Appendix C: A Synthesis of Romans 11, Galatians 6, Ephesians 2

Appendix C

A SYNTHESIS OF

ROMANS 11, GALATIANS 6, EPHESIANS

2,

PHILIPPIANS 3, HEBREWS

8, I PETER 2

INCE Romans 11 is, by common confession, the locus classicus passage with regard to the Ne Testament teaching concerning the present nature and destiny of Israel, the following summary exposition aims at establishing harmony with five other passages that are o consideration in this regard, namely Galatians 6:18; Ephesians 2:11-22; Philippians 3:2- Hebrews 8:7-13; I Peter 2:9-10. Gentile exegesis of these portions of Scripture has ten result in conclusions supportive of replacement, supercessionist, or fulfillment theology. Howe it should go without saying that all of these passages of the Word of God were penned, huma speaking, by Hebrew authors. With this in mind, it should also be obvious that a corr interpretation of these writings requires a hermeneutic that gives serious consideration Jewish presuppositions that are inherent in these New Covenant revelations. Hence, wi being an assumed approach, it should not surprise us when such a Hebrew orientation results truth agreement leading, by means of the progress of revelation, from the Old Testament to t New Testament, from promise to fulfillment, that finds no necessity for the displaceme national Israel.

A. GALATIANS 6:16.

When apologists for Reformed amillennial eschatology seek to biblically justify the identification of the Christian church as the new Israel of God, invariably Galatians 6:16 is offered as the primary proof-text.

1 Though it should be pointed out that this reference i

really the only explicit verse in the New Testament that can reasonably be appealed to in this regard, especially if the NIV translation is considered.

1. The context.

Paul has almost reached a point of exasperation with the Jewish legalists who are so adamant in requiring that Gentiles be circumcised and thus commence submission to “the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). So in 5:12 he expresses, in a very down-to-e manner, his desire that they “would even mutilate themselves.” Again in 6:12-1 assails the carnality and hypocrisy of his opponents, particularly their “boastin gaining submission to circumcision. So Paul responds with a different sort of boasting which is self-renouncing and exalts in Jesus Christ’s atonement alone. This

1 This is clearly evident in Hendriksen, Israel and the Bible, pp. 33-34; Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, pp. 39-46; Venema, The Promise of the Future, pp. 274-277. So La Rondelle comments, “Paul’s Benediction in Galatians 6:16 becomes, then, the chief witness in the New Testament in declaring that the u Church of Christ is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, the heir to Israel’s covenant promise (cf. Gal. 3:29; 6:16).” The Israel of God in Prophecy, pp. 110-111.

S

proclamation of confidence in grace alone through Christ alone is antithetical to the formalistic religion of this world, v. 14. And when all has been said and done, what matters most is that sovereignty of grace which alone is able to convert a work boasting sinner into “a new [spiritual] creation [ks…sij, ktisis, species, cf. II Cor. 5:17],” v. 15.

2. The Israel of God, v. 16.

So Paul exhorts “those” to whom he is writing, being principally Gentiles (1:2), t show discernment in this matter. “Peace and mercy,” which are so central and resultant concerning a true experience of his gospel, will be bestowed upon those who ar exclusively directed in their daily walk by the fundamental rule of grace and life union with Christ. But for those who employ Moses along with Christ, as it were with a relationship that may be likened to spiritual bigamy (cf. Rom. 7:1-4), “peace a mercy” are impossible. Then Paul is reminded of a minority group in the church Galatia, “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5), that is a small number of Jewish Christians. They are ethnically Jewish, yet very different from “the flesh mutilators” (5:12). So he includes them as well in his exhortation since they are authentically Jewish, “the Israel of God.”

3. The Jewish Christian interpretation.

Considerable debate has surrounded the translation of this verse. The NASB read “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and [emphasis added] upon the Israel of God.” However the NIV is translated: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even [emphasis added] to the Israel of God.” Concerning the latter version, Jewish Christian commentator David Stern remarks:

The consequence of this wrong interpretation has been immeasurable pain for the Jews. The conclusion was reached that the Church is now the “New Israel” and the Jews, the so-called “Old Israel,” no longer God’s people. If the Jews are no longer God’s people, isn’t it appropriate to persecute them? There are four reasons why this anti-Semitic conclusion is false and is not taught by this verse or any other: (1) the Greek grammar, (2) the Jewish background, (3) Sha’ul’s [Paul’s] purpose here, and (4) Sha’ul’s teaching elsewhere.

2

The distress of Stern here is by no means unfounded. In John Gager’s The Origins of Anti-Semitism, there is a specific reckoning with Galatians 6:16 concerning the unfortunate neglect of certain historic doctrinal foundations and a common identification of Israel with the church.

Peter Richardson has shown that Justin Martyr was the first Christian writer to identify Christianity with Israel in explicit terms [Refer to footnote 6]. This is a sobering discovery. If language provides any clues to reality, we ought now to be more cautious when speaking about rejection-replacement views of Israel in the earliest stages of Christian development. Paul’s writings come a full century before the time of Justin. . . . In fact, Paul nowhere addresses his churches as Israel. Nor does he transfer to them Israel’s distinctive attributes. The RSV translation of Philippians 3:3 (“We are the true

2 David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 574. circumcision. . . .”) indicates such a transfer, but the RSV translation at this point must b seen as dependent on the rejection-replacement view of Israel, not the other way around

3

Then in rejecting the identification of Israel with the church, and having cited Burton and Richardson, Gager then appears to go beyond their interpretations when concludes:

Finally, if we allow this parallel passage in Romans [11:5, 26-32] to determine ou reading of Galatians 6:16, tou theou (“of God”) will no longer be seen as serving reduce “Israel” to the faithful remnant, as both Burton and Richardson propose, b rather as designating Israel’s unshakable standing with God.

4

4. The exegesis of two key words.

a. “Israel” according to Paul.

There is no use of the term “Israel” in the New Testament that is an ex equivalent to the Christian church. This is confirmed by Ernest De Witt Burton’s declaration: “[T]here is, in fact, no instance of his [Paul’s] using ’Isra»l, Isra¯ el, except of the Jewish nation or a part thereof.”

5 Furthermore there is no evidence

taken from history that the term “Israel” was synonymously used with regard to the church before A.D. 160.

6

b. “Αnd” rather than “even.”

The continuative “and” k£i, kai, is contextually and statistically preferable when compared with the ascensive “even.” Most commonly the translation is, “a upon the Israel of God” (NASB), in which case Hebrew Christians retain a distinct identity, while the minority translation reads, “even upon the Israel of God (NIV), in which case the church, comprising all of the people of God, is simply given a refined title, it being the spiritual Israel of God. However consider following statistics. In the New Testament of the KJV, k£i , kai as “and” occurs approximately 9225 times (97%), while as “even” occurs approximately 27 times (3%). In Galatians there are 75 mentions of “and” and 7 of “even. Romans there are 260 mentions of “and” and 25 of “even.” Allowing for translation variations, such as where other particles and conjunctions are translated by “and” and “even” as the context requires, nevertheless the continuative use of k£i , kai has a greater frequency by far than the ascensive use. Concerning the NIV’s uncommon use of “even” in this regard, “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God,” a degree of ambig nevertheless remains since not only can the ascensive use of k£i , kai be understood, but also the emphatic use, that is, “Peace and mercy to all who follo

3 John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, p. 228. He also footnotes the fact that, concerning Philippians 3:3, “There is no counterpart for ‘true’ in the Greek text.” Ibid. 4 Ibid., p. 229. 5 Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 358. 6 In Peter Richardson’s acclaimed Cambridge University doctoral thesis, he writes, “The word ‘Israel’ is app to the Christian Church for the first time by Justin Martyr c. A.D. 160. It is a symptom of the developing take-over by Christians of the prerogatives and privileges of Jews.” Israel In The Apostolic Church, p. 1.

this rule, even [“also,” by way of an adjunctive, emphatic thought] to the Israel of God. A. T. Robertson suggests this is possibly the primary meaning of k£i , kai, so that “also” here would seem to be the better translation.

7 However one suspects

that the NIV translation is doctrinally driven so that the intention is to identify the church as in fact the new Israel of God.

5. The compatibility with Romans 11:5, 26.

The “remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5), that is authentic Jewish Christians at the time when Paul wrote Romans, most naturally identifies with th same remnant that Paul identifies as “the Israel of God” at the time Galatians 6:16 was written. Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to ignore Paul’s eschatological hope when a future authentic conversion of national Israel shall come about, at which time, “a Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). So Ernest De Witt Burton writes with a more comprehensive perspective:

[T]here is, in fact, no instance of his [Paul’s] using ’Isra»l, Isra¯ el, except of the Jewish nation or a part thereof. These facts favor the interpretation of the expression [’Isra»l toà qeoà, Isra¯ el tou theou] as applying not to the Christian community, but to Jews; yet, in view of tou/ qeou/ , tou theou, not to the whole Jewish nation, but to the pious Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5), including even those who had not seen the truth as Paul saw it, and so could not be included in Ösoi tú kanèni toÚt w stoic»sousin [hosoi to¯ kano¯ni touto¯ stoich¯ esousin] those who will walk by this rule].

8

6. The conflict between exegesis and doctrine.

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, a former Dallas Seminary professor who embraced the doctrines of sovereign grace, has written a highly significant article on the interpretation o Galatians 6:16. One particular comment is most insightful.

I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large in the interpretation of Galatians 6:16. The tenacity with which this application of “the Israel of God” to the church is held in spite of a mass of evidence to the contrary leads one to think that the supporters of the view believe their eschatological system, usually an amillennial scheme, hangs on the reference of the term to the people of God, composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Amillennialism does not hang on this interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured place in amillennial exegesis. . . . A certain rigidity in evangelical eschatological debate emerges again in the discussion of Galatians 6:16. For example, amillennialists seem to strongly desire to equate “the Israel of God” with the church. Some amillennialists, however, think an ethnic future for Israel is compatible with their system. An example of this is found in the fine work of Anthony A. Hoekema on eschatology. He grants that an ethnic future for Israel would with certain

7 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, p. 1180. 8 Burton, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 358. G. C. Berkouwer is of a similar opinion. The Return of Christ, p. 344, as are F. F. Bruce, Galatians, p. 275, Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, p. 323, A. T. Hanson, The Pioneer Ministry, pp. 34-35. Peter Richardson likewise adds: “Who is this group [Isra¯el tou theou]? We suggest that it is those within Israel to whom God will show mercy—all those Israelites who are going to come to their senses and receive the good news of Christ. . . . This means that Galatians 6:16 does not presuppose that the Church has taken over the name Israel for itself.” Israel In The Apostolic Church, pp. 82-83. strictures be compatible with his amillennial views, but he argues strongly against such a interpretation. Why, then are amillennialists so opposed generally to an ethnic future for Israel? This is not an easy question to answer. It may be perfectly conceivable that an amillenn would grant that an ethnic future for Israel at the Lord’s return could be fitted into his system. But if such a normal interpretation of the language of the Old Testament followed in this instance, it is difficult to see how one can then escape the seemingly plai teaching of many Old Testament prophecies that the nation of Israel shall enjoy preeminence in certain aspects over the Gentiles in the kingdom that follows our Lord’s advent (cf. Isa. 60:1-4; 62:1-12; Mic. 4:1-5; Hag. 2:1-7; Zech. 14:16-21, etc).

9

7. The exegesis of Drs. Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos.

The preceding explanation of Dr. Johnson is born out by Willem VanGemeren’s confession with regard to Herman Bavink’s eschatological understanding of the futur of Israel.

[I]n the interest of polemic against premillennialism Bavinck sacrifices the OT prophetic hope to a harmonious understanding of the NT, in which the NT passages which hold out a hope for Israel and different exegetical options are either harmonized or not fu considered. The authority of the OT as well as of the NT seems to be sacrificed out of concern for unity, harmony, and systemization.

10

VanGemeren also references Geerhardus Vos’s response concerning the same proble as to why it is so difficult to enter into detail on the future conversion of Isr “Because it has been connected on the one hand with the restoration of the Jews to t Holy Land and on the other hand with the millennial kingdom.” Nevertheless, exegetical grounds Vos affirmed a hope in Israel’s eventual conversion.

11

8. By way of conclusion, the Apostle Paul, who never repudiated his Jewishness, always gave priority to Jewish evangelism, who continued to indicate the most tende love for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), is hardly likely here to be propounding a truth, using ambiguous terminology, that would in reality be declaring to the Jew that he had been racially abandoned by God. Upon his arrival at several years after the Epistle to the Galatians had been penned, Paul first sought to witness to “the leading men of the Jews” concerning “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:17 20). To suggest that in this situation he spoke with a forked tongue, using terminolog that in fact he believed to be divinely invalid, is quite unthinkable. Certainly he would not have been declaring the demise of Judaism. Rather he would have preached Chri so that a believing remnant might become “the Israel of God.”

9 S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” Mishkan, No. 6 & 7, 1987, pp. 49-65. 10 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy (II),” Westminster Theological Journal, 46 (1984), p. 263. 11 Ibid., pp. 263-264, with reference to Geerhardus Vos, “Eschatologie,” Dogmatiek, 5.26.

B. EPHESIANS 2:11-22.

In churches of a Reformed persuasion, any eschatological distinction made between national Israel and the Church will often be challenged with the proposal that in Ephesians 2:11-22 Paul describes both entities as having been incorporated, that is amalgamated into one body, one new man, that of the Church of Jesus Christ. However it is further stressed that in such a unity, in the sight of God the Jew has been completely divested of h Jewishness. So Martyn Lloyd-Jones declares that,

[t]he new man here, the one body, is the Church, consisting of these various parts, all a representation of the body of Christ. . . . The Jew has been done away with as such, even as the Gentile has been done away with, in Christ. . . . So the Jew has gone, Gentile has gone; all that belonged to the Jew, all that belonged to the Gentile, is irrelevant henceforward. It is the new creature that matters.

12

Plainly for Lloyd-Jones, and he refers to Galatians 3:28; 6:15 for additional support, God has eliminated all racial distinctions, whether Jewish or Gentile. Hence there is no possibility of any future for national Israel and individual Jewish identity, though it is not difficult to suspect that this egalitarian spirit has overstepped itself. The reason is that in Romans 9-11 the same author presents teaching that certainly, according at least to a prim facie perspective, is in direct conflict with Lloyd-Jones’ exposition of Ephesians 2.

Now it is vital to note that the rapprochement presently under discussion here in Ephesians 2 concerns that period when, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [the chief priests and Pharisees] and given to a people, producing the fruit of it” (Matt. 21:43, 45), though not eternally (Matt. 23:38-39). Hence this union that now takes place through the blood of Christ, vs. 13-16, commences at the inauguration of the Church age signified at Pentecost, and thus progresses through the subsequent times of the Gentiles. In the langua of Romans 11, we are at that point where “the [natural] branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree [the Gentiles], were grafted in among them [the remnant] and becam partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree.” v. 17.

1. The Gentiles are the main subject of discussion.

As with Romans 11:11-32, here Paul is similarly addressing those formerly “the Gentiles in the flesh,” v. 11, so that they might understand that they have been graciously engrafted into the root of Abraham as wild stock, except that the language here is of being “brought near,” having formerly been “separate from Christ, excluded . . . strangers . . . having no hope and without God in the world, vs. 12-13.

2. The Gentiles were “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel,” v. 12.

They were “excluded from the commonwealth [polite…a, politeia] of Israel [as a nation], and strangers to the covenants of promise,” that is separate from “the root of the olive tree,” being the Abrahamic covenant and the “fathers,” Rom. 11:17, 28. Such alienation was when they “were dead in your trespasses and sins, . . . [and] walked according to the course of this world, . . . [and] formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh” (Eph. 2:1-3).

12 Lloyd-Jones, Ephesians 2, pp. 216-7.

3. The Gentiles “have been brought near” by Christ, vs. 13-16.

It is vital to notice here that the Gentiles are not saved to comprise the Church, but a “brought near” to an unidentified entity by means of Christ’s atonement. So i Romans 11, the wild olive branches are not independently saved as the church, but a engrafted into “the rich root of the olive tree.”

a. Near to the blessing of Abraham, vs. 13.

The context makes it clear that this “nearness” does not refer to union with or nearness to Christ. Rather it is by means of “the blood of Christ” that we brought near to something else. In parallel with Romans 11:17 we sugges Gentile is certainly brought near to God, though more particularly through engrafting into the Abrahamic covenant. Thus J. S. Perowne explains:

The thought of remoteness and nearness in respect of God is of course implied, and comes out clearly in v. 18; but it is not the immediate thought of this passage, which rather speaks of the incorporation of once heathen souls into the true Israel. But the two views cannot be quite separated.—“Nigh” and “far” were familiar terms with the Rabbis in the sense of having or not having part in the covenant.

13

That is, by faith the Gentiles draw near to “the blessing of Abraham” (Gal. 3:14, 29); as wild olive branches, they become ingrafted into the “rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17); they too become heirs of “the covenants of promise,” v. 12.

b. Near as “breaking down the barrier” between Jew and Gentile, v. 14.

Formerly there was a seeming impenetrable fence/partition [fragmÒj, phragmos of animosity between Jew and Gentile. There may be reflection here upon Temple wall that divided the Court of Israelites from the Court of the Gentiles. But Christ has established reconciliation and peace with the result that the warring factions have become one, as in a marriage, even though the Jew Gentile distinction is still present as with the male/female distinction withi Christian marriage (Gal. 3:28). Jewish Christian commentator David Stern makes an interesting comment at this point.

Shau’l’s [Paul’s] point is that Gentiles are no longer separated but can now join the Jewish people and be one with them as God’s people through faith in the Je Messiah, Yeshua. The partition is down, the Gentiles can join us! The critics understand it the other way round: the partition is down, so that once Jews believe in their own Messiah they can no longer have the right to maintain their Jew identity but must conform to Gentile patterns. Amazing! And certainly not wh Shau’l himself did.

14

Thus we would declare that our former alienation, now having become the concord of “one new man,” does not eliminate distinctions that concern sexualit personality, giftedness, and appearance. Hence we reject that rather comm Gentile understanding that this oneness results in a homogenous union th completely eliminates former Jew/Gentile distinction, in conflict with Romans 11,

13 J. S. Perowne, Ephesians, p. 78. 14 David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 584.

even as Lloyd-Jones has represented. Note that this “one new man” is identical with the “one body of God,” v. 16, which according to Paul’s analogy comprises a diversity within a unity with regard to the church as the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:14-27). Similarly in marriage, a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Thus Dan Gruber well describes this oneness as follows:

The church is composed of believers called out of the Gentiles to be joined to the faithful remnant of Israel. It is Israel’s fruit. There is a distinction between Israel and the Church, not a separation. There is a union without a loss of identity. . . . Believers are not identically the same, but “Messiah is all, and in all.” Messiah is the ONE new man, and we are all part of Him. There are many members of the body, with different appearances and functions, but only one body.

15

c. Near as making “two into one new man,” v. 15.

Prior fierce enmity between Jew and Gentile having been eliminated, the result is “one new man.” This is the church, “God’s household,” v. 19, rooted in Abraham that presently comprises a growing fullness of Gentiles and a growing Jewish remnant; it is “a holy temple in the Lord,” v. 21. A significant part of this “new man” is disassociation from “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” that is the Old Covenant. Thus redeemed Jew and Gentile are a peace with each other due to a better foundation. Yet, as v. 19 indicates, this in no way invalidates a Jew/Gentile distinction within “God’s household,” any more than the male/female distinction is invalidated because they are “one in Chr Jesus (Gal. 3:28). Again David Stern comments:

In this entire passage Shau’l is writing to Gentiles, and his object is to reassure them that they are fully God’s people, that because of their faith in the Messiah and his work no barrier exists between them and Jews—Gentiles are not second-class citizens of the Kingdom. His purpose is not to downplay Jewish distinctives, but to “up-play” what God has now done for Gentiles. To find in these verses grounds for opposing Messianic Judaism is simply to misappropriate them for a purpose Shau’l never dreamed of.

16

d. Near as “one body to God,” vs. 16-18.

The church or “God’s household,” v. 19, is “one body to God,” being united to “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17), which supports the natural and the wild branches that have been engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus through Christ, the seed of Abraham (Matt. 1:1-17; Gal. 3:16, 29), peace, instead of former enmity between Jew and Gentile, has been brought to those “who were far away” and those “who were near” (Isa. 57:19), v. 17. Further, “we both,” Jew and Gentile, through Christ the one Mediator, have identical access in “one Spirit” to the “one Father,” while yet retaining a Jew/Gentile distinctiveness.

15 Dan Gruber, The Church and The Jews, pp. 331, 410. 16 Ibid., p. 588.

e. Near as “fellow citizens with the saints,” comprising “God’s household,” v. 19.

Here then is the resolution of the tension which Lloyd-Jones introduced. Here als is explanation concerning the “one new man” of v. 15. While some interpret tîn ¡g…wn, to¯n hagio¯n, with reference to believers in general, for converted Rabbi this term, in context here, would indicate Jewish Christians,

17 or the remnant

according to Romans 11:5, in parallel with Galatians 6:16. Thus “Gentiles Christ now share with a remnant of Israel that now exists in “the new man,” the church (Rom. 11:5).

18 However the church is now designated as “God’s

household,” it being comprised of “you [Gentile Christians who] are fellow citizens with the saints [Jewish Christians].” As another writer puts it: “The Church is not the people of God which has taken the place of Israel, the Testament people of God. Rather, according to Rom. 11:1, the Church is only ‘th participant in the root’ (Israel) and its forefathers, the extended people of who together with Israel form the one people of God.”

19 With this in mind, it is

well to remember that Paul, who wrote this Epistle to the Ephesians, continued to identify himself as an ethnic Jew, in the present tense (Acts 21:26, 39; 22:3; Rom 9:3; I Cor,. 9:20), and that surely without any thought of a mere shallow fraterna acknowledgment or even duplicity in his profession. Hence we have harmony wit the eschatological prospect of Israel’s national conversion and engrafting according to Ezekiel 37; Romans 11:15, 23-26. This great, distinctive ingathering (Rom. 11:12, 15, 24-26) shall be part of this same “household of God.”

The main point that many amillennialists attempt to derive from this passage is that the “one new man” and the “one body to God” [vs. 15-16] evidence homogonous unity that does not allow diversity, namely divine recognition Jewish and Gentile Christians. This we believe to be a fundamental error since th “one Lord” and “one Lord” and “one God and Father” (Eph. 4:4-6) comprise a personal diversity in the essential unity of the Godhead. So here in 2:13-16, and I Corinthians 12:12-30 where there is one body of Christ that is composed distinctively gifted members, overall unity comprises a complementary diversity as in the marriage union. Thus the “one new man” and the “one body to God,” indeed the “the whole building, . . . a holy temple in the Lord,” v. 21, represent a unity that incorporates Jewish and Gentile individuality ordained of God (G 3:28-29; 6:15-16).

17 Carl B. Hoch, Jr. All Things New, p. 309. Also refer to John Gill. 18 Carl B. Hoch, Jr. “The New Man of Ephesians 2,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, Blaising and Bock, eds., p. 125. Also refer to the classic study of William Rader, The Church and Racial Hostility, which traces the interpretation of Ephesians 2:11-22 throughout church history. 19 Franz Mussner, Tractate on the Jews, p. 9.

C. PHILIPPIANS 3:2-3

It has been common, especially amongst Gentile commentators, for Philippians 3:2-3 to be understood as a clear indication that Paul has now come to understand that all Christians comprise the circumcision of God. This new identification, according to God’s perspective, is in lieu of a now defunct physical rite that parallels an equally defunct nation of Israel. Thus Palmer Robertson comments: “[I]n Romans 2:29 and Philippians 3:3, Paul indicates that all believers in Christ, whether or not they are Jewish externally, are truly the Israel of God.”

20 This we believe to be a mistaken understanding of Paul’s overall teaching, who, as

an ongoing brother in the flesh of “Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, remains a confessed, distinctive, bona fide Jew (Acts 16:1-3; 22:3; Rom. 9:3-4; 11:1).

1. The warning against carnal signification, v. 2.

In Paul writing to the local church at Philipi, that is predominantly Gentile, he is especially concerned with regard to “the false circumcision,” NASB, which is real “the mutilation,” t»n katatom»n, t¯ en katatom¯ en, the NIV better translating as “those mutilators of the flesh.” Whether these troublemakers be Gentiles who have bee Judaized of Judaizing Christian Jews, the Apostle’s concern is akin to that which he confronted with regard to the churches in Galatia. Clearly these disturbers zealou attempt to, as it were collect Gentile foreskins like scalps, and then boast in the harvest for the cause of perpetuated Judaism (Gal. 6:12-13; Phil. 3:2).

2. The encouragement of spiritual signification, v. 3.

To begin with, the “we” here must be identified, and many have concluded that the general congregation at Philippi, along with Paul and his immediate entourage, is collectively indicated. However there is good reason for believing that a more exclusive reference is in mind, that is Paul himself and Timothy, both circumcised, even as v. 17, cf. 1:1, would suggest. Carl Hoch, Jr. makes a good case for this interpretation. He first references J. B. Lightfoot who comments that latreÚw, latreuo, that is “worship/service” here, “had got to be used in a very special sense to denote the servic rendered to Jehovah by the Israelite race, as His peculiar people.”

21 He then adds that,

“In every instance where Paul uses this verb to describe service to God, he uses it of his own personal ministry (see also Acts 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; II Tim. 1:3).”

22

Then Hoch, Jr. comments:

When Paul refers to possible confidence in the flesh in Philippians 3:5-6, he mention “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.” Paul is definitely contrasting his pre-Christian experience with his present Christian Jewish experience. Saying “we” are the circumcision

20 O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, p. 44n. This view follows a common Reformed perspective, even as
does Richard Sibbes, Works, V, p. 69.
21 J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 145.
22 Hoch, Jr. All Things New, p. 289.
may have been his way of anticipating the list of his pre-Christian credentials versus his
new position in Christ.

23

He makes further reference to A. T. Hanson, from whom we quote more extensively. While explaining that the prevailing interpretation of Philippians 3:3 identifies t “we” as all true Christians, he nevertheless declares that this understanding

seems quite foreign to Paul’s thought and means actually reading into Philippians ideas which seem to have originated at the time of the Reformation. . . . The Philippians, being Gentiles, would have no reason to boast in the flesh anyway. Paul goes on to de what he means by this phrase in the ensuing verses: it is plain that he means boasting o the national and spiritual privileges peculiar to the Jews. This the Philippians could not do. . . . It is simpler to take “we” here as “we believing Jews”, or even “we, Paul and Timothy”, in whose name the letter is written. We know that Timothy was circumcised. So there is no good reason for maintaining that the use of “the circumcision” he suggests that Paul could apply the name Israel to Gentiles.

24

Furthermore, the NASB is not to be preferred at this point when it translates v. 3: “Fo we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in C Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.” In spite of the reference to “the fa circumcision,” v. 3, better translated by the NIV as “those mutilators of the flesh” tha immediately precedes, the inferential “true” is misleading since it suggests a contras with a “false circumcision.” The NIV, similar to the KJV, better translates: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.” However, consider the literal: “For we are the [spiritual] circumcision, those by the Spirit of God serving and boasting in Christ Jesus, not having placed confidence in [the] flesh.” Paul’s intention here is not to contrast a false with a true circumcision so that Jewish racial circumcision has been nullified and replaced with the true circumcision, namel whoever believes in Jesus Christ. Rather, while he does not reject the physical identification of a racial Jew by means of circumcision, he is certainly opposed to tho who demand that circumcision is of such importance that is overshadows its significance which is a representation of a truly circumcised heart. Paul might likened to someone who, in proposing baptismal regeneration, perverts the significan role of water baptism. In this vein he might protest: “Beware of the water dippers; fo we are the baptized, we who worship by the Spirit of God [having been baptized by t Spirit], who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the mere rite of water baptism, of flesh washing.” In no way would such a response be a total repudiation o water baptism.

3. The parallel with Romans 2:25-3:2; 4:11-12; 15:8-9.

The definition of an authentic Jew for Paul the Jew, especially here in Romans, matter of disagreement amongst conservative Christians. Some suggest that in church age, it is the true Christian who is now the real and only spiritual Jew, and tha since God has finished forever with Israel as a nation, there is no such thing in His sig as a national or ethnic Jew. As already indicated, we believe this to be contrary to wh Paul has in mind, not only with regard to Philippians 3:3, but also here in Ro

23 Hoch, Jr. All Things New, pp. 288-289. 24 A. T. Hanson, The Pioneer Ministry, p. 35.

2:25-29, especially in the light of 3:1-2; 11:1-36; Acts 22:3; Gal. 6:16. Consider that if Paul was here, in Romans 2:25-29, so categorically dismissive of the Jew in the flesh, then the conclusion of Romans 2 presented him with an opportunity relentlessly continue this thought on into Romans 3. However, what astonishment results wh this mistaken perspective is confronted with Paul’s enthusiastic vindication concerning the great advantage of the circumcised Jew (Rom. 3:1-2)! The same surprise awaits the reader of Romans 10:18-21 where the opportunity was ripe for Paul to again repudiate national Judaism. However, in anticipating such a thought, he immediately responds that such an idea is unthinkable (Rom. 11:1-2). Thus an unbelieving Jew is still a racial Jew, nevertheless with his soul in jeopardy (John 8:24); yet at the same time he is a “beloved enemy” of God (Rom. 11:28). However a Jewish Christian is an authentic, fulfilled Jew, one who has been circumcised both of the heart and of the flesh, even as Paul describes himself and Timothy in Philippians 3:3. Likewise a Gentile Christian is in brotherhood with the Jewish Christian, reckoned as spiritually circumcised of th heart (Rom. 2:26) and thus joined to Abraham through faith as a Gentile (Gal. 3:29). Here then is racial diversity within spiritual unity, in the same way as a Christian man and wife are diverse in their spiritual unity (Gal. 3:28). This same diversity in unity is strongly intimated in Romans 15:8-9 concerning Christ being “a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy [because of their inclusion as Gentiles with the fathers].”

4. The perpetuation of distinctive signification.

Concerning the diversity in unity with regard to Jew and Gentile comprising the people of God rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, the Council at Jerusalem is of foundational significance. How very much we would like to know in detail of the actual deliberations, both public and private, that led to an astonishing decision. Surely Paul’s contribution was substantial as a Jewish spokesman for the Gentile church at Antioch. Even so, it is Peter’s testimony and conclusion, upheld by James, that is of supr importance. Notwithstanding Peter’s later capitulation in weakness (Gal. 2:11-14), the declaration, “But we [Jews] believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they [Gentiles] also are” (Acts 15:11) was revolutionary to the common Jewish mind. Here was a definitive statement unambiguously pronouncing that physical circumcision was not salvific, and therefore neither was entrance in Judaism. Thus the Gentiles at that time well understood that the Council never for a moment was considering if it was requisite that Jewish Christians should renounc circumcision. The wild olive branches were not expected to become natural branches, neither were the natural branches expected to become wild olive branches. However, by the time of the fourth century when Constantine converted to Christianity, Gentile assertiveness unbiblically required that Jews converting to Christianity should give up their Jewishness.

Thus for national Judaism, circumcision remains a valid signification of that distinctive racial identity. There is no biblical indication that this outward right has been divinely disqualified. Thus, as Stern explains:

Although Jews and Gentiles are equal as regards salvation, there are other distinction between them, as Shau’l acknowledges immediately (Rom. 3:1-2) and later (9:4-5, an especially 11:28-29). One distinctive (Shau’l does not deal with it, but Yeshua does a Luke 21:20-24), for example, is that the Jewish people are to inherit the Land of Israel in perpetuity. This is a promise to physical or national Israel that has not yet been entirely fulfilled, but it will be. . . . [T]he only real Jew is the born Jew who has been born again by trusting in Yeshua the Messiah, for only he lives up to what the name “Jew,” conferred on him at birth and confirmed by physical circumcision, implies and demands.

25

D. HEBREWS 8:7-13; 10:15-18, cf. JEREMIAH 31:31-40.

A common interpretation of Hebrews 8:1-13 has concluded that Jeremiah 31:27-40 finds fulfillment in the Christian church as the new Israel. For example W. J. Grier writes:

In the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapters 8 and 10), we have the sacred writer claiming that the new covenant (of New Testament times) is the fulfillment of these words of Jeremiah: ‘Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.’ Israel and Judah are evidently the Israel of God, the New Testam Church.

26

Certainly this perspective has predominated through the centuries of the Christian church though very much in parallel with replacement theology and its derogation of nat Judaism, even as we have seen in the incorrect interpretations of Romans 11, Ep 2:11-22, Galatians 6:16, and Philippians 3:3.

On the other hand, anyone who reads Jeremiah 31:31-40, especially in its immediate con without any recollection of Hebrews 8 and 10, is unlikely to conclude that we are solely considering the New Testament church. Further, Alford approvingly quotes Delitzsc concerning the Jeremiah passage:

It belongs throughout to the cycle of Messianic prophecies, and is one of the most beautiful a sublime of them; and its true fulfillment can only be sought in the covenant brought in by the Savior, and in the salvation through Him imparted to mankind, and ever more and m unfolded and completed. This is the case, however this salvation, in the perception an declaration of the prophet, is bound up with the restoration of the ancient covenant people an their reunion in the land of their home.

27

1. Some background comments.

The title,
PROS `EBRAIOUS
, PROS HEBRAIOUS, “TO HEBREWS,” traceable to the early
third century, rightly suggests that the addressees were obviously Jewish Christians,

28

that is, “a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 11:5). No paga background, associated with Gentile converts, is mentioned in this Epistle. The dange is of their “drifting away” 2:1, of “neglect of so great a salvation” 2:3, of “an e unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God,” 3:12, of “sluggishness,” 6:12, of “forsaking our own assembling together,” 10:25, of “varied and strange teachings 13:9, but especially of having an insufficient understanding of the superiority of Jesus Christ’s priesthood over Moses and Aaron, both ministers of the old covenant. Hence it is reasonable to expect that the author has a decidedly Jewish appreciation

25 Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp. 340, 339.
26 W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event, p. 47.
27 Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, IV, p. 152.
28 This opinion has prevailed over the centuries of church history, Donald Guthrie, Hebrews To Revela
New Testament Introduction, pp. 24-29.

Jeremiah 31. Further, assuming that the date of composition is prior to 70 A.D, especially since there is no mention of the catastrophe that befell Jerusalem at that time we conclude that Hebrews was written during a period when there is no extra biblical evidence of Israel being equated with the church, that is until about A.D. 160 when Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho is published.

29

2. What are the “old” and “new” covenants?

a. According to Jeremiah 31:31-40.

The old covenant is the broken Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant which is replaced by the “new covenant,” being distinguished by its heart-renewing ability that results in the true worship of God by Israel (cf. Ezekiel 11:14-21; 36:22-32). Thus Jeremiah 31:31 anticipates that covenant made wit the blood of Christ by which “the house of Israel” will be saved, and the Gentiles will be engrafted, according to the same atoning ground, into the stock of Israel, “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17). Similarly Ephesians 2:13 describes this same direction of reconciliation concerning the Gentiles, “who formerly were far off [but now] have been brought near by the blood of Christ [to the same rich root of the olive tree].”

Subsequent blessing after Israel’s national conversion will be the more glorio establishment of Jerusalem, vs. 38-40, so that “this prophecy does not refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile, but, under the figure of Jerusalem, as the center of the kingdom of God under the Old Testament, announces the erection of the more spiritual kingdom of God in the Messianic age.”

30

b. According to Hebrews 8:1-13 and 10:15-18.

Consider that the Jewish addressees of this epistle are well acquainted with Jeremiah 31, so that when the author writes of “the first covenant” which is “the covenant which I made with their fathers [the leaders of Israel at the Exodus] and “a new covenant with the house of Israel,” they are instantly in tune with the weeping prophet. There is no suggestion that the author of Hebrews has in mind “a new covenant” that is different from that which Jeremiah writes about. Nor is there any reference to the fact of the incorporation or engrafting of the Gentiles into this “new covenant” as Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 indicate. The reason is that this is not the author’s concern here, but rather the superiority of the “new covenant” over the old, 8:13-10:18. So Jeremiah 31:33-34 is quoted again in Hebrews 10:16-17 to support the gospel truth that, “by one offering [not innumerable offerings] He [Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant] has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” 10:14.

29 Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, p. 1. 30 C. F. Keil, The Prophecies of Jeremiah, II, p. 46.

3. The New Covenant coalesces with Romans 11.

Other passages in Hebrews, 9:15; 12:24,; 13:20 draw fulfillment from Jeremiah even as do Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6, but especially Romans 11. Hence as Walter Kaiser sums up this whole matter:

a. The gospel offered to Abraham is the same one offered today in the church (Gen. 12:3; 15:6; Luke 1:73; Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4:13).

b. The object of faith in both the Old Testament and the New is the same: the “Se “Christ,” the Man of Promise who was and who now has come (Gen. 15:1-6; John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

c. All of history and all the promise of the Old Testament point to Jesus (Acts 2:37-40; 3:25-26).

d. The “new covenant” that the church has already begun to enjoy was made originally with the Jewish nation (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:22-30).

e. The “olive tree” into which the church was grafted was Jewish; it does not have a distinct and separate existence apart from the Jews (Rom. 11:20-23).

31

Thus according to Romans 11, the Gentiles become invited guests with Abraham (Lu 14:16-24), and at the same time are joined by engrafted Jews. However, whe fullness of the Gentiles has cone in,” then will follow Israel’s “fulfillment” and consummate national salvation (Zech. 12:10; Rom. 11:12, 25-26). As a result, in the millennial kingdom there will be a unity under Christ that accommodates a functiona difference between Jew and Gentile, as Johnson has already indicated in his study of Galatians 6:16, with regard to Isa. 60:1-4; 62:1-12; Mic. 4:1-5; Hag. 2:1-7; Zec 14:16-21, etc.

32

E. I PETER 2:9-10.

The assumption on the part of many is that Peter, in his First Epistle, is address Christians in general throughout “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1). Hence his designation of these same believers as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood [cf. 2 a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, . . . [who] once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (2:9-10), indicates that Old Testament designations concerning Israel are n applied to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Hence, the Church is now God’s “chosen people,” that is the “new Israel.” Consider Richard J. Mou’s explanation in this regard, he being the President of Fuller Theological Seminary.

The church is, after all, in an important sense “the new Israel.” I have been especially taken with the imagery employed in the First Epistle of Peter. The apostle is writing to a group of Christians that obviously includes Gentiles, but he begins his letter with Old Testamen terminology, greeting his readers as the “exiles of the Dispersion” (I Pet. 1:1, NRSV). Especial

31 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “An Epangelical Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, eds. Blaising and Bock, p. 366. 32 S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” Mishkan, No. 6 & 7, 1987, pp. 49-65. significant is the way, in the second chapter, he takes a series of images of Old Testament Israel and applies them to the New Testament church: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” He then adds a quotation from one of the prophets: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people” (I Pet. 2:9-10, NRSV). These vers helped clarify my own thinking about the nature of Christian community. . . . I realized the implications of I Pet. 2:9-10. God is putting togethert a new kind of “race,” a new kind “priesthood,” and a new kind of “nation.” Jesus is in the business of actively promoting a unity that he does not want us to define ourselves along artificial lines of what the sinful world sees as ethnic-racial or denominational or national identities. Through the blood of Jesus Christ we have been made into a new kind of people, in which “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave not free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

33

Hence of crucial importance at this juncture is the identification of the addressees, whether they be, in the main, Jewish or Gentile. E. G. Selwyn sums up the main conclusions over the centuries as follows:

In the patristic age Origen, Eusebius, and the Greek fathers generally maintained that they [the addressees] had been Jews, while Augustine, Jerome, and other Latin writers held the opposite view. This divergence has continued almost to our own day, the Greek view on the who prevailing under the weighty impetus given to it by Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and Grotius on the threshold of the modern age. Its doughtiest champion in more recent days has been Bern Weiss, and the facts and arguments which he adduces deserve careful attention. Chief of them is what may be termed the Jewish character of the Epistle as seen in the O.T. quotations allusions, which would hardly be familiar to Christians of Gentile origin, and in the conception of the Church which is markedly Levitical and suitable only to those who had been nurtured in Judaism.

34

From a Reformed perspective, it is also common to read of interpretations of which following by Cornelius P. Venema is representative.

In I Peter 2:9-10, the apostle gives a summary statement regarding the New Testament church. Writing to the scattered believers and churches throughout Asia Minor, Peter defines the new covenant church in terms drawn from the old covenant descriptions of the people of Israel. . . . What is so remarkable about this description of the church is that it identifies the church with the exact terminology used in the Old Testament to describe the people of Israel with whom the Lord covenanted. The best reading of this language takes it literally to mean that the ne covenant church is altogether one with the old covenant church. The Lord does not have two peculiar peoples, two holy nations, two royal priesthoods, two chosen races—he has only one, the church of Jesus Christ.

35

33 Richard, J. Mouw, “The Chosen People Puzzle,” Christianity Today, March 5, 2001, Vol. 45, No. 4, p. 70. Internet sourced. F. J. A. Hort similarly comments, with an extreme supercessionist view that seems almost blindly Gentile: “The truth is that St. Peter, as doubtless every other apostle, regarded the Christian Church a first and foremost the true Israel of God, the one legitimate heir of the promises made to Israel, th community which by receiving Israel’s Messiah had remained true to Israel’s covenant, while the unbelieving Jews in refusing their Messiah had in effect apostatized from Israel.” The First Epistle of St. Peter, I:1-II:17, p. 7. 34 E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, p. 42. While disagreeing with this author when he opts for an inclusive view of Jew and Gentile addressees, we would agree with his suggestion that the congrega would have included god-fearers and proselytes. 35 Cornelius P. Venema, The Promise of the Future, pp. 271-272.

1. The textual indications of Jewish addressees.

Certainly the Epistle of I Peter is widely acknowledged to be a writing addres Christians who suffer intense persecution that does not appear to have the prospect abating, that is for pilgrims upon earth (1:6; 2:20-21; 3:14; 4:1, 12-19; 5:8-10). This being the case, it was especially the lot of Jews to have little rest from opposition to their racial distinctiveness at around the time of Peter’s writing, c. 60 A.D., a especially if they were Jewish Christians under the reign of Nero. Believing this to be the case, we find much evidence that Peter, who it would readily be expected would writing to Jewish Christians, is indeed addressing, in the main, the Jewish Chr Diaspora. This is not to deny that Gentiles, engrafted into the stock of Abrah wild olive branches (Rom. 11:17), could read this passage and derive personal blessi and encouragement from it. They have been incorporated into this “chosen race, roy priesthood, holy nation” (I Pet. 2:9), the end result being both natural and wi branches having diversity in unity. However we do deny that this passage establishe that the Christian church is here designated as the New Israel that has supplanted th any designation of historic, individual, and national Jewishness.

a. I Peter 1:1. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect sojourners of t disapora/dispersion [diaspor£, diaspora], of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, As and Bithynia.” Bigg explains that, “Diaspora, [is] a word which in its proper sense denotes those Jews who for one reason or another were domiciled in fore countries.”

36 Peter being the addressor here, there is good reason for believing tha

he had Bigg’s meaning in mind (Gal. 2:7-9). Further, a right healthy interest in th doctrine of election according to Reformed standards, should not be allowed to obscure the fact that for the Apostle, here evklekto,j, eclectos, “elect/chosen” dr principal focus upon Israel’s national election, in which Jewish Christians individually participated (LXX, Deut. 14:2; Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-3; 45:4; 49:7; 65:9).

b. I Peter 2:5-10. For the suffering diaspora, here is comfort indeed that aim recollection of the Old Testament revelation concerning “the [consummate] holy priesthood” established “through Jesus Christ” (v. 5; Exod. 19:5-6; Deut. 4:20; 7:7; 10:15; 14:2; Psalm 118:22; Isa. 4:14; 28:16; 43:20; 61:6; 66:21). In J Christ, “a choice Stone, a precious corner Stone, . . . a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense,” is fulfillment of the hope of the diaspora truly becoming chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possessio . . . the people of God, . . . recipients of mercy.” Thus John Calvin comments:

[H]owever, as the greater part of the nation was unbelieving, the Apostle indirectly sets the believing Jews in opposition to all the rest, though they exceeded them in number, as though he had said, that those only were the children of Abraham, who believed in Christ, and that they only retained possession of all the blessings which God had by a singular privilege bestowed on the whole nation. He calls them a chosen race, because God, passing by others, adopted them as it were in a special manner. They were also a holy nation; for God had consecrated them to himself, and destined that they should lead a pure and ho life. He further calls them a peculiar people, or, a people for acquisition, that they might be to him a peculiar possession or inheritance; for I take the words simply in

36 Charles Bigg, I Peter, p. 70. this sense, that the Lord hath called us, that he might possess us as his own, and devoted to him. This meaning is proved by the words of Moses, "If ye keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure beyond all other nations." ( Exod. 19:5). There is in the royal priesthood a striking inversion of the words of Moses; for he says, "a priestly kingdom," but the same thing is meant. So what Peter intimated was this, "Moses called your fathers a sacred kingdom, because the whole people enjoyed as it were a royal liberty, and from their body were chosen the priests; both dignities were therefore joined together: but now ye are royal priests, and, indeed, in a more excellent way, because ye are, each of you, consecrated in Christ, that ye may be the associates of his kingdom, and partakers of his priesthood. Though, then, the fathers had something like to what you, have, yet ye far excel them. For after the wall of partition has been pulled down by Christ, we are now gathered from every nation, and the Lord bestows these high titles on all whom he makes his people .

37

The identification of the diaspora as once being “not a people” and “aliens mercy” thus recollects, not some Gentile characteristic of alienation, but the declaration of Hosea 1:10; 2:23 concerning the house of Israel. That is, “I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are My God!’” From a Jewish Christian viewpoint, David Stern comments:

Christians are indeed a chosen people set aside for God to possess—not by way of superceding the Jews as God’s people, but by way of being joined to them by faith in the same God and in the Jewish Messiah. A so-called ‘Christian’ who opposes or looks down on the Jews as merely God’s ‘former’ people has missed the point altogether.

38

c. I Peter 2:11-12. “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles.” The language here of “aliens [1:1] and strangers [1:17]” parallels those “not a people,” v. 10, even the Jewish seed of Abraham (Heb. 11:9-10, 13-16; cf. Lev. 25:23), hence the diaspora and not preeminently Gentiles. Thus, “keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles [to‹j œqnesin, tois ethnesin]” is a most natural exhortation to Jewish Christians in the main who reside in Gentile Asia Minor. Hence Calvin adds:

And he [Peter] expressly says among the Gentiles; for the Jews were not only hated everywhere, but were also almost abhorred. The more carefully, therefore, ought they to have labored to wipe off the odium and infamy attached to their name by a holy life and a well-regulated conduct.

39

However, for Gentile Christians having union with the diaspora as children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29), this injunction would also have real personal meaning.

d. I Peter 2:25. “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you hav returned to the Shepherd and Guardian [overseer] of your souls.” Here is language that would immediately bring to the Jewish Christian mind the Old Testamen representation of Jehovah as the Shepherd of Israel that finds messianic fulfillment in the Jesus Christ (Ps. 23:1; 78:52; 80:1; Isa. 40:11; 53:6; Jer. 31:10; Ezek. 34:11-

37 John Calvin, I Peter, Calvin’s Commentaries, internet sourced. 38 Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 747. 39 Calvin, I Peter, Calvin’s Commentaries, internet sourced.

16. This also is a reminder of Peter’s commission from Jesus to “shepherd My sheep” (John 21:16) which the Apostle later understands more specifically being a vocation directed toward the Jews (Gal. 2:7-9). By way of contrast, Paul, the minister to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7-9), never uses the shepherd metaphor exce with reference to the Christian pastor, and that only twice (Acts 20:28; Ep 4:11).

e. I Peter. 4:3. “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out th desire of the Gentiles.” The former lifestyle of these Jewish Christians was one in which they lived in the midst of Gentile dominance, especially in Asia Minor. To their shame, there was capitulation to and lusting after aspects of Gentile paganism (cf. II Chron. 36:14). So Calvin explains:

But instead of the lusts or covetings of men, he [Peter] now mentions the will of the Gentiles, by which he reproves the Jews for having mixed with the Gentiles in all their pollutions, though the Lord had separated them from the Gentiles.

40

2. Why should it surprise us that Peter, the Apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-9), would, in th main, address Jewish Christians? Could it be that Gentiles, especially Gentile commentators, tend to find it difficult to appreciate that they are not always the cent of New Covenant focus (Rom. 11:18)? Nevertheless, concerning the addressees Peter, amillennialist Patrick Fairbairn writes that this epistle was “addressed, m immediately, to believing Israelites scattered throughout the cities of Asia Minor.”

41 It

may also be significant in further considering the fact that the earliest interpreters of Peter did indeed identify the addressees as predominantly Jewish Christians, this bei at a time of waning dominance emanating from Jewish Christian leaders in Jerusalem Subsequent Gentile identification of the addressees as being inclusive of Gentiles, wh now collectively comprise the New Israel, parallels the surging dominance of t Gentile church that depreciated both Judaism as a whole and any Jewish Chris distinctiveness.

40 Ibid. 41 Patrick Faitbairn, The Prophetic Prospects of the Jews, or Fairbairn vs. Fairbairn, p. 106.