One New Man
For he
himself is our peace, who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of the
partition, the enmity, in his flesh, invali- dating the law of commandments in
ordinances, in order that he might create the two in himself into one new man,
thus making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the
cross, killing the enmity in himself. (Ephesians 2:14–16)1
This text
indicates that the two, identified in Ephesians 2:11 as Gentiles and Jews, have
become one in Christ. Jesus broke down the barrier dividing the two in order to
create “one new man” in which there is peace and reconciliation. “One new man”
is a metaphor for the church but, in spite of its apparent simplicity, two
diametrically opposing views of its nature appear in the literature. Each of
these views is underpinned by antithetical perspectives on Israel in the
present era inaugurated by the Christ-event.
Historical
Interpretation of “One New Man”
In Christian
tradition, Jesus-believers (whether Jewish or Gentile in lineage) are not bound
by obligation to Mosaic Law (though yielding to the “moral Law” is often
promoted, those being the timeless moral prin- ciples of the Law). An array of
texts in the New Testament, including that quoted above, is used to justify this
orientation. Consequently, Christian theology often dissolves the ancient
biblical categories of Israel and the nations, reclassifying all humans into
another binary system compris- ing those who believe in Jesus and those who do
not. The church is thus widely understood to be a people of faith whose
spirituality transcends their ethnicity, such that the latter lapses as
irrelevant or immaterial. Consequently, Paul’s “one new man” is interpreted as
the Christian church comprising former Jews and former Gentiles who are now
unable to be differentiated from any theological perspective. Two witnesses,
one ancient and one modern, will suffice to testify to this interpretation of
Paul’s “one new man.”
Late in the
fourth century, John Chrysostom described Jews and Gentiles as “two statues,
the one of silver, the other of lead,” which are then “melted down” to produce
one new statue that comes out gold, not a mixture of silver and lead.2 In
Chrysostom’s words, Christ “blended them together,” declaring that “so long as
they continued still as Jews and Gentiles, they could not have been
reconciled.”3 A similar interpretation was propounded by Martyn Lloyd-Jones in
the last century:
The Jew has
been done away with as such, even as the Gentile has been done away with, in
Christ. … nothing that belonged to the old state is of any value or has any
relevance in the new state.4
Lloyd-Jones
went on to state that “there is no such thing as a Jewish section of the
Christian Church.”5 Citing 1 Peter 2:9–10, he insisted that the church is “not
a mixture of Jew and Gentile, but a new man; Jew finished, Gentile finished, a
new creature.”6 Likewise, Harold Hoehner interprets Paul’s “one new man” as, “A
new race that is raceless! … They are not Jews or Gentiles but a body of Christians
who make up the church.”7
At two
separate seminars I attended in 2009, two speakers presented a different
interpretation of Ephesians 2:15; they both claimed that the unity of the “one
new man” does not imply, let alone require, a flattening of its Jewish and
Gentile members into homogeneity. Instead, the unity spoken of in Ephesians
2:14–16 strengthens the case that Jewish identity of Jews who believe in Jesus
is fundamental. The seminars were presented by John Atkinson8 and Daniel
Juster.9 Their interpretation of the text leads to the conclusion (further
explained below) that Gentile Jesus-believers are joined (or added) to Israel,
rather than replacing (or displacing) Israel. A growing number of modern
scholars support this post-supersessionist view, which includes the “Paul
within Judaism” school (also called the “radi- cal new perspective on Paul,” or
“beyond the new perspective on Paul.”)
The Union of
Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) states, One new man does not mean that
the distinction and mutuality between Jews and Gentiles are obliterated.
Instead, it means that Jews as Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles, with their
differences and distinctions, live in unity and mutual blessing in Yeshua …
they do not become a new generic, uniform humanity.10
Other
leading scholars in our generation who presented a similar view include Markus
Barth,11 R. Kendall Soulen,12 and Justin Hardin.13
Does the
“one new man” Christ created replace the elements compris- ing it, or does it
signify a renewal (or transformation) of humanity? Does the resultant peace,
which is also mentioned in Ephesians 2:15, require elimination of the
categories of Jew and Gentile, or is it a peace that tri- umphs over their
differences? This study seeks to answer these questions. Subsequently, I shall
briefly discuss the ESV and RSV-NRSV translations’ supply (insertion) of the
phrase “in place of” to produce: “one new man [NRSV: humanity] in place of the
two.”14 These clearly favor the replace- ment paradigm. Is their addition a
helpful clarification of the text, or an unintentional obscuration of it?
Jew-Gentile
Distinction and Related Issues
Distinction
theory is my term for the theological framework that under- stands Jewish and
Gentile believers in Jesus as distinct in certain signifi- cant theological
senses, including identity and function (role, service) in the economy of God’s
kingdom. That is, a biblical differentiation exists between Israel and the
nations within the church similar to that which existed more visibly before
Christ. This distinction results in a twofold structure within the church that
I label “intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile dis- tinction.” In this framework, the
“one new man,” or “humanity” as I shall explain, comprises Jews and Gentiles
who together are devoted to Jesus.
My choice of the word distinction is based on its common use in English Bibles
to translate diakrinō in Acts 11:12 and 15:9, as well as diastolē in Romans
3:22 and 10:12. It is not intended to suggest a superior-inferior relationship
in any sense. The concept has already been given several other names, including
“unity and diversity in the church”,15 “bilateral ecclesiology”,16 or
“Torah-defined ecclesiological variegation.”17
In contrast
to distinction theory, church teaching for most of Christian history has denied
that there is any theologically meaningful distinction between Jews and
Gentiles in Christ,18 based on a number of New Testament texts. In my
reckoning, the most striking of these texts are Acts 11:12 (in some English
translations), 15:9; Romans 3:22, 10:12; Galatians 3:28; Ephe- sians 2:15 and
Colossians 3:11. However, I question whether any of these texts individually,
or all of them collectively, provide sufficient evidence to overturn the
prevailing Jew-Gentile distinction of the pre-Christian era.
Analyzing
“One New Man”
Paul wrote
that Christ sought to create in himself “hena kainon anthrōpon” (“one new man”)
in Ephesians 2:15. What exactly did he mean by this? Each of the three words is
discussed individually below with special attention to whether or not they
speak against intra-ecclesial distinction of Jews and Gentiles. Subsequently,
the translators’ supply of the phrase “in place of” in some translations is
critiqued. Finally, a literary test is applied to the epistle for a possible
validation of the interpretation of “one new man” that emerges from the
analysis.
One
The first
notable observation about “one” in “one new man” is its deliber- ate placement
in the text. Paul could have written “a new man” (kainon anthrōpon) more
simply, since Greek has no indefinite article. Why did Paul specify one? It
appears he wanted to identify a particular new man, yet could not use the
definite article for an entity that he had not yet ref- erenced. Moreover, he
wanted to be clear that it was one and not plural. Paul emphasized this unity
in innovative ways as he prefixed the prepo- sition syn with various verbs and
nouns in Ephesians.19 (English Bibles usually translate the Greek prefix syn
with the English prefix “co–” or with “fellow” e.g., “co-heirs” or “fellow
heirs” in Ephesians 3:6.) Notably, these
syn
compounds do not merely pertain to interpersonal relationships; they relate to
the two groups, Jews and Gentiles in Christ.20
Hena
assuredly means one, but Jewish and Christian scholars alike are aware that the
word is laden with theological import. God, says Deu- teronomy 6:4, is one (ʾě·ḥāḏ—hereafter
echad—or heis in the Septuagint, where heis and hena are inflections of the
same word). The Shema is the ultimate proclamation of Jewish faith: “Hear, O
Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (NIV). The main translation concern
here is whether the LORD is “one” or “unique,” as the Lexham English Bible
translates echad. The “oneness,” or unity, of God is often used by Jews to
argue against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, though it may also be
translated “unique” or “alone.”21 The International Standard Version, Jewish
Publication Society, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Living
Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version all render echad as “alone.”
Doing so “reads the verse not as making a metaphysical statement about God,
namely, that he is one and indivisible, but rather that God alone is to be
worshiped to the exclusion of all other gods,” Michael Wyschogrod explains.22
His aim is not to demonstrate whether God is, or is not, a composite unity but
rather that Israel, like God, is unique; Israel has only one God, the LORD, and
the LORD has one people alone, Israel, whom he will never divorce or lose
compassion for.23 Yet he accepts that composite unity in the godhead is not
disproved by Deuteronomy 6:4—a crucial element in Christian theol- ogy. Even
the renowned Jewish philosopher Maimonides acknowledged that the singularity of
echad with reference to God implies the possibility of a plurality.24
The concept
of “one” meaning the unity of differing elements is native to the Bible, with
the word being used of well-known composites such as daytime and night time
forming “day one” (yom echad, Genesis 1:5), and man and woman forming “one
flesh” (basar echad, Genesis 2:24). The fact that Ephesians was written in
Greek is no barrier to employing the concept of composite unity found in these
two examples, with “day one” translated as hēmera mia, and “one flesh” as sarka
mian in the Septuagint. (Mia and mian are feminine inflections of heis, as is
hen in the follow- ing example.) The marriage relationship is
dependent on the distinction between husband and wife; thus “unity implies
distinctiveness and yet complementarity.”25 The distinctiveness and
complementarity that John Atkinson mentions are crucial for the united couple
to represent the image of God, as Genesis 1:27 expresses so clearly. The image
is distorted if both members of the couple are of the same sex, or if they are
both neuter.
Similarly,
the Greek text of John 17 uses the same word for the unity of Jesus’ believers
with each other, and the unity of Jesus with God: “so that they may be one
[hen], just as we are” (17:11); “that they all may be one [hen], just as you,
Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us … in order that
they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]—I in them, and you in me, in
order that they may be completed in one [hen]” (17:21–23).
Paul also
provided a good example of the compound unity in the body of Christ in Romans
12:4–6:
For just as
in one [heni] body we have many members, but all the members do not have the
same function, in the same way we who are many are one [hen] body in Christ,
and individually members of one another, but having different gifts according
to the grace given to us.
The same
metaphor appears in 1 Corinthians 12:12–30, where Paul stressed the
simultaneous unity and diversity of the one body of Christ. He pressed that
“the body is one”; it is “one body” but its members are “many” and diverse in
nature, in function, and in honor. In fact, greater honor is given some parts
than to others “in order that there not be a divi- sion in the body.”26
Evidently, the unity of the members of the body is not at the expense of their
differences. Rather, the healthy functioning of the body is dependent on its
members being different and fulfilling different kinds of roles: “And if they
all were one member, where would the body be?” (1 Corinthians 12:19). In both
texts cited above, from Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul stressed simultaneously
the unity and diversity of the members of the body of Christ. This is the same
body, the church, which he referred to repeatedly in Ephesians.27
Ephesians 2:15–16
unequivocally identifies this same “one body” as the “one new man”: “that he
might create the two in himself into one new man … and might reconcile both in
one body.” By this equation, and with the support of the other epistles cited
above, we can deduce that the “one new man” comprises members who are united
yet distinct in various signifi- cant ways. These distinctions are not
arbitrary to God’s purposes, but are deliberate for producing a whole, fully
functioning church. Therefore, they are not erased “in Christ,” but the
diversity of the members is for mutual blessing within the body, to the glory
of God. Moreover, Ephesians 2:11–22 notes that the principal distinction
between members of the body is their status in Israel: They are either members of
Israel (Jews), or they are drawn from among the nations (Gentiles/non-Jews)
into fellow citizenship with Israel—yet without becoming Jews. Thus, the
distinction between Jew and Gentile is not at all altered by the unity Christ
brought about between them. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE used the word
homoo sios to describe Jesus and God, the Father, as being of the “same
substance” and equally divine in spite of being differentiated. Later, the
First Council of Ephesus in 431 CE adopted the term hypostasis, or hypostatic
union, to express the unity of Jesus’ divinity and his humanity. Both these
truths are examples of composite unities, and are accepted as foundational to
Christian theology. Certainly the notion that the unity of the saints suggests nowise
that they are, or will be in the age to come, the same in every way, stripped
of their unique identity. The Bible even maintains ethnic identi- ties for
those united in Christ after the appearance of the new heaven and
the new
earth.28
From these
examples, it is apparent that the biblical use of “one” in both Hebrew and
Greek allows for a kind of unity comprising diverse ele- ments.29 In fact, such
unity seems to have been God’s goal from the begin- ning; the creation account
tells of God making two, Adam and Eve, from “singular” one, Adam, with the
intention that the two would be united in “composite” one.30 Is it not
therefore reasonable to consider that God’s separation (sanctification) of
Israel from the nations was so that the two may ultimately be reunited (not
just reconciled), yet remain distinct for the purpose of mutual blessing
indefinitely?31 Soulen summarizes God’s agenda for mutual blessing like this:
The church
of Jesus Christ is a sphere of mutual blessing between Jew and Gentile where the
distinction between them (like that between male and female) is not erased, but
recreated in a prom- issory way, as the eschatological sign and foretaste of
messianic peace and mutual blessing among all the peoples of the world.32
In a similar
vein, the UMJC stated, “Together the Messianic Jewish com- munity and the
Christian Church constitute the ekklesia, the one Body of Messiah, a community
of Jews and Gentiles who in their ongoing distinc- tion and mutual blessing
anticipate the shalom of the world to come.”33 The “one new man” of Ephesians
2:15 may indeed comprise Jews and
Gentiles who
are united yet distinct. Accordingly, Markus Barth wrote, There is “no
distinction” but full solidarity between all men, whether Jewish- or
Gentile-born, when the judgment and the grace of God are described (Romans
3:22ff., 3:28ff., 10:12). But the following passages [Ephesians 2:11–20, 3:5–6]
reveal that within the equal treatment of Jews and Gentiles a decisive
distinction must still not be forgotten.34
Justin
Hardin explains that Paul’s language of “oneness” is part of his metaphor of
warring parties, which had come to an armistice through the work of Jesus,
resulting in a new peace in place of enmity—but “oneness” and “ethnic collapse”
are two very different things.35 When the metaphor of “one new man” is
recognized as such, the text in Hardin’s study (Ephesians 2:14–18) “cannot be
interpreted literally to mean that ethnic distinctions have deteriorated.”36 He
points out that the two parties, Jew and Gentile, indicated by the “both” of
Ephesians 2:14 are still two in 2:18 where the same word, “both,” is used
again.
The Israel
to which Paul generally refers in his writings, the people
to which
Gentile believers in Jesus are to attach themselves, is “actual Israel”37—including
both Jewish Jesus-believers and Jews who do not believe in Jesus. In speaking
of the “one new man,” Paul means “both Jews and Gentiles just as they are.”38
Similarly, Magnus Zetterholm writes, “They are certainly ‘one in Christ,’ but
it is precisely as ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’ that they constitute this unity.”39
This notion is also evident in Romans 9–11, in which Paul wrote that God’s
election of Israel stands in spite of Israel’s stumbling. Also in Romans, Paul
referred to the Shema (3:30), deducing that the unity, or oneness, of God
himself actually requires ongoing distinction between Israel and the nations in
the new covenant era. Mark Nanos notes, His oneness has been compromised if he
is only the God of Israel, only the God of the circumcised, only the God of
Torah, and not also the God of the nations, not also the God of the uncircum-
cised, and not also the God of those outside the Torah (emphasis original).40
Accordingly,
Paul’s rationale is that, if the nations have to become Israel to come under
God’s reign, then God is not the God of every nation but only the God of
Israel.41
Simultaneously,
if Israel has to lose its unique biblical identity in order to submit to
Messiah, then the God of Israel has changed his identity, since he affixed
Israel to his personal name in Exodus 5:1. God is referred to as the “God of
Israel” about two hundred times in Scripture, often in apposi- tion to the
Tetragrammaton. Consequently, for Israel to assimilate entirely into the
nations is theologically extremely problematic in regard to God’s unchangeable
nature. Similarly, if Israel were exterminated, or if another people took its
place (as in replacement theology), the faithfulness of the God of Israel would
be called into question; the God of Israel “is identi- fied by fidelity to the
Jewish people through time.”42 Thus, Israel’s identity must be fixed in order
for God’s identity to remain constant. On the other hand, Ephesians indicates
that Gentile believers are to appropriate a Jewish identity43—at least to some
extent. “The church is not equated with Israel,” but Israel in Ephesians is
central to the believers’ identity and therefore cannot simultaneously be
undermined.44 Indeed, “one cannot be a joint heir with Israel if Israel is an
entity only of the past.”45
These
truths, therefore, are to be held in tension: Israel’s unique iden-tity
prevails; Gentile believers are not to become Jewish, but they are to identify
with the Jews, or Israel, as they cleave to Israel’s Messiah and are thus
brought into the commonwealth of Israel as co-citizens (but never
co-Israelites!)46 Gentile Christians have an especially close relationship with
Jewish believers, who are likewise renewed in Messiah and bind the Gentiles to
the life of Israel. Gentile believers must “remember” their dependence on
Israel for their relationship with God.47 This is the unity of the “one new
man,” which Christ created: not a unity which erases the differences between
Jew and Gentile but one that removes the enmity between the two.48
Paul makes a
similar Jew-Gentile distinction not only in Romans and Ephesians, but in his
other writings as well. Rudolph points out, for example, that “the distinction
between Jewish and Gentile identity in Christ is so fundamental that Paul can
speak of ‘the gospel of the foreskin’ and ‘the [gospel] of the circumcised’
(Galatians 2:7).”49 In 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 Paul published his rule for all
the churches: Each believer is to remain as he was when he was called (to faith
in Jesus). First Corinthians 7:18 states that Jews (“the circumcised”) are to
remain Jews (“he must not undo his circumcision”) and Gentiles (the
“uncircumcision” or “foreskin”) “must not become circumcised.” A number of
other scholars concur with Rudolph concerning the retention of Jew-Gentile
distinction within the church, for example, Campbell and Nanos and Tucker.50
Further, 1 Corinthians 9:20–21 can be aligned with this reading of 1
Corinthians 7:17–24, as Rudolph does most eminently in A Jew to the Jews.51
These modern readings of Paul pro- vide a consistent, coherent model in which
Jewish and Gentile believers are united in Christ while remaining distinct such
that the particularity of Israel is retained. In other words, they harmonize
with the interpretation that the “one new man” in Ephesians 2:15 is a compound
unity of differ- entiated peoples, most essentially of Jews and Gentiles.
The salient
point of this discussion is that being “one” in Christ does not mean being
homogeneous; the notion of a compound unity is native to the Bible. Christ’s making
Jew and Gentile one in himself—as Paul expressed in Ephesians 2:15—by no means
proves that their respective distinctions become erased as they are drawn into
undifferentiated membership in the church. The “one new man” is apparently not
an international, inter- cultural, sexless or historical superman.52 Rather,
the evidence suggests that “one new man” is a metaphor for the state of unity
with distinction achieved by Christ. This leads to the question of whether the
newness of the “one new man” refutes distinction theory, or if it can
accommodate old identities in a new body.
New
What did
Paul mean when he wrote that the one man whom Christ had created was new? The
word “new” refers to something that did not exist before, yet surely elements
of the new man did exist, such as the head (Christ himself) and the Jews and
Gentiles who comprised the members of his body.53 Does “new” simply mean that
the members are spiritually regenerated? This seems plausible, considering the
transforming work of the Holy Spirit since the Pentecost of Acts 2 and 10; but
the noun modified by “new” in Ephesians 2:15 is clearly the corporate entity
(“man”), not the individual members. One needs, therefore, to identify that
which is new about the “new man.” Various answers appear in scholarly
literature, of which two diametrically opposing interpretations will be
presented in this article. These interpretations have greatly differing
implications for Jewish believers in many ways (including their particular
ethnicity, their election and roles, their territorial heritage, and their
faith tradition and practice.)
Given that
the “man” Christ created according to Ephesians 2:15 is “new,” and this new man
comprises Jew and Gentile, are not these cat- egories of Jew and Gentile to be
relegated to the definition of “old” and discarded in favor of a new binary
classification: those “in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 1:1) and those not “in
Christ Jesus?” After all, is not every person’s ultimate destiny determined by
his faith, or faithlessness, in Jesus? Casting this differently, does
membership in the new covenant not become so all- important that membership in
the Mosaic covenant becomes irrelevant, even as the new covenant replaces the
old one?
Framing the
question this way clouds the issue by over-exploiting the discontinuity between
the eras before and after Christ’s atonement: Before Christ, individuals were
categorized as Jew or Gentile; since Christ, individu- als are categorized as
Christian or non-Christian. This one-dimensional approach is not biblical, for
the New Testament abounds with references to Jews and Gentiles of both
believing and unbelieving varieties. That is, a two-dimensional
cross-classification system is evidenced in the Bible, as the examples in the
following table demonstrate:
|
|
In Christ
|
Not in
Christ
|
|
Jewish
|
Paul (Acts
22:3)
James
(Acts 21:18–25)
|
Gamaliel
(Acts 5:34–39)
Elymas
Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6–8)
|
|
Not Jewish
|
Cornelius
(Acts 10)
Titus
(Galatians 2:1–3)
|
Festus
(Acts 26)
Demetrius
(Acts 19:24–27)
|
Table 1:
Cross-classification system of individuals with biblical examples
Jewish
believers in Jesus continued to live as Jews after the Holy Spirit was poured
out in Acts 2. This Pentecost event did not terminate their Jewishness.
Moreover, the Gentiles who received the gospel did not convert to Judaism; they
continued to live as non-Jews.54 The examples provided in table 1 demonstrate
that one should not let an artificial and overly simplified classification
framework—either in Christ or not—dictate the interpretation of “new” in
Ephesians 2:15 but should rather identify the possibilities from real people
described in the New Testament.
If that
which was new about the “one new man” was spiritual rebirth, then the
prevailing Jew-Gentile classification might be subordinated to their identity
in relation to Christ without being eliminated by it. In other words, one may
have a dual identity, both being equally valid simultane- ously. This is indeed
the witness of Scripture clearly portrayed in Acts55 and Romans,56 for example.
Thus, in spite of the newness of the “one new man,” his members are really
“something old, something new,” as the wedding rhyme goes. Mark Kinzer’s
critique of Lumen Gentium, a publication of the Second Vatican Council, is
helpful:
The biblical
concept of newness usually connotes eschatological renewal of an already
existing reality. The new heavens and new earth are the old heavens and old
earth, glorified and transfig- ured. The new humanity is the old humanity
raised from the dead and transformed. This understanding of eschatological
newness is supported by its paradigmatic case—the resurrection of the Messiah.
The risen Messiah is new, different, yet the same human being as the one born
of Mary.57
Professor
William Campbell also finds Ephesians 2:15 to indicate trans- formation rather
than re-creation: “Pauline transformation in Christ does not mean the creation
of a new group without ethnic identity but rather the transformation of those
who are Greeks into transformed Greeks, and of Judeans into transformed Judeans
in Christ.”58
The
transformation described above—one that retains Jewish and Gentile (or Greek)
identity—directly contradicts what I regard to be the more common
interpretation of the newness that Christ created. I selected Chrysostom and Lloyd-Jones
as well-known representatives of the latter view to demonstrate the great
period that it has spanned in Christian history (about sixteen centuries).
Chrysostom argued that Paul’s choice of the word “create” (ktizō) rather than
“change” is significant in that Jews and Gentiles are not merely changed, they
are created anew.59 His argument hinges on the use of ktizō in the Septuagint
and in the New Testament, which typically portrays God creating something out
of nothing. Lloyd-Jones presented a similar case: “There was nothing there
before God created. Creation … is making something out of nothing.”60 He
insisted, It’s not by modification of what was there before; it is not even by
an improvement of what was there before. God does not take a Jew and do
something to him, and take a Gentile and do something to him, and thereby bring
them together. Not at all! It is something entirely new.61
Thus, for
these two famous preachers of very different eras, Chrysostom and Lloyd-Jones,
spiritual regeneration is not enough to account for the newness of Christ’s
creation in Ephesians 2:15. For them the prior identi- ties of the members of
Christ’s body are blotted out in his work of creating them newly. The
juxtaposition above of two interpretations of ktizō (create) and kainos (new)
in the text shows them to be polar opposites and thus warrants further
investigation.
Psalms 51:10
and 104:30 appear to support Kinzer’s reference to escha- tological renewal.
Notably, in the Septuagint (where these verses are Psalms 50:12 and 103:30,
respectively), they both use forms of the words ktizō and verbal cognates of
kainos:62
Create
[ktizō] in me a clean heart, O God, and renew [egkainizō] a right spirit in my
inward parts. (Psalm 50:10 LES)63
You will
send forth your spirit, and they will be created [ktizō], and you will renew
[anakainizō] the face of the earth. (Psalm 103:30 LES)
In both
cases, both words imply a renewal, not an entirely new creation ex nihilo. The
former objects are renewed and continue to exist; they are not replaced with
completely new ones.
Furthermore,
it might be reasonable to harness another interpretation of ktizō found in the
Septuagint, where it can mean “to form”64 or “to found” (that is, to
establish).65 Though this is speculative, Paul may have implied that nuance in
Ephesians 2:15 to mean either “that he might form the two in himself into one
new man” or “that he might establish the two in himself into one new man”
(emphasis added). These options permit the “new man” to be something new yet
made from preexisting entities (namely, Jews and Gentiles) by the
transformation or rearrangement of these entities rather than by their
elimination. Both definitions fit comfortably with the bibli- cal concepts of
“one” and “new,” and neither requires creation ex nihilo.
Another
biblical example of renewal is lunar: the Hebrew word for “new
moon” is not
at all related to the word for “moon” (yarech) but rather is derived from
chodesh, meaning to “make new, restore, renew.”66 When the Bible speaks of a new
moon, it is not referring to a newly created object but rather to one that has
been “renewed”; it has waned, disappeared, then re- appeared as new although it
was old. For a comparison with something new yet not new in New Testament
Greek, see Jesus’ commandment in John’s writings on loving one another.67 The
commandment to love one another was not new,68 but Jesus renewed it by adding a
requirement: “Love one another: just as I have loved you” (John 13:34, emphasis
added).
The context
preceding Ephesians 2:15 emphasizes that Gentiles had been formerly “alienated
from the commonwealth [or citizenship: politeia] of Israel” but were now
brought “near by the blood of Christ” (Ephesians 2:12–13).69 Gentile believers
were incorporated into the citizenship of Israel; author Daniel Juster refers
to this as “addition theology”—Gentiles were “added” to the household of Israel
through their faith in Israel’s Messiah.70 This change is part of the newness
that Paul meant in “one new man.” Accordingly, Kinzer writes, The Church should
be seen as a renewed Israel, a renewed people of God. It is an eschatological
form of Israel, anticipating the life of the world to come by the gift of the
Spirit. As an eschatological reality, it is also an expanded Israel, including
within its ranks people from all the nations of the world.71
The idea of
a “renewed Israel” fits well with the biblical concept of new- ness, as
demonstrated by the examples above. Elsewhere Kinzer describes the Gentile
component of the church as “a multinational extension of the people of Israel”
(emphasis original).72 This is apt wording to express the non-supersessionist
perspective, because (1) an extension is not a replace- ment, and (2) an
extension depends on that from which it is extended for support—it cannot
function independently. As Paul expressed it, “You do not support the root, but
the root supports you” (Romans 11:18 NIV, emphasis added). In fact, Paul
referred to the Israelites (presumably only those in right standing with God)
as “holy ones” or “saints.”73 While Paul in Ephesians emphasized the contrast
of what Gentile believers once were (pagans) with what they now had become,74
he did not make a cor- responding contrast between Jewish believers and
“Israelite culture and identity.”75 These points collectively make it very
difficult to imagine how the “one new man” can replace Israel as God’s people.
Returning to
Paul’s olive tree metaphor,76 we see that Gentiles are as branches of a wild
olive tree (neither schooled in nor governed by Torah), but by faith in Jesus
they are “grafted in” to the cultivated olive tree, Israel.77 Likewise, Gentile
believers “became a sharer of the root of the olive tree’s richness” (Romans
11:17). While this imagery is congruent with the notion that the “one new man” is
Israel being renewed and enlarged by the attach- ment to it of all the nations
of the world (as presented above), it is incon- gruent with the complete
disjunction of the church from Israel, as some interpret the newness to mean.
Theologian
Charles Ryrie, for example, stated that the church (“new man”) is “not a
continuation or remaking of Israel, but something new and distinct from the
Israel of the Old Testament.”78 He stressed a discontinuity between the
redeemed of this era who are “in the body of Christ,” saying that they are “not
some sort of Israel” and going on to explain that “today redeemed Jew and
Gentile belong to God’s family of saints without being members of any kind of
Israel.”79 My assessment of the biblical data above suggests the opposite of
Ryrie’s claims. “Renewed” is not only a permissible interpretation of kainos in
Ephesians 2:15 but also the best way of under- standing it. Yes, the church is
a new entity that Christ has created, but it was created not by replacing Jew
and Gentile (as in replacement theology); rather, it is by restoring,
reconciling, and spiritually regenerating them.
There is yet
another facet of newness in the “one new man”: the peace between Jew and
Gentile that Christ made by destroying the enmity between them and reconciling
them both to each other and to God.80 For Lloyd-Jones Christ’s peace required
the binary Jew-Gentile classification to be discarded: “The moment we begin to
bring in those categories there is no longer peace; there is division,
separation, enmity.”81 However, nei- ther the peace nor the reconciliation call
for eradication of either Jewish or Gentile identity.82 The unity in Christ
that results from bringing “near” Gentiles who “once were far away”83 as God’s
people does not trigger an “ethnic collapse.”84 Indeed, it is the peace between
the church’s principal differentiated elements, namely Israel and the nations,
that is the eschato- logical sign of God’s sovereignty over the whole world.
This peace is not an abstraction nor a future-only reality; it is a present-day
sign of the fullness of the peace to come.
“It is a
real political and social peace that Christ enables and demands of those who
truly belong to His kingdom. As Ephesians 1–2 indicates, through the power of
Christ hostility arising from difference can be turned into a cause of
celebration of the blessings of God in Christ.”85 Paul may have been comparing
this peace with that which Solomon brought between the northern and southern
kingdoms when both those “far” (Israel in the north) and “near” (Judah in the
south) worshiped together in the then-new Temple, as various similarities
suggest.86 But the peace and reconciliation brought about by Christ in
Ephesians 2:14–16 is not described as a general peace between all nations; it
is specifically a peace between the nations and Israel—Gentiles and Jews. Such
a peace is somewhat meaningless if, as some writers I have cited claim, there
is no more particularity to Israel and Jews “in Christ” are no longer fully
Jewish.
The argument
presented above shows that ongoing intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction is
permissible and even probable in the “one new man” metaphor of Ephesians 2:15
insomuch as the “one new man” is not a Jewish man, neither is he a Gentile; he
is a new humanity comprising Jewish and Gentile members “in Christ Jesus.”
Before testing that conclu- sion with other internal evidence, the least
controversial word in the phrase “hena kainon anthrōpon” (“one new man”),
anthrōpos (“man”), needs a brief discussion.
Man
It is
generally accepted that the “man” Christ created in Ephesians 2:15 is not an
individual human being but a people. Paul did not use the word anēr but
anthrōpos; both words can mean “man,” “human,” or “husband,” but the latter can
also mean “people” as a collective noun, which fits the context best. Paul’s
choice of words is remarkable, because humanity itself is a compound unity
comprising differentiated elements (members of the human population), often
viewed in subgroups according to gender, race, or family. Thus anthrōpos
reflects well the kind of entity represented by the body of believers in Jesus.
This nuance may not have been conveyed if Paul had chosen another word such as
“creature,” “vessel,” or “being.” Recall the metaphor (already presented above)
in which Paul described the church as a “body” comprising distinct members.87
Once again, the theme of unity with distinction is a paradigm native to the
apostle’s writings.
It is thus
surprising that so few English translations use “humanity” (as do the NIV 2011
and the NRSV) or “people” (as the NLT does) to translate anthrōpos in Ephesians
2:15. In this instance “humanity” appears best, especially when taking into
consideration Paul’s reference to Christ as the “last Adam” in 1 Corinthians
15:45. In that context Adam is the ancestor of natural humanity, but Christ is
the ancestor of a regenerated (renewed!) humanity. Inasmuch as Christ’s
divinity did not displace his human- ity—indeed, he was bodily resurrected—the
spiritual quickening of his followers does not replace their natural bodies.
The “one new man” does not displace its members from their current natural
identity. Jews remain Jews, and Gentiles remain non-Jews. This point touches on
a much larger topic, but we should not lose sight of the fact that those who
are in Christ are also the sons of Adam.
“In Place
of” the Two?
As stated
above, some Bible translations explicitly say that the one new man is created
“in place of” the two (Jews and Gentiles) in Ephesians 2:15. If this is the
case, then replacement theology has an anchor in the biblical text, but where
do these words originate? The answer, quite simply, is in the translators’
theology. No textual variants in any of the ancient sources witness to these
words; they are “a gratuitous addition,” as Campbell calls them.88 The Bible
translators supplied “in place of” in order to clarify the meaning, but
the meaning they assume does not correspond with the evidence that I have
presented.
Unfortunately,
their insertion also serves to validate their theology, though I do not suggest
any ill intent on their part—all Bible translators have to make difficult
decisions and will naturally favor wording that con- forms to their
understanding of the “right” interpretation. Moreover, the English is awkward
without the phrase, seemingly needing “smoothing.” Following the Greek word
order, a literal translation of the clause may be “in order that the
[accusative] two [indeclinable] he might create in him- self into one new
man.”89 There are no significant variant readings. If the logic of the argument
presented above is valid, then the critical text does not indicate replacement
but rather a new state of unity. I submit that the phrase “in place of” in some
English translations of Ephesians 2:15 is misleading and best omitted.
The
discussion above has already touched on the profound theologi- cal implications
of the message of Ephesians that emerges from my (and others’) reading of “one
new man,” which is all the more meaningful if the phrase “in place of” is not
supplied to Ephesians 2:15. Markus Barth made a drastic statement concerning
the message of the letter: “Ephesians makes its readers aware that it is wrong
and suicidal for the church … to claim that she alone is the true, the new, the
spiritual Israel—at the expense of the old or fleshly Israel” (emphasis
added).90 Later he wrote that “it is the distinctive message of Ephesians that
no Gentile can have communion with Christ or with God unless he also has
communion with Israel.”91 Though matters of supersessionism and
Jewish-Christian relations are too vast for this article, it is important
nevertheless to mention the theologi- cal significance—the applied meaning—of
“one new man” in Ephesians.
A Test
Is there an
objective test for my finding that the newer identities of believ- ers and
unbelievers in Jesus does not erase the older ones of Jews and Gentiles? Does
the letter to the Ephesians itself offer any internal evidence in this regard?
If the identity cross-classification scheme portrayed in table 1 is valid, then
we might expect potential confusion in the personal pronouns used in the letter
such as “we” and “you” (especially in the plural). That is, the writer, who
certainly is to be regarded as a Jesus-believer of Jewish origins, might at
times use “we” to denote “we Jews” or “I and the Jews among you” (the
audience), while at other times using “we” to denote “we believers in Jesus,
regardless of our identity as Jews or Gentiles.” Similarly, “you” might denote
either “you Jews and Gentiles to whom I am writing,” or it may refer to “you
Gentiles,” excluding the Jews in the audience.
A study of
the personal pronouns in Ephesians reveals that this is, in fact, exactly what
appears, and the modern reader needs to be particu- larly careful in
interpreting these words. The greeting and opening praises appear to include
the whole audience of believers, Jew and Gentile, in the pronouns “we,” “us,”
and “our.” But at some point we find a switch in usage such that, by Ephesians
1:12, “we” must refer to Jews who “hoped beforehand [i.e., BCE] in Christ” and
“you” to the Gentiles: “When you … believed … [you] were sealed with the
promised Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 1:13). Again, in Ephesians 1:19 the phrase “us
who believe” clearly places Gentile believers together with Paul and his
believing Jewish kin in the first- person plural pronoun “us.” Yet by Ephesians
2:1 “you” refers to Gentile believers, and “we” in Ephesians 2:3 refers to
Jewish believers, each group being differentiated from their unbelieving
counterparts. In Ephesians 2:4–7 once again “us” refers to the whole body of
believers, Jewish and Gentile, whom God loved, made alive, raised together,
seated together for a demonstration “in the coming ages of the surpassing
riches of his grace in kindness upon us in Christ Jesus.”
The evidence
grows stronger still in Ephesians 2:11, where Paul uses an over-specification
(in discourse terminology)92 to explicitly identify “you” as “Gentiles in the
flesh.” Such over-specification “prompts the reader [to] conceptualize the
referent in a specific way”;93 Paul sought to emphasize that “you” meant
“Gentiles in the flesh” and not “the circumcision … in the flesh” (Ephesians
2:11). Note that Paul does not refer to these non-Jewish believers as formerly
Gentiles or formerly “the uncircumcision” but rather as formerly “alienated”
(Ephesians 2:12). Then he says, “You are no longer strangers and aliens, but
you are fellow citizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19), while they yet
continued to be distinct from Jewish believers, as “you Gentiles” in Ephesians
3:1 indicates.
Though the
difficulty of identifying the referent of personal pronouns in Ephesians has
often been noted in the literature, I have sought to use it as an objective
test of the letter’s internal evidence. The test results clearly support the
notion of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction.
Summary and
Implications
The
traditional Christian interpretation of the New Testament is that after coming
to faith in Jesus, no distinction remains between Jewish believers and Gentile
believers. That is, within the church there is to be no differentiation between
Israel and the nations. Does Paul’s reference to the “one new man” in Ephesians
2:15 support this claim? Are Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus no longer
distinct in any significant way because of their common membership in the community
of Christ? No. “One new man” is an assertion of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile
distinc- tion. Other keywords in Ephesians 2:14–16, namely “body,” “create,”
and “peace,” prove to be congruent with this finding.
The biblical
concept of “one” does not necessarily mean a singularity or homogeneity, but it
allows for the unity of distinct elements. Ephesians identifies Gentile
believers with Israel, not as Israel; Paul retains distinction between the two
in this letter as he does in his other writings.
The “new man”
of Ephesians 2:15 is not created ex nihilo. While there are aspects of newness
to the body of Christ, not all that is old is discarded. The Christ event did
not erase the biblical classification of individuals as Jews or Gentiles.
Rather, the New Testament classifies people according to whether or not they
put their faith in Jesus and according to whether or not they are
Israelites—yet without any prejudice against Gentile believers who are welcomed
as fellow citizens, a kind of extension to Israel. Christ’s body is a new man
because its members are spiritually regenerated. That which is called new in
the Bible is often what we today would call renewed. Israel is renewed in
Christ, not replaced by the church but expanded to encompass Gentile Christians
as co-citizens. Another facet of the new- ness is the actual peace that Christ
brought about between Israel and the nations, which ought to be evident among
Jews and Gentiles who, through their faith in Jesus, have become members of his
body.
The “man,”
or “humanity,” Christ created is a corporate entity: those who belong to
Christ. The identities of Jews and Gentiles are not washed away in the waters
of baptism. Persistence of Jewish identity in particular is not only defined by
ethnicity and culture but also by faith tradition (includ- ing Torah-obligation
in a manner not required of Gentile Christians) and a unique function (or
service) within the body of Christ.
Reconciliation
of Jews and Gentiles as Jews and Gentiles (respectively) in Christ is a pledge
of Christ’s ability to bring peace to bitterest enemies— something that loses
significance if the two are homogenized or blended in Christ, reducing God’s
work to “a mere historical remembrance rather than a miracle that is
continually renewed.”94 Moreover, Christ did not “create in himself one new man
in place of the two.” Bible translations that supply the phrase “in place of”
potentially mislead readers into the supersessionist paradigm.
Ephesians
2:15 does not by any means prove that its members are no longer Jewish and
Gentile. Instead the text allows, and even requires, reten- tion of the
Jew-Gentile classification—even among the members of Christ’s body—in a
theologically meaningful way, not merely ethnically or cultur- ally. The clause
in question in Ephesians 2:15 might best be interpreted “in order that he might
establish the two in himself into one new humanity.” Two major implications of
viewing the church as a unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ rather than as a
unification that blends the two parties homogeneously follow.
The first is
that it permits and even promotes the practice of Judaism by Jewish believers
in Jesus—as long as such practice does not contravene New Testament teaching.
The modern Messianic Jewish movement thus expresses its Jewish identity through
Torah-observance and the develop- ment of halachic standards, worship in
synagogues following Jewish liturgy and norms, participation in traditional
Jewish ceremonies (circumcision and bar mitzvah, for example) and festivals.
Typically, all these expressions are adapted to some degree to include key
elements of the New Testament, especially regarding Christology. Good examples
of these adaptations are included in Standards of Observance (a guide to
Messianic Jewish hal- achah),95 Zichron Mashiach (Messiah’s Remembrance Meal, a
liturgy),96 and The Sabbath Table: Prayers, Blessings, and Songs for the
Sabbath.97
A second
important consequence of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile dis-tinction is that
Jewish Jesus-believers form a nexus between Israel and the nations, being both
members of the people of Israel and members of Christ’s body. Karl Barth
discerned this even before the modern Messi- anic Jewish movement developed; he
recognized that corporately, Jewish Jesus-believers “fulfill their appointed
role when they are the ekklesia in Israel and Israel in the ekklesia.”98
Following on closely, his son, Markus Barth, wrote, “Brotherhood with Israel is
the very essence, not the possible consequence, of the peace Christ has
made.”99 The textual analysis on Ephesians 2:15 presented here concurs with
both Karl and Markus Barth on these matters. Thus, I deduce (as others have
done before me)100 that Jewish believers in Jesus are a bridge that joins the
nations to Israel and, furthermore, that the Messianic Jewish synagogue is
exemplary as the locus of the peace that Christ initiated, he himself being
their paragon.
Messianic
Jewish synagogues did not exist when Karl and Markus Barth wrote, but today
they flourish as places in which Jews and Gentiles express their devotion to
Jesus in unity yet with distinction. All participants who have repented and
been baptized are invited to the communion table, while typically only the
Jewish members wear tzitzit (tassels)101 and observe other commandments issued specifically
to the children of Israel. Messianic Jewish synagogues are a place in which
representatives from the nations actually attach themselves to the faithful
remnant of Israel, remembering with gratitude and humility that the new
covenant was formed with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah
31:31), not with Gentile nations. Such congregations observably apply the
theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction; they offer concrete evidence
that the “one new man” Christ created (Ephesians 2:15) is a regenerated
humanity comprising Jews as Jews and Gentiles as Gentiles—all at peace with one
another, in spite of objections by expositors like Lloyd-Jones who have
declared this impos- sible. I am not recommending that Gentile Christians leave
their churches for a local Messianic synagogue, which would result in the
problem of Gentile numerical dominance in most parts of the world.
Church-hosted table fellowship and special worship events could equally
demonstrate Jew-Gentile unity with distinction.
Unity and
distinction must go hand in hand. Neither unity of nor dis-tinction between
Jesus-believing Jews and Gentiles should be emphasized at the expense of the
other.102 The interplay between these two aspects of the Jew-Gentile
relationship creates a tension of interdependence that results in mutual
blessing. In fact, the intimate composition and mutual dependence of Jews and
Gentiles is essential to the church: The church is a prolepsis of Israel and
the nations in the eschaton. Interdependence and mutual blessing between Jew
and Gentile reflects the raison d’être of the church and anticipates the con-
summation when Israel and the nations, in Torah-defined unity and diversity,
will worship ADONAI alone. (emphasis original)103
To me it
seems that Christian training and preaching generalizes the central motif of
Ephesians—reconciliation, unity, and peace between Jews and Gentiles—by
presenting instead all believers in general as the parties in focus. Without
denying the importance of peace among all Jesus-believers, I suggest that such
generalization results in a diluted and compromised reading of this letter,
since Paul specifically identified Jews and Gentiles as the primary parties of
Christ’s peace accord.
Endnotes
1
Using the Lexham English Bible except where otherwise specified.
2
Philip Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (series 1
vol. 13 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Christian Classics Ethereal
Library),
71. Cited 15
January 2014. Online:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113. toc.html.
3
Ibid., 72–73.
4
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God’s Way of Reconciliation (vol. 2. of An Exposition on
Ephesians; Edinburgh, Scotland: Baker Book House, 1972), 275.
5
Ibid., 277.
6
Ibid.
7
Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2002), 379.
8
John Atkinson, “Whose Law Is It Anyway?” (paper presented at the Roots and
Shoots Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 25 July 2009).
9
Daniel C. Juster, “Interpreting the New Covenant from a Messianic Jewish
Perspective,” (seminar presented at the annual yeshiva of Beit Ariel Messianic
Jewish Congregation, Cape Town, South Africa, 23–25 October 2009).
10
UMJC, Introducing Messianic Judaism and the UMJC (Albuquerque, NM: Union of
Messianic Jewish Congregations, 2010), 24.
11
Markus Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (vol. 34A
of the Anchor Bible series; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 310.
12
R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1996), 169–170.
13
Justin K. Hardin, “Equality in the Church,” in Introduction to Messianic
Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations (ed. David J. Rudolph
and Joel Willitts; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 232.
14
Note that these particular translations do not italicize words supplied by the
translators.
15
William S. Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities
and the Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” Transformation 25 (2008), 15–31.
16
Mark S. Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian
Engagement with the Jewish People (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2005), 151–179.
17
David J. Rudolph, “Paul’s ‘Rule in all the Churches’ (1 Corinthians 7:17–24)
and Torah-defined Ecclesiological Variegation,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations
5 (2010): CP1–24.
18
Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, 1–2; 11–12.
19
Ephesians 2:19–22, 3:6, 4:3, 16; Markus Barth, “Conversion and Conversation:
Israel and the Church in Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians,” Interpretation 17
(1963): 7.
20
Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities and the
Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” 21.
21
E.g., Michael Wyschogrod, “Incarnation and God’s Indwelling in Israel,” in
Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Kendall
Soulen; London, England: SCM Press, 2004), 173–174.
22 Ibid.,
174.
23 Isaiah
50:1; Jeremiah 31:3–4, 9, 20; Hosea 2:16, 19–20, 11:1–6, 8–11; Zechariah
10:6.
24
John Atkinson, “Jews and Gentiles: Metaphors of Distinction and Unity,” (2008),
2. Cited 5 August 2014. Online:
http://cmj-sa.org/Data/Sites/1/pdf/
jews-and-gentiles-metaphors-of-distinction-and-unity.pdf.
25
Ibid., 14.
26
1 Corinthians 12:12–14, 20, 25.
27
Ephesians 1:23, 2:16, 3:6, 4:4, 12, 16, 5:23, 30.
28
E.g., Revelation 21:3. Most translations prefer the singular collective noun,
laos (people), as per the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the GNT, but the
Westcott- Hort, Tregelles and Nestle-Aland 28 all bear the plural laoi
(peoples).
29
Contrast my findings with Lloyd-Jones’ emphatic statement: ‘The unity of this
new body is an absolute unity’ (emphasis original. Lloyd-Jones, God’s Way,
277.) He did not provide any support from how the cardinal number, one, is used
in the Bible.
30
Genesis 2:21–24.
31
On the theme of mutual blessing of Israel and the nations, see Soulen, The God
of Israel and Christian Theology, and his more recent assessment, “The Standard
Canonical Narrative and the Problem of Supersessionism,” in Rudolph and
Willitts, Introduction to Messianic Judaism, 282–291. Also in Rudolph and
Willitts, see Craig Keener (with Paul’s letter to the Romans in view),
“Interdependence and Mutual Blessing in the Church,” 187–195. The concept
emerges from God’s covenant with Abraham, which purposes that ‘all the families
of the earth’ will be blessed through Abraham, and they ought to bless him also
(Genesis 12:2–3).
32
R. Kendal Soulen, “The Standard Canonical Narrative and the Problem of
Supersessionism,’ in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context
and Biblical
Foundations (ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2013), 285.
33
UMJC, “Defining Messianic Judaism,” (statement affirmed by delegates to the
UMJC Theology Committee at the 26th Annual UMJC Conference, 20 July 2005).
Cited 1 September 2014. Online.
http://www.umjc.org/core-values/ defining-messianic-judaism/.
34
Barth, “Conversion and Conversation,” 5.
35
Hardin, “Equality in the Church,” 231.
36
Ibid.
37
Barth, “Conversion and Conversation,” 9.
38
Ibid.
39
Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch (London, England:
Routledge, 2003),158.
40
Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s letter
(Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 184.
41
Romans 3:29; Mark D. Nanos, “Rethinking the Paul-and-Judaism Paradigm,” (paper
presented at Linköping University, Sweden, 8 May 2008), 33–34. Cited 27 July
2014. Online:
http://www.marknanos.com/lectures.html.
42
Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology, xi.
43
Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities and the
Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” 22.
44
Ibid., 23.
45
Ibid., 24.
46
Ibid., 24.
47
Barth, “Conversion and Conversation,” 12 (commenting on Ephesians 2:11ff.).
48
Ephesians 2:14.
49
Rudolph, “Paul’s ‘Rule in all the Churches’ (1 Corinthians 7:17–24) and Torah-
defined Ecclesiological Variegation,” CP8.
50
Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities and the
Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” 15; Nanos, “Rethinking the Paul-and-Judaism
Paradigm,” 17, 23; J. Brian Tucker, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the
Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock Publishers, 2011).
51
David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).
52
Barth, Conversion and Conversation, 6.
53
Compare Ephesians 1:22–23, 2:11–16, 4:15–16, 5:23 for use of the head and body
metaphor.
54
See Acts 15:22–29.
55
Acts 15:1–29, 21:17–26. The claim of “no distinction” in Acts 15:9 refers to
the manner of salvation—by grace (Acts 15:11)—and is not an elimination of Jew-
Gentile distinction.
56
Romans 1:5–7, 13, 1:16, 3:29–30, 9:22–24, 11:13–15, 15:8–12, 15–19.
57
Mark S. Kinzer and Matthew Levering, “Messianic Gentiles & Messianic Jews,”
First Things 189 (January 2009):43–47. Cited 7 April 2014. Online: http://www.
firstthings.com/article/2009/01/005-messianic-gentiles-messianic-jews.
58
William S. Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Identities
and the Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” Transformation 25 (2008): 15. Campbell
included a note on the discourse concerning whether Jews should rather be
referred to as Judeans—a notion which, in my view, has considerable evidence
but some difficulties.
59
Philip Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and
Philemon (vol. 13 of Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene
Fathers; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans,
1984), 72. Cited 6 January 2014. Online:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ schaff/npnf113.iii.iv.vi.html.
60
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God’s Way of Reconciliation: An Exposition of Ephesians
2:1–22 (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972), 271–272.
61
Ibid., 272.
62
Anonymous, The Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament
(Logos,
2011), ἐγκαινίζω; ἀνακαινίζω.
63
Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA:
Lexham, 2012).
64
E.g., Isaiah 22:11, 46:11 (Septuagint), aligning with Hebrew yasar.
65
E.g., Exodus 9:18 (Septuagint), aligning with Hebrew yasad. Lexham Analytical
Lexicon to the Septuagint, κτίζω.
66
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew
(Old Testament) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos, 1997); William D. Mounce, Mounce’s
Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
(Grand
Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2006), 470–471.
67
John 13:34; 1 John 2:7–8; 2 John 1:5.
68
Leviticus 19:18.
69
Chrysostom switched the order, stating that “the Jew is then united to the
Gentile when he becomes a believer” (Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom, 73). This
may have been incidental, but readers of Ephesians will note that it is not
Israel that is joined to the Gentiles but rather that the Gentiles are joined
to Israel. Paul taught the same principle to the congregations in Rome (see
further down in this article).
70
Daniel C. Juster, Th. D., The Tragic Error of Replacement Theology, n.p. [cited
6 August 2014]. Online:
http://www.kehila.org/articles/582-the-tragic-error-of-
replacement-theology.
71
Kinzer and Levering, “Messianic Gentiles & Messianic Jews,” Cited 7 April
2014. Online:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/01/005-messianic-gentiles-
messianic-jews.
72
Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with
the Jewish People (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2005), 15.
73
Ephesians 2:19; compare Colossians 1:12.
74 E.g., Ephesians 2:12–13, 19–22.
75
Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church,” 16.
76 Romans 11:13–24.
77
On “olive tree theology” see David H. Stern, Messianic Judaism: A Modern
Movement with an Ancient Past (Clarksville, MD: Messianic Jewish Publishers,
2007), 47–59.
78
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dr. Ryrie’s Articles (Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010), 72.
79
Ryrie, Dr. Ryrie’s Articles, 72.
80
Ephesians 2:14–16.
81
Lloyd-Jones, God’s Way of Reconciliation, 278.
82
Lloyd-Jones and others who oppose the continuation of Jew-Gentile distinction
within the body of believers appeal to Galatians 3:28 and similar statements in
the New Testament that I identified above as the “no distinction” texts. These
require careful investigation as to the rhetoric Paul employed. Suffice it to
say that Galatians contains strongly worded instructions to Gentile
Jesus-believers to retain their non-Jewish identity, and Galatians
3:28 is
hyperbole intended to stress the irrelevance of one’s social status in
comparison to one’s standing in Christ, which eclipses the former.
83
Ephesians 2:13.
84
Justin K. Hardin, “Equality in the Church,” in
Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical
Foundations (ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2013), 232.
85
Campbell, Unity and Diversity, 15.
86
Campbell, Unity and Diversity, 17, with citations to Larry J. Kreitzer, “The
Messianic Man of Peace as Temple Builder: Solomonic Imagery in Ephesians
2:13–22,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; New York, NY:
T&T Clark, 2005), 500–501.
87
Romans 12:4–8; 1 Corinthians 12:12–30.
88
Campbell, Unity and Diversity, 19.
89
Using the English literal translation level of W. Hall Harris III, The Lexham
Greek-English Interlinear New Testament: SBL Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham
Press, 2010).
90
Markus Barth, “Conversion and Conversation: Israel and the Church in Paul’s
Epistle to the Ephesians,” Interpretation 17 (January 1963): 5.
91
Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6 (vol. 34A of
Anchor
Bible; New York, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 337.
92
Steven E. Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA:
Logos, 2008).
93
Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament: Glossary (Bellingham, WA:
Logos, 2008).
94
Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, 171.
95
Standards of Observance (New Haven, CT: Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council,
2012). Cited 1 September 2014. Online:
http://ourrabbis.org/main/ documents/MJRC_Standards_Aug2012.pdf.
96
Mark S. Kinzer, “Zichron Mashiach” (2013). Cited 1 September 2014. Online: http://ourrabbis.org/main/resources/zichron-mashiach.
97
The Sabbath Table: Prayers, Blessings and Songs for the Sabbath (Marshfield,
MO: Vine of David, 2014).
98
Karl Barth in Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, 176; see “Karl Barth
and Bilateral Ecclesiology,” 174–177.
99
Markus Barth, “Conversion and Conversation,” 7.
100
E.g., Rudolph, “Introduction,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism, 14.
101
See Numbers 15:37–41; Deuteronomy 22:12.
102
John Atkinson, “Jews and Gentiles: Metaphors of Distinction and Unity” (November
2008), 17. Cited 5 August 2014. Online:
http://cmj-sa.org/Data/
Sites/1/pdf/jews-and-gentiles-metaphors-of-distinction-and-unity.pdf.
103
Rudolph, “Paul’s ‘Rule in all the Churches’ (1 Cor 7:17–24) and Torah-Defined
Ecclesiological Variegation,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 5 (2010):
15.
