Neither Jew nor Arab

Over at CT is a great article about an education initiative in Israel that links together messianic Jewish and Arab Christian schools. The Israel Education forum would, "provide a framework for prayer, sharing and mutual encouragement, and through which organizations could be supported in all areas in their work, and through which strategic development of education and discipleship can be undertaken". To see Jewish Christians and Arab Christians working together is something that we should all want to see much more of.

Israel in the NT- Part 2

Thanks to Michael for the notice below about Voorwinde's article on Israel in the New Testament. While I have yet to read it, I agree that his three point summary is useful. Generally, however, I find scholarly discussions of the meaning of Israel do not adequately take into account the multivalent nature of the term. 

So my question is what "Israel" is he referring to or we for that matter when we speak of "Israel" in the NT. Can we really take for granted what that term means. In a particular context is the term "Israel" denoting: the patriarch, the twelve tribe league, the northern tribal alliance before the kingdom, the northern and southern tribal alliances under the united kingdom of David and Solomon, the northern kingdom in contrast to the southern kingdom, the Judean returnees? 

When Paul states "all Israel will be saved"? To what is he referring? 

Israel in the NT

A good little article to read on Israel in the NT is by Stephen Voorwinde, 'How Jewish is Israel in the New Testament?' Reformed Theological Review 67 (2008), 61-90. It is a good piece though I might have slightly different takes on Gal. 6.16 and Rev. 7.4-9.

Voorwinde makes three basic points: (1) The Church in the NT does not replace Israel, rather, it is engrafted into Israel; (2) There is still a bright prospect that a majority of Jews will yet believe the gospel; and (3) Evangelistically, it means we should continue our witness to the Jewish people.

I think this a good summary since the language of 'new Israel' or 'true Israel' occurs nowhere in the NT and 'Israel' is usually an ethnic category (even in Rom. 11.25-26). I prefer to speak of the church as the representative of Israel in the messianic age and (with other Jewish Christians) are part of the Israel-within-Israel.

The "Mystery" and "all Israel" in Romans 11:25-27

I wish to offer a hypothesis I am currently rolling over in my mind about the "mystery" Paul espouses in Romans 11:25-27. Please keep in mind that I am thinking out loud so be kind. But I would like to hear feedback.

.

As I have reflected over the "mystery" I want to suggest that it may consist of two ideas (Jewett representing most scholars I think asserts three ideas). Paul begins with the contention that “a partial hardening has happened to Israel”. This description is merely the flip side of a robust remnant theology grounded in the Jewish Scriptures. To assert the presence of a remnant, as Paul has earlier in the argument, is to say there is also a non-remnant as he has also claimed (11:7). Paul’s mention here in 11:25 of a partial hardening therefore is neither unprecedented in the context of the argument nor in Jewish Scripture. It is then unlikely to be a central aspect of the mystery. What’s more, it doesn’t seem to be a temporary condition as most commentators suppose, but a permanent aspect of the remnant theology Paul has articulated: “Not all from Israel is Israel” (9:6). Paul affirmed the remnant principle of Jewish Scripture at the beginning of the section (Romans 9—11) and has supported it not only with Isaiah’s specific remnant theology, but also with God’s activity generally in his dealings with individuals. Israel’s remnant is what God had intended and this implies the existence of a non-remnant.

.

Thus a central part of the mystery seems not to be the expectation of some climactic and remarkable expansion of Israel’s remnant at some future point to include those who formerly were not part of the remnant since that is no longer remnant theology by definition —in addition, the expansion of the remnant seems to be Paul’s hope in his present ministry (11:13-14).

.

However what appears to be one of the aspects of the mystery is: [1] that Israel’s remnant in the present, which itself is growing, is being joined by a group of Gentiles before Israel's end-time restoration. The first aspect of the mystery therefore concerns the revision of Israel’s eschatological schema (hand wave to Dunn). In this way, eschatological Israel’s restoration at the end of history has in fact begun in the middle of history and so God’s work in the present involves both the continuing remnant of Israel now defined by Christ-faith and the blessing of the nations in accordance with messianic expectations (e.g. Isa 11). These two groups, Israel’s remnant and the faithful Gentiles, comprise the nucleus of Israel’s future kingdom.

.

Once the Gentiles reach their fullness (11:25) then Israel’s kingdom will be restored (11:26). What is temporary then is not so much the partial hardening per se—notice Paul does not address the unhardening directly—but rather the remnant itself: God's remnant is temporary. This innovation is what forms the second aspect of the mystery: [2] according to Paul, Scripture's remnant theology has served its purpose and will finally cease. So the remnant as it turns out was for the sake of the Gentiles and after the fullness of the Gentiles is achieved, then "all Israel" will be saved by the deliverer who comes from Zion. At that point God will forgive Israel’s sin thereby reconstituting the kingdom of Israel (11:26-27).

.

It seems to me then that what is in view with the "all Israel" is not the non-remnant's conversion (see most recently Jewett), but the restoration of "all Israel" defined as the reconstitution of the kingdom of Israel in fulfillment of Davidic-messianic expectations in the form of the restored and global kingdom of David/Israel (see the many references to "all Israel" in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles that suggest a hemongeny of Israel beyond the borders of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 4:1, 7, 21, 24; 8:65; 2 Chron 7:8; 9:22-23, 26, 30; cf. 2 Samuel 24:4-9 and Psalm 72:8-11). Note especially 1 Kings 8:65 as it defines "all Israel" to include uncircumcised nations along with circumcised Israel:

So Solomon observed the feast at taht time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt.

One additional thought that I would like to suggest for further reflection is the connection between Paul's prayer for Israel in Romans 9—11 and the penitent prayers of Nehemiah and Daniel, chapters 1 and 9 respectively. As yet I have not seen any studies comparing the groups of literature. Just in a general survey though it seems that there would be a warrant for such a study. I think Paul's prayer could naturally be compared with these prayers. It is true, that there doesn’t appear to be as explicit a solidarity in Romans 9—11 between Paul and Israel as there is clearly in Nehemiah and Daniel’s prayer (with the 1st person personal pronouns), although Paul at points readily identifies himself with the Israel who is also an enemy of the Gospel (11:1, 28). Paul does something more than they however by bringing in Isaiah’s remnant theology. This remnant theology is explicit here in Paul while only implicit in the nature of the prayers of Nehemiah and Daniel as they represent the remnant who prays for the rest.

Two Poles about Israel in Paul's thinking

In reading over Romans 2-3, 9-11, I'm getting the impression that Paul is trying to hold together two things:

1. God's faithfulness to Israel.
2. God's impartiality in judging the human race.

Does this account for much of the tension in Paul's theology about Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles without Torah observance?

It’s High Time to Change our Terminology

This is the view of John H. Elliott in his excellent article appearing in the most recent issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus: "Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature". The "terminology" I’m referring to is what we label Jesus and the early church. Here is one of his strongest statements:

It is time finally for interpreters, Bible Translators, and commentators to cease and desist. Jesus and the Jesus movement (with all its various movement groups) have their roots in Israel, not ‘Judaism’. They were , in the nascent period, predominantly ‘Israelites’, not ‘Jews’; Galileans, not Judeans; Nazoreans, not ‘Christians’. They belonged to the House of Israel, not ‘Christianity’ (p. 148).


Leaving aside the clearly anachronistic use of the term "Christian" or "Christianity". While we continue to use these terms anachronistically we seem to be more aware of the problem than with the terms "Jewish" and "Jew".

With verve Elliott rehearses the well-known contrast between insider/outsider language in the Second Temple period in reference to Israel, and convincingly shows that Jesus and the early believers (including Paul) preferred the term "Israelite" over the term "Jew" in their self-designations. He avers that the New Testament guild must be more careful in their language when referring these historical personages and events to at best avoid anachronisms and at worst promulgate false assumptions.

Elliott presents that case that in the Second Temple period outsiders (specially the Romans) referred to Israelites as Ioudaioi and that term was eventually adopted by Diaspora Jews as a self designation especially when conversing with non-Israelites although nonetheless infrequently used. What’s more, Elliott explains that the term Ioudaioi maintained a geographical connotation as it expanded to include ethnicity. While at first the term was coined in the Persian period to refer to those who resided in the region of Ioudaia, it later came to be used as a designation by outsides for all those who oriented their lives—politically, ethnically, economically, socially and culturally—around Judea: the Jerusalem and the Temple, and the cult and law as practiced there. Thus, Elliott argues that the term Ioudaioi be translated as "Judeans", not "Jews" since as he states, "The term ‘Jew’ as a translation for Ioudaios does not communicate the connection of the name with the name of the land" (p. 148).

Also important is his discussion of the term Ioudaisimos which is translated "Jewish". Not only does the term rarely appear in Greek (and has not Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent), but also it was not a conventional term of Israel parlance. He opines, "It is ironic and unfortunate that a name occurring so infrequently [Jew, Jewish] in the literature of Israel and the New Testament should have become in modern times the most frequent designation of the children of Israel" (p. 142-43). Furthermore, Elliott argues that it was used in the Maccabean period to designate not a social collectivity but a "Judean way of behavior".

As a Christian, New Testament scholar and teacher I am as guilty as anyone for the lack of precision in my language. I take Elliott's criticism to heart and will attempt to be much more careful in my writing and speaking. Here is my list of terms to work on:

Israelites, not Jews (Galilean Israelites, Judean Israelites, Diaspora Israelites)

Judeans, not Jews

Judean lifestyle, not Jewish

Believers in Jesus, not Christians

A caveat: It is not possible to avoid completely the terms "Jew", "Jewish", and "Christian" nor is it necessarily desirable in every instance since these terms are so widespread in secondary literature. And most discussing topics such as Jewish Christianity, for example, don't think for a moment that the appellation is anything more than a modern construct used to describe an ancient phenomenon. (By the way, Craig Hill in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered [pp. 40-41] has a nice discussion of the term and an argument for retaining it [or at least tolerating it] .

A Foray into Mark Nanos’ views on the “Torah-Observant Paul”

I just finished reading two essays written by Mark Nanos available on his website: A Torah-Observant Paul? and Rethinking the “Paul and Judaism” Paradigm. If you are unfamiliar with this work I wish to encourage you to read these two very interesting and no doubt controversial papers for a foray into his views.

If I were mapping out the movements in Pauline studies I would say that Mark, among others (and interestingly especially Messianic Jews: see David Rudolph’s forthcoming monograph from WUNT A Jew to Jews) is at the forefront of not a “New Perspective” (Dunn’s phrase for the Sanders revolution) or even a “Fresh Perspective” (Wright’s phrase for the anti-Imperial perspective of Horsley and others) but rather an “Ancient Perspective” on Paul (Paul as a Torah-Observant Jew) [I am sure that this phrase will not be coined, but hey it is the best I can do!].

I found the essays in need of some editing and revision. There are syntax problems here and there and the argument is at times difficult to follow with all of the parentheses and interruptions with dashes. In addition, the introduction to the paper A Torah-Observant Jew? was especially difficult and all the more for uninitiated. It felt like there were elliptical statements throughout that would be well served to spell out a bit more. Still these issues are not substantial and I am sure they will be revised before they are officially published pieces.

To reveal my hand slightly before discussing my view on Paul on a later post about Jewish Christianity, I will say that I am warmly sympathetic to his view of a Torah-Observant Paul. What’s more, I found myself in sympathy with many of his viewpoints in the essays. I was especially encouraged in my developing views on Paul by his perspective since I am not much more than a novice—perhaps unlike my co-blogger—when it comes to Pauline theology. I suppose one advantage I have had is that I am coming to Paul after spending a significant amount of time in the Gospels focusing on the Jewish background of Matthew. What Nanos states about Pauline interpreters—that is that while Paul gets touted as a Jew, the full weight of that assumption is often less than significant for the interpreters’ conclusions—I have said about Matthean scholars. For example, how can interpreters of Matthew so easily assume that a theology of Land has no remaining value for the Jewish author. I often think such things are so easy for non-Jews to say, although of course I myself am a non-Jew.

I want to interact with one point from his essays here that relates to Paul and Israel. On several occasions Nanos makes the point that Paul did not think non-Jews needed or even should be allowed to become members of “Israel” by proselyte conversion; in fact to do so, according to Nanos, would undermine Paul’s conviction that the end of the ages had dawned (you can read his discussion so I won't unpack this any further here). I agree in part with this assertion on one definition of the term “Israel”. In other words, I agree with Nanos that Paul differentiated between expectations for Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus with respect to the Torah and asserted that non-Jews had equal standing, or were co-members with Jews as non-Jews and this was in fulfillment of eschatological expectations that Paul believed, in contrast to his compatriots, had arrived at least partially in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Still, I have been wondering these days about the term “Israel” especially Romans 9—11. What is the difference for Paul between the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” that surface in Romans? Why does Paul use the term Jew elsewhere in Romans, but in the context of Romans 9—11 he uses the term Israelite/Israel? Now most, as far as I can tell, see this change as one of election: who are the true chosen people? Most of course think Paul at best is saying that both Jew and non-Jew are now God’s chosen people and the election term “Israel” can be applied to both or at worst that the non-Jews have now taken ancient Israel’s place as God’s true Israel (quoting Paul “not all Israel is Israel”). Thus the meaning of the term “Israel” is thought to go back to the story of Jacob and his descendants. Indeed this view seems surely possible and perhaps even likely given that Paul references them in the context. Yet I question such a quick assumption when we come to Paul’s statement “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26).

The term “Israel” is multivalent and can mean at least five different things: (1) a name of a person; (2) the name of the northern 10 tribal territories—in distinction from Judah; (3) the united kingdom under David and Solomon which included not only the 12 tribal territories, but also encompassed Gentile territories from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Davidic census in 2 Sam 24); (4) the Northern Kingdom in distinction from the Southern; and (5) the Judean returnees from the Babylonian captivity.

Isn’t it at least possible that when Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" he envisages the restoration of political-national Israel that included the restoration of the twelve-tribe kingdom of David and included non-Judeans and non-Israelites--that is those of the northern kingdom? Thus the term "Israel" as a political term can encompass at least three groups: Israelites, Judeans and those who are neither, but within the kingdom of Israel(=kingdom of David). It is true that Paul's understanding is more radical with respect to these "others" than the ancient prophets understood in that even in prophetic contexts where the other nations are envisaged as participating in the eschaton they did not have equal standing in the kingdom. This for Paul is the "mystery" (Rom 11; Eph 2-3) Paul has been given by God to proclaim: Jew and Gentile as equal members of the Messianic kingdom.

It is surprising to me that nobody is even considering this possibility given that the term can be applied in this way. This is all the more startling to me since many agree with Wright that Paul’s gospel to the nations is the royal proclamation of Jesus kingship as the Davidide. In this messianic context such an implication can’t be far away. While this is not so much an issue I have with Nanos, I think it could potentially strengthen his line of thinking. I would like at some point in the near future to pursue this line of thinking.

Evangelicals and Israel

Over CT there is an interesting article on Evangelical responses to the Israel-Palestinian crises. While I favour Gary Burge and co., Darrell Bock does in fact give a good progressive dispensationalist response to the problem that I hope convinces a lot of the ultra-dispensationalists.

Arab Christians in Israel

Jim West has a post on Christians, Israel, and the Palestinian Question which is quite coincidental since at our missions prayer lunch at HTC on Wednesday we had a guest speaker from Israel. Sadly his name alludes me, but he was an Arab Christian from Israel, specifically, the Galilee, and a lawyer by vocation. He gave a good overview of Christian groups in Galilee/Lebanon including the Marionites, the Orthdodox Church, Protestants, and the Greek Catholic Church (about 300 years ago a number of Greek Orthodox churches seceded and entered into fellowship with Rome although they retain their own liturgy and rites which are still Orthodox for the most part). Our speaker told the story of how Israeli troops forcibly expelled whole villages and simply told them to go Lebanon. These were Christian villages that have never resisted Israeli rule/occupation (delete as preferred) or fired a shot in anger. His attitude towards Israel was one of frustration rather than hatred and he just wanted a fair deal, a place to live, and some political rights for Arab Christians. He talked about how Christians largely run the education and health care system in the Galilee and the ministry that they have there. It was a good talk! Personally, I remain perplexed as to why certain Christians, predominantly Americans, feel a closer degree of affinity with the secular state of Israel than they do with Palestinian Christians! I'm not anti-Israel (I think that the President of Iran, Ahmydinnerjacket [sic], has more fruit cakes in his head than an Aussie Christmas party) but we should support the plight of our Christian and brothers and sisters in the land of Palestine and object when they are boxed into ghettos.

Israel and Evangelicals?

I have provisionally set for my Exploring other Faiths students the following essay topic: "Are Christians theologically obligated to support the present state of Israel?"

Of relevance to that question is the recent article that appeared in Christianity Today entitled: "What it Means to Love Israel". The article makes this statement:

But we cannot read the New Testament without seeing that the Jews continue to have a place in God's economy. Gentile Christians do not replace the Jews, but are joint heirs and wild branches grafted onto the Jewish olive tree. God's ultimate purpose in saving Gentile Christians is to save the Jews (Rom. 11).

I think it is necessary to make a few points: (1) Supersession, that is the belief that a sub-group within Israel was the true and authentic expression of Israel, can be found in several Jewish documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha. So it is not inherently anti-Jewish. (2) If we believe that the story of Israel is continued in the story of the church, then we have to accept some form of supersessionism. (3) That does not mean that God has written-off national Israel, as there remains a hope that those of the race from which the Messiah is descended will one day embrace the Messiah themselves (I've argued for as much in my recent RTR article).

Anyone interested in supersessionism and Israel-Church relationships MUST read Bruce Longenecker's excellent piece: "On Israel's God and God's Israel: Assessing Supersessionism in Paul," JTS 58 (2007): 26-44. The abstract reads:

Contemporary interpretation of Paul continues to be enthralled by and entrenched within a debate about Paul and Judaism. Within that debate, the issue of supersessionism is of critical significance, lurking under every exegetical stone, whether or not it rises to the fore of any given scholar's work. Does the church replace ethnic Israel in Paul's thinking (as so many have imagined throughout the history of the Christian church)? Or is ethnic Israel on a separate salvific path by way of her covenant election (as many are currently advocating)? Or are there other dimensions to be considered? This essay outlines basic interpretative options on the issue of supersessionism in Paul, assessing the exegetical merits of ‘two ways’ and replacement scenarios, and offering reflections on the debate in its contemporary setting.