer sacrifices daily like the earthly priests, because his sacrifice was offered once for all (7:26-28; 8:1-7; 9:6-14, 25-28; 10:1-18). The temple rituals and purity regulations have been replaced by new types of ‘sacrifices,’ namely praises to God and doing good for others (13:9-16).
There are, however, two texts that have been put forth as evidence that Jesus and his disciples did believe the temple rituals were necessary for Israel. The first is from Jesus’ polemic against the leaders of the Pharisees:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” (Matt. 23:1-3)
This passage is used by some to argue that Jesus endorsed the Pharisees’ interpretation of Torah, and only disagreed with their hypocrisy. But this raises more questions than it answers. If this is true, how can it be squared with Jesus’ disciples’ belief that those who love God and others fulfill Torah, and Jesus’ own statements elsewhere to the same effect? Why does the epistle to the Hebrews so strongly deny the need for temple rituals if Jesus himself affirmed it? And what about the Israelites who lived after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, such as John the disciple — were they forced to disobey God because the temple had been destroyed?
Based on these considerations, it’s very unlikely that Jesus was endorsing the Pharisaical interpretation of Torah as something that Israel would always have to follow. Instead, he was saying that because they were the Jews’ religious leaders, they should be respected and followed (“[they] sit on Moses’ seat, therefore [Gk: oun] do whatever they teach you”). Later on in the history of the church, there were “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5), but the apostles considered them to be misguided, and their ‘yoke’ unable to bear (15:10), in contrast to Jesus whose “yoke is easy and burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).
Another text that has been interpreted to mean that Israel is still required to keep the temple rituals is from the book of Acts:
The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present... Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.” (Acts 21:18-24)
In this passage, James and the elders tell Paul about the “many thousands of [Jewish] believers” who were all “zealous for Torah.” The crux of the issue is v. 21, where they say that the Jewish believers “have been told” that Paul teaches other Jews to forsake Moses and “the customs” (i.e., temple rituals), and so they urge Paul go through a purification rite.
Does this mean that James thought the temple rituals and purity rites were necessary, despite what he said in his epistle (Jas. 2:8)? No, because James and the elders say that some of the Jewish believers “have been told” this about Paul, not that they told them this. Perhaps it was the unbelieving Jewish leaders who told them this, in an attempt to sow division between the body of Christ and the Jewish believers, or perhaps it was the misguided “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” mentioned in Acts 15:5.
To summarize, the Israelite believers in Jesus are required to love God and love others, but not needed to complete temple rituals or rites of purification, which according to the letter to the Hebrews have been performed once for all by Jesus in the ‘heavenly temple.’ They also must believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” in order to have eonian life (John 20:31; 1 John 5:1-5). Of course, this doesn’t only apply to ethnic Jews, but also to gentiles who “fear God and practice righteousness” (Acts 10:34-35). As the vast majority of those who follow Abrahamic religions — Christians, Messianic Jews, and Muslims (with the sole exception of non-Messianic Jews) — believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they are all potential members of the Israel of God, so long as they love God and others.
The Body of Christ and Israel in Paul’s Writings
According to Paul, in order to be saved under his gospel and become part of the body of Christ, one must believe that “Christ died for our sins... and that he was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 12:27; 15:1-4). This gospel isn’t difficult to believe, but certain teachings have obscured its message, such as the immortality of the soul and the deity of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-4). [2] Unlike Jesus’ message to Israel, according to which one must continue to follow God’s commandments in order to abide in him and see his kingdom (Matt. 5:17-20; John 14:21-24; 15:9-10; cf. 2 Pet. 1:10-11; 1 John 3:18-24; 4:12), according to Paul, one is not required to do good works to be in the body of Christ (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5).
Yet Paul also said that good works were the result of a saving faith in his gospel, the effect of God and Christ’s work within us (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). Those in the body of Christ, therefore, are led by God to love him and others, though this certainly isn’t a prerequisite of our salvation. Furthermore, those in the body of Christ necessarily believe that Jesus is the Messiah, as it’s part of Paul’s gospel that the Messiah died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:3).
In fact, Paul explicitly says, “the ‘right’ declaration of Torah is fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit,” because Jesus condemned Sin (Rom. 8:3-4; cf. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). Torah is not annulled, but established by faith in Jesus the Messiah (Rom. 3:30-31), which also fulfills the Deuteronomic promises about Torah being written on the hearts of God’s people (Deut. 30:1-14; Rom. 2:25-29; 10:6-10). This new fulfillment frees God’s people from needing to follow all the commandments of Torah, thus circumventing the problem of “the ‘Torah’ of sin and death” that happens when we actively try to avoid sin (Rom. 7:13-8:2), and establishes instead a “righteousness according to faith” (Rom. 3:20-26; 9:30-10:13; Gal. 2:5-21; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:7-11).
Based on this, it seems that everyone in the body of Christ would actually also qualify for membership in the true Israel! This explains why Paul identifies the members of the body of Christ as part of Israel, even though he also clearly distinguishes his gospel from the gospel to Israel. To be sure, the means by which we are saved is very different from the rest of the Israel of God, which is blinded to the truth of Paul’s gospel and relies on good works to continue abiding in God. The body of Christ acts as the vanguard of true Israel, with the added benefit of being “the first fruits of salvation through... belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13), and the extra task of being “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17-20).
The existence of the rest of the Israel of God, who have eonian life despite not believing in Paul’s gospel, appears to be recognized by Paul in his letter to the Romans:
...in the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment, who will render to each according to his works. To those who are seeking glory, honor, and immortality by endurance in good works, he gives eonian life. Yet to those who are self-seeking, disobey the truth, and have confidence in unrighteousness, he gives wrath and anger. Tribulation and distress on every man’s life who works evil, the Jew first and also the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. (Romans 2:5-10)
This passage establishes that those who endure in good works receive eonian life (defined as “glory, honor and peace” in v. 10), while those who selfishly pursue unrighteousness (Gk: adikia) and disobey the truth (Gk: alētheia) receive wrath and anger, tribulation and distress.
Although I previously thought that this passage spoke of a future judgment (the same one described in Revelation 20:10-15), now I think this interpretation is unsustainable, in light of what Paul said previously: “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness [Gk: adikia] of men, who suppress the truth [Gk: alētheia] in unrighteousness [Gk: adikia]” (Rom. 1:18). Paul refers back to this statement, which speaks of the present wrath of God against evil people, using many of the same Greek terms in Rom. 2:8. The “day of wrath” refers not to a literal day, but to the entire present age — consider that the entire period of the Messiah’s reign over the gentiles is also referred to as a “day” (Isa. 11:10-12; 42:1-4; Zech. 2:11; 14:9; 2 Cor. 6:2; cf. Acts 17:30, 31).
The men who do good and receive eonian life in Rom. 2:7 are most likely the other members of true Israel, who believe in Jesus as Messiah and persist in loving God and others. These aren’t members of the body of Christ, because their salvation is based on works, but they nonetheless receive eonian life, meaning that they must be members of the Israel of God.
Conclusion
The view of Pauline dispensationalists, that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while on earth) and his disciples, is challenged by a number of facts from the New Testament. However, the basic content of the dispensationalist idea must be true due to the differences between Paul’s message and that of the other apostles.
In these two posts, I presented an alternative view of dispensationalism which accounts for the facts that challenge Pauline dispensationalism while retaining its basic idea. According to this view, the body of Christ is a part of true Israel, representing the vanguard of God’s people, but (unlike the rest of the Israel of God) is saved simply by believing in Paul’s gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) rather than by good works and following Torah. I’m not 100% wedded to this idea, and I could certainly be convinced that it’s wrong, but I think it’s at least more biblical than the conventional hyper-dispensationalist view that the body of Christ and Israel are completely separate.
______________________________
[1] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the body of Christ, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. For an exegetical defense of the latter position, see Christopher W. Cowan, “Context Is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16,” SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-85.
[2] See my post about “Paul’s Gospel and Christianity.”
Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 1 of 2)
Back when I started this blog, I was convinced of a view called “hyper-dispensationalism” or “Pauline dispensationalism.” This is the belief that there are two gospels taught in the New Testament, the gospel of Paul and the gospel to Israel, and that those who believe Paul’s gospel are in the body of Christ whereas those who believe and follow Israel’s gospel are in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). I argued for this view in a series of six posts. Although I still believe that Paul preached a unique gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-5), there are difficult challenges to hyperdispensationalism that I think we haven’t done a good enough job of answering. In this post, I will outline the challenges, and in the next post I’ll provide a modified view of dispensationalism that I believe is able to overcome these issues.
The Method of Salvation
According to Pauline dispensationalists, one of the main distinctions between Paul’s gospel and the gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve to Israel is the method of salvation. Jesus and his disciples both strongly emphasized the importance of works to one’s salvation. Jesus preached that each person would be rewarded according to their works and that one must follow the law in its entirety (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3). His disciples Peter and John taught that one must remain steadfast and keep Christ’s commands in order to remain in his kingdom (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). His brother James, when writing to the Israelite diaspora, said that faith is useless without works, that is, keeping the law (Jas. 2:10-24).
In contrast, Paul was clear that works play no part in one’s salvation (Rom. 3:27f; 4:5; 11:5f; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8f; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4f). He was especially insistent that “works of law” weren’t necessary for salvation, despite what other Jewish believers had been claiming (Rom. 9:32; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2, 5, 9-12). Pauline dispensationalists rightly view this as an apparent contradiction between the method of salvation described by Paul vs. the other apostles. After all, James said that “a man is declared righteous by works of law” (Jas. 2:24), while Paul said “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (Gal. 2:16).
However, because of their emphasis on the contradictions between Paul and the other apostles, Pauline dispensationalists tend to downplay the importance of works in Paul’s soteriology. Consider the following passages:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone. (Tit. 3:4-5, 8)
While Paul is careful to highlight that we were not saved from our works, in the very same passages, he tells us that we were saved for good works. The same point is made elsewhere throughout his letters, and in each instance, he’s clear that our salvation involves God working in us to produce good works (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Php. 1:6; 2:12f; Tit. 2:11-14). Again, not to belabor the point, but “it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us]... to work for his good pleasure” (Php. 2:12f), not a result of our own works, but God at work in us.
In light of this, the difference between Paul and the other apostles is not so great as it first seems. Both processes of salvation involve works. The difference isn’t whether works are involved at all, but whether works are a basis of salvation (Jesus and his disciples) or a result of salvation (Paul). From a certain perspective, they could even be the same thing, if Paul is emphasizing God’s sovereignty over our works while the other apostles are emphasizing the human point of view. Although I disagree with this, as I still think there’s an important distinction, this difference is far less than what some Pauline dispensationalists claim.
Two ‘Expectations’?
Another distinction between Paul and the other apostles that’s often made by Pauline dispensationalists is the difference between the “expectation” or destiny of believers according to these authors. (For example, see this argument for dispensationalism by Aaron Welch.) In the parts of the New Testament not written by Paul, the destiny of believers is said to be “on the earth” (Matt. 5:5; 19:28; Rev. 2:26f; 5:9f). The “heavenly Jerusalem” described in the epistle to the Hebrews is also on the earth (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2, 10). In contrast, Paul says that our reward is “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3), that we are seated “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f; 3:10f; cf. Php. 3:19f), and that our struggle is with the demonic forces “in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).
However, this distinction is also not as strong as it may first appear. Our reward being “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3) is exactly the same thing that Jesus and Peter said, even though for them the destiny of believers is on earth (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18; 19:21; 1 Pet. 1:4). In Jewish thought, anything promised by God could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Col. 1:5; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). [1] This doesn’t show that Jesus, Peter, or Paul believed that the destiny of believers is in heaven, it’s just an affirmation that our reward has been promised by God and will be delivered to us.
Furthermore, when Paul says that we reign with Christ “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f), he uses the present tense, suggesting that this is a spiritual truth, along with our other “spiritual blessing[s] in heaven” that he mentioned at the beginning of the same epistle (Eph. 1:3). Likewise, he says that the wisdom of God is being made known through us in heavenly places “now” (Eph. 3:10f). Although the present tense in Eph. 2:6 could be interpreted proleptically (i.e., describing a future time as though it already exists), the adverb “now” (Gk: nun) is never used proleptically. Paul most likely uses the word epouranios (“heavenly [places]”) because it was a title used by the Roman emperor; he’s saying that, rather than the emperor being epouranios (from the divine realm), it’s the body of Christ which is empowered by heaven. [2]
Finally, the statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Php. 3:20) must be understood in the context of the original readers of this epistle. The people living in Philippi were citizens of Rome, the city from which their emperor reigned, regardless of whether they ever lived in the city of Rome. Citizenship wasn’t a matter of where you lived, but where your king ruled. Paul’s statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” was an affirmation that Jesus is our king who rules from heaven. [3] The immediate context confirms this by establishing heaven as the place “from which” we await Jesus, not to which we are going (Php. 3:20f).
In summary, there’s very little evidence to suggest that Paul had a different destiny in mind for believers than Jesus and his disciples. In fact, both Paul and the other authors of the New Testament give us very little information about the location of our eventual destiny, though a couple of verses from non-Pauline writings say that it’s on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:9f). Once again, this is not evidence against Pauline dispensationalism, but it does remove a major pillar of support from that doctrine.
Body of Christ = True Israel?
The greatest challenge to hyperdispensationalism are the passages that suggest the body of Christ, i.e. those saved according to Paul’s gospel, are part of true Israel. Pauline dispensationalism makes a hard-and-fast distinction between the body of Christ and the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which, in my opinion, doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. [4] Let’s take a look at several passages from Paul’s epistles that pose a problem for this view.
First, in his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us,
...a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from God. (Rom. 2:28-29)
This passage is used by some as evidence that Paul viewed his audience as “inward Jews” who were circumcised in the heart. I see this as a plausible interpretation, especially in light of other passages like Philippians 3:3 where Paul refers to his gentile audience as “the [true] circumcision” (see below). However, this passage has recently been addressed by Aaron Welch, a Pauline dispensationalist, whose interpretation is also plausible, so I won’t rest my case on these verses.
Consider also Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. To show that the Galatians are justified by faith, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous for his faith, and so “those who believe are the descendants of Abraham” (3:5-9). Abraham was not justified by law, indeed “all who rely on works of law are under a curse,” but rather through Christ “the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles” (3:10-14). The promises were made to Abraham and his offspring (Christ) before the law, so “the inheritance” comes not from the law (3:15-18). Not that the law was useless, but it has been superseded by the promise through faith (3:19-26). Those who have faith are in Christ, who is the offspring of the promise; therefore, those who are in Christ are also “Abraham’s offspring, heirs of the promise” (3:27-29). Although there are dispensationalist interpretations of individual verses like Gal. 3:7 and 29, they do not take into account the full context of the argument. Paul is saying that we are recipients of the promise to Abraham’s heirs (Gen. 12:1-3), not because we are literal descendants of Abraham, but because we are in Christ who is the descendant of Abraham.
Paul also twice relates the “new covenant,” which was made to the house of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31), to the members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:25f; 2 Cor 3:6). The latter passage is especially clear, as it tells us that we are “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:5-11). The dispensationalist answer to this is that Paul was speaking metaphorically (see here). But where is any indication that this is a metaphor? On the contrary, Paul uses the exact same language (Gk: kainēs diathēkēs) used in Jeremiah 31:31 (LXX: diathēkēn kainēn) and Hebrews 8:8-13. And like Jeremiah, Paul contrasts the “new covenant” with the covenant given through Moses (2 Cor. 3:7-11; cf. Jer. 31:32). It’s eisegetical to read a third covenant into this passage and suppose that Paul is only metaphorically alluding to Jeremiah. Paul also applies the promise to Israel in Ezekiel 37:26f to the body of Christ (2 Cor. 6:16).
Also in his letters to the Corinthian church, remarkably, Paul can speak of the time “when you [his audience] were gentiles” (Gk: hote ēte ethnē; 1 Cor. 12:2). Of course, if his audience used to be ethnē, gentiles, it follows that they no longer are counted as part of that group.
The passage which most strongly seems to teach that the body of Christ to whom Paul wrote is included in true Israel is Ephesians 2:11-21. The key verses in this passage are vv. 12 and 19:
...remember that you were at that time without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world... So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.
First of all, Paul says that the Gentiles to whom he is writing were formerly “excluded from the citizenship of Israel.” The word translated as “excluded” (Gk: apallotrioō) literally means “from-belonging-to-another,” while the word translated as “citizenship” (Gk: politeia) is derived from “citizen” (Gk: politēs) and refers to one’s status as a citizen of a nation (cp. Acts 22:28). In other words, the Gentiles in the body of Christ were formerly belonging to another country as non-citizens of Israel. However, Paul goes on to say that we are now “fellow-citizens” (Gk: sympolitēs), which in context can only mean that we are now citizens of Israel.
The next passage which supports this view is Philippians 3:3, in which Paul says that “we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” In the Old Testament, circumcision was a practice first meant to set apart the descendants of Abraham from all other people (Gen. 17:9-14), and later to set apart the people of Israel from all other people (Exod. 12:43-49; Lev. 12:3). In the New Testament, it was determined by Paul, Peter, and James that physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for gentiles to be included in God’s people (Acts 15:5-21; Gal. 5:6). Nonetheless, by saying that we are “the circumcision,” Paul is identifying us with the descendants of Abraham and people of Israel (cf. Gal. 3:7, 29).
Finally, the last passage in Paul’s epistles which appears to identify us with Israel is Titus 2:14. In this verse, he refers to us as “a peculiar people” or “a people of his own” (Gk: laon periousion). This uses a very rare Greek adjective which is exclusively found in the Septuagint, and only used to refer to the people of Israel (Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18 LXX). Peter uses a similar phrase in a series of Israel-related phrases to refer to his audience: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession [Gk: laos eis peripoiēsin]” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). By using a word exclusively associated with Israel to refer to his audience, both Paul and Peter seem to be identifying their audiences as true Israel.
Legitimate Differences
Despite these challenges to Pauline dispensationalism, there are many legitimate differences between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospel preached by the other apostles. For one, Paul repeatedly refers to “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25f; 2 Tim. 2:8), which would be remarkably arrogant if he weren’t preaching a unique message. This gospel is said to have been a “mystery” that was not revealed until his time (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which was revealed to him directly by Jesus (Gal. 1:11f). According to Paul, one must believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:1-5), but according to John, one must simply believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and follow his commands to love God and others (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5; cf. Matt. 22:35-40).
How can these differences be accommodated within a framework that also takes into account the challenges outlined above? Especially if the body of Christ is included in true Israel, and is the recipient of the promises to Israel, how could Paul’s gospel be distinct from the gospel preached by the other apostles? In the next post, I’ll outline a modified view of dispensationalism which I think takes into account all of the relevant information from Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament.
______________________________
[1] Incidentally, this fact also came up in my refutation of trinitarian proof-texts, as it refutes the trinitarian claim that Jesus’ glory existing “in heaven” before the creation of the world (John 17:24) means that Jesus must have existed before the creation of the world.
[2] Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120.
[3] See this post by Dustin Smith for a longer explanation.
[4] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the believers in Galatia, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. He's most likely identifying them, especially in light of the common second-Temple prayer — almost certainly at the front of Paul’s mind here — which says, “Grant peace... and mercy to us and to all Israel, your people” (from the Eighteen Benedictions).
Revelation and Olivet Commentaries
Today, I’m publishing my commentaries on Revelation and the Olivet Discourse on my blog. I’m also going to publish a series of posts arguing for ultra-universalism, the belief that all divine punishment for sin takes place in this life, and that all people will be made sinless and deathless when they are resurrected at Jesus’ return. Since I know most people who read my blog disagree with me on preterism, and I don’t think it’s an important enough issue to cause division, I’m going to publish all this on one day so as to not dwell on this topic too long.
Revelation commentary:
Olivet Discourse commentary: