Thursday, January 11, 2018

The Jewish question

28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God (Rom 2:28-29).

This is a prooftext for supersessionism. Here's one example:

My thesis is that the reference in Rom 11:26 to “all Israel” should be interpreted as a Pauline redefinition of the concept “Israel” in light of the great mystery that has been revealed in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Now part of Paul’s refutation of this sadly mistaken assurance involves a redefinition of the value of circumcision. He states, at the end of chapter two: “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” In fact, Paul waxes so bold as to ask a most radical question: “If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision?” (v. 26). 

Do you see what Paul is doing here? He is upsetting traditional Jewish theology by asserting that it is not circumcision or membership in the community of Israel that determines salvation but law-keeping. “Not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified” (v. 12). If so, then it is theoretically possible that many Jews will be condemned and many Gentiles saved. A new criterion is being introduced to define those who are the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic promises. A new definition of Israel is emerging. 

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/Rom1126.pdf

I'll use that as a foil. There are some basic problems with saying Paul has redefined "Israel". 

i) One problem is the "Jewish question". Is God faithful to the promises he made to the patriarchs (e.g. Rom 3:4; 11:2)? If the recipient of a promise can be "redefined", after the fact, then in what respect has God made good on his promises? If God can swap out the original referent and swap in another referent, then the promise is equivocal and vacuous, since there's no continuity between promise and fulfillment. Transferring the promise from one party to another is a broken promise, is it not? I made you a promise, but I've kept my promise by doing that for someone else! Lee might say gentiles were always included in the promise to Abraham, but in that event, where's the "redefinition"? 

ii) There's nothing innovative about Paul's distinction. Distinguishing literal/physical from figurative/spiritual circumcision (or equivalent metaphors) goes straight back to the Law (Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6) and the prophets (Jer 4:4; 9:24-25; 31:33; Ezk 36:26-27; 44:7). 

Perhaps, though, what Lee means by "traditional" is Second Temple theology rather than OT theology. 

iii) Scholars often use the term "ethnic Israel" and "ethnic Jew," but contextually, a more accurate term might be "genealogical Jew," in the sense of a lineal descendent of Abraham. 

iv) Is Paul bifurcating Jewishness into two separate kinds of Jews? Rather than a stark dichotomy, Paul's contrast may concern two overlapping categories, where "inward" Jews are a subset of "outward' Jews". That involves an asymmetrical relation: while all "inward" Jews are "outward" Jews, not all "outward" Jews are "inward" Jews. Both groups are genealogical Jews. Both groups are Jews on the outside. That's the general category. But within that larger class are Jews on the inside. If so, that preserves the continuity of the promise inasmuch as faith an OT criterion no less than a NT criterion. 

v) But it doesn't eliminate all possible ambiguity. What's the status of gentile converts to Judaism? Would Paul classify them as Jews? What about intermarriage? If marriage between a Jew and a gentile issues in offspring who subscribe to Judaism, would Paul classify that generation as Jewish?

vi) A related ambiguity is the fact that the 1C marks a transitional phase. Before the advent of Jesus, a messianic Jew wasn't a Christian in particular, since he didn't know that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised messiah. But after the advent of Christ, to be a messianic Jew, from a Pauline perspective (and NT writers generally) is to be a Jewish believer in Jesus. So what qualifies one to be an "inward" Jew in OT and Intertestamental times is insufficient vis-a-vis what qualifies one to be an "inward" Jew in Christian times. Paul was living and writing in that transitional phase. 

Apropos (v-vi), there remain some ambiguities regarding Jewish identity, as Paul defines it. Can we tie up the loose ends? Are there borderline cases?  

15 comments:

  1. I think we tend to think in terms of race while it may be better to have a tribal view. Gentiles, like Rahab, can join the Jewish tribe.

    Also, just because Paul uses logic in Romans 2 of an ideal Jew (who believes) doesn't mean all references later don't refer to ethnic Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your position about inward Jews and outward Jews is the same as Michael Brown's, I think.

    More difficult for someone who doesn't want Gentile Christians to be able to be declared metaphoric "Jews" is a different verse: "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:29) He's definitely talking to Gentile-Gentiles there, no ambiguity, because he's so concerned that they not submit to circumcision. He seems to be describing a metaphoric or spiritual sense in which Gentile Christians are the "seed of Abraham."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gentiles have always had a path to participate in the Abrahamic promises, as seen from the "mixed multitude" that came out of Egypt. So this line of thinking from Paul is nothing new. He is simply expounding upon it in relation to our forgiveness of sin under Messiah. Gentiles are "grafted in" to the olive tree. They don't replace the tree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So what does an ethnic Jew have to do to get to Heaven? Is it automatic due to their ethnicity then?

    By the way, Romans 2 is not saying to keep the law for salvation, keep reading because Romans 3 says that there is nobody on the planet good enough to do that.

    Galatians 3:16 tells us that the promises made were to Abraham and Christ, not physical descendants of Abraham. Abraham and Christ, and anyone who believes on Christ are who the promises were to. So Jews do not go to Heaven automatically, they must also believe on Jesus Christ. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, all are equal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off-topic. The topic of the post is supersessionism, not how Jews are saved.

      Delete
    2. Steve wrote: "Off-topic. The topic of the post is supersessionism, not how Jews are saved."

      But Steve, the two issues are directly connected. Supersessionism as I understand it is defined as the belief that the Gentile church has in some way "replaced" (superceded) the Jews as the People of God. And Covenant Theology seeks to answer that question by asking a related question...namely how does one BECOME one of the People of God? The answer would be "by faith" rather than ethnicity. Which is PRECISELY on topic. Dispensationalism seems to be saying that one can be born into God's family by benefit of having Abraham's DNA. Covenant Theology says that is not possible, since the entire world is sold under sin and cannot escape from that state apart from God's remedy...the blood of Jesus.

      Delete
    3. Even the OT draws a distinction between physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart (as I noted in the OP). Ultimately, lineal descent from Abraham is, at best, a necessary, but insufficient condition of membership. An Abraham himself is an exemplar of faith.

      You're equivocating over the "people of God" or "family of God". Dispensationalism doesn't think Jews are saved by ethnicity rather than messianic faith.

      Delete
    4. According to Christian Zionism, the Jewish people continue to have a distinctive future in God's plan. The OT promises aren't transferred to gentiles.

      That's not to say that Christian Zionism is true, but it's different from saying Jews are saved by pedigree rather than grace and faith.

      Delete
    5. Steve wrote: You're equivocating over the "people of God" or "family of God".


      Really? In what way? I could just as easily say that you are hairsplitting and that "people of God" and "family of God" are just two different ways of saying the same thing.


      Steve wrote: Dispensationalism doesn't think Jews are saved by ethnicity rather than messianic faith.

      Then problem solved. If Jews are saved through faith in Jesus, then they become members of His body...the church. And together with the saved Gentiles, they make up the one undivided people of God.

      Delete
    6. You keep swinging and missing. Christian Zionists grant that Jews are saved through faith in Jesus.

      Delete
    7. From what I've read, the basic contention in Christian Zionism is that OT promises ostensibly made to and for Israelites are just what they appear to be. They are in fact about the stated referent. It's not a cipher for something else. Now, one can dispute that, but that's the issue to dispute.

      Delete
  5. Steve wrote: "One problem is the "Jewish question". Is God faithful to the promises he made to the patriarchs (e.g. Rom 3:4; 11:2)?"

    Did God make a way for the patriarchs to be saved? Yes. He did. Through His Messiah...Christ.

    Steve wrote: If the recipient of a promise can be "redefined", after the fact, then in what respect has God made good on his promises? If God can swap out the original referent and swap in another referent, then the promise is equivocal and vacuous, since there's no continuity between promise and fulfillment. Transferring the promise from one party to another is a broken promise, is it not? I made you a promise, but I've kept my promise by doing that for someone else!

    I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms of the covenant here. No one is being left out. The promise is still as good for the Jew as it is for the Gentile. There still remains a promise of entering into his rest. How is God being unfair or breaking His promise as you put it, if the offer of salvation by grace through faith still stands for the Jew? You seem to be confusing "God is INCLUDING the Gentiles" with "God is EXCLUDING the Jews". But the two are not mutually exclusive. God can reach out to the Gentiles with the hope of salvation without in any way leaving the Jews out of the picture. God is not willing that ANY should perish...either Jew or Gentile.

    Steve wrote: Lee might say gentiles were always included in the promise to Abraham, but in that event, where's the "redefinition"?

    But isn't that the very core of Covenant Theology...that there is no redefinition? The promise of salvation has always been by grace through faith. It was never exclusively a Jewish thing. Just as it is now not exclusively a Gentile thing. The promises to Israel were promises made to a people of faith...not of genetics. When the Pharisees claimed Abraham as their father, Jesus told them their true spiritual father was Satan. Was Jesus mistaken? Or was He merely affirming that salvation is NOT about ethnicity, but about faith?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Did God make a way for the patriarchs to be saved? Yes. He did. Through His Messiah...Christ."

      Which wasn't the topic of the post.

      "How is God being unfair or breaking His promise as you put it, if the offer of salvation by grace through faith still stands for the Jew?"

      Which wasn't the topic of the post.

      "You seem to be confusing 'God is INCLUDING the Gentiles" with "God is EXCLUDING the Jews'"

      The confusion is entirely on your part, but substituting your preferred issue to the topic of the post.

      "But isn't that the very core of Covenant Theology...that there is no redefinition?"

      Irrelevant. The OP was supersessionism, as defined by Lee Irons (who's a capable spokesman).

      Delete
    2. Wow. Very charitable reply. I will leave you to your discussion.

      Delete
    3. My reply was no more or less charitable than your response.

      Delete