In a comment today on “CLASSIC REPOST: Reverse Galatianism,” Peter took me to task concerning Ephesians 2:11-22. He argues that gentiles in Messiah are now Israelites. This is my response to him, trying to bring some clarity to Ephesians 2, a very important passage.
Peter argues that in Ephesians 2:12, the phrase often translated “commonwealth of Israel” should be “citizenship of Israel.” I agree. But does this make non-Jews in Messiah Israelites? As I argue in my response, “citizen” in a Roman imperial context makes one equal in privilege but does not make one a Roman — and neither does being a “citizen” of Israel make one an Israelite:
Peter:
Word meanings always mean what the intended audience would understand in context.
Paul was a Roman citizen, but not a Roman
A gentile Yeshua-follower has Israelite citizenship, but is not an Israelite.
As for my claim that Ephesians 2 shows distinction as well as unity, consider:
-The proper translation of 2:15 is “one new man out of the two” (not “in place of,” see Markus Barth’s commentary).
-The two still exist and the oneness is unity, not uniformity.
-2:18, the access to God is for “both,” so there are still two entities (Jews and gentiles).
-If you opt for “one new man in place of the two,” the new man is law-free, not Torah-observant
-If you opt for “in place of,” 2:15 means Torah is abolished
-Nowhere does Paul indicate that gentiles are bound by the full Torah, but quite the opposite speaks continually of gentile freedom from Torah
-What was bothering the gentile believers was the synagogue excluding them, thus Paul’s one-sided argument emphasizes unity and not distinction.
-The covenant which gentiles are included in is the “covenant of promise” (vs. 12) and not the “covenant of law” — Abrahamic, not Sinai.
Therefore, supposing you wish to remove Ephesians 2:11-22 from the rest of Pauline theology and argue on the basis of this passage alone, the result will not be One-Torah-for-all but No-Torah-for-anyone (the standard Christian view that Torah is obsolete).
On the other hand, if you take this passage together with other Pauline statements, it does not break the mold of Romans 11:17-29, but affirms “the two” as well as “the one” throughout.
Therefore, Ephesians 2 confirms the unity and diversity of Jew and gentile in Messiah, as Paul does in all his writings. It does not teach the uniformity of Jew and gentile in Messiah.
Hi Derek,
Thanks for the clarification of the Ephesians 2 passage above. Could you please expound on what “the enmity” and the “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” are used in Ephesians 2:14-15.
I know that you basically covered all around it above and some of the conclusions from it. However, I would like to get more clarity on the meaning of the word “enmity” and “the Law of commandments and ordinances”. I’ve read a couple of takes on it.
One was Daniel Thomas Lancaster’s take in his book “Grafted In”, which he focuses on defining the “enimity”. The other was Tim Hegg’s, which he seems to focas more on “the Law of commandments and ordinances” being man-made tradition, and is not speaking of the Old Testament commandments at http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf, which is kind of tidious and difficult to read.
Can you please give your take on this? Do you think this refers to the Oral Traditions of First Century Judaism?
Thanks,
Coley
Hey, Coley:
I’d rather reserve comment on those details for some future time when I have more time to focus on the subject. I highly commend Markus Barth’s commentary on Ephesians 1-3 in the Anchor-Yale series. The more I study, the more reluctant I am to give my specific opinion about difficult passages. And Paul has not been the main subject of study for me for quite a while (I’ve been focusing on Pentateuch, Isaiah, gospels, and various topics in theology and mussar).
Barth lists 6 or 7 possibilities for what the “wall” is and the “enmity.” Oral law is one of the possibilities. You can find his commentary at a local theological library if you have one. Set aside a few hours, though, to read just his section on Ephesians 2:11-22 as it is long and detailed.
Thanks Derek
@Derek
As you’ll recall, we too have tangled over this matter as well (see http://www.derekleman.com/musings/2011/12/06/what-parts-of-torah-are-for-non-jews/). When discussing this topic in the past, and in the above entry, you consistently assume your readers share your opinion that “Israelite” is synonymous with “Jewish.” Personally, I disagree with that assumption because it “…lifts Jewishness, not simply to a unique calling, but to a preferred status (or citizenship) over their adopted brethren in the sight of OUR Heavenly Father.” At the very least, for the sake of clarity on this topic above and in future, you should overtly state you use both terms synonymously.
@Derek
You wrote, “Paul was a Roman citizen, but not a Roman.”
I think it is also worth pointing out that in Acts 16:37, Paul does not hyphenate his Roman citizenship when presenting his bona fides.
Michael:
You are asking me to adapt my terminology to the theologies and beliefs of others. That’s an odd request if you think about it. Do you write to Scot McKnight and ask him to use “justification” according to your theology or make a note every time, “My use of the term justification differs from Reformed theologians”?
In my theology, and I am the writer here, Israelite = Jewish.
“Israelite” is an ethnic distinction. Even a convert is a “proselyte” though their children become Israelite.
To Two-House/Ephraimite and some One-Torah (One-Law) folk, Israelite = non-Jews who have become Israelite by their including in Messiah.
I think, if I remember correctly, that you — and I have nothing but respect for your studiousness — reserve the term “Israelite” for non-Jewish followers of Jesus based on passages such as Galatians 6:10 and Ephesians 2:12.
As I have just argued here, having citizenship with Israel (Eph 2:12) does not make one an Israelite any more than Roman citizens were all Romans.
Likewise, the “Israel of God” designation Paul uses for gentiles in Messiah also does not make a person ethnically Israelite. And in the first century, ethnicity was your identity. Note the use of ethne for peoples in Greek. Check Paula Frederiksen’s Augustine and the Jews for a readable explanation.
@Derek
In his JEWISH NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY notes on Rev 22:12-14, Dr. David Stern states the following:
“Conclusion: there is no Church apart from the Jewish people and no Israel apart from the New Covenant. See related discussions in Ro 11:26aN, Ga 6:16N, and Ep 2:11-13&NN.”
Consequently, I have to conclude “Israelite” is a term that can be equally applied to ANYONE who has entered into the New Covenant — Jew or Gentile.
As I stated in our previous exchange on this topic, “I share your well-founded concerns about “Two-House Theology….” Still, I see that as a problem “actually exacerbated by an elitist tone in some Jewish quarters of the Messianic community (a whiff of which I’m getting in your word choice) that lifts Jewishness, not simply to a unique calling, but to a preferred status (or citizenship) over their adopted brethren in the sight of OUR Heavenly Father.”
You and I agree the distinction between “Jew” and “Gentile” has NOT been abrogated in the New Covenant. That being said, what useful purpose do you find in distinguishing an “Israelite” from someone who simply has “Israelite citizenship” that is not already fully addressed in continuing to distinguish “Jew” from “Gentile” even among believers in Yeshua?
You wrote:
“Word meanings always mean what the intended audience would understand in context.”
I would assume that context here is not equal to co-text but the total cognitive framework of the ostensive audience projected by the author.
Michael:
You said: I think it is also worth pointing out that in Acts 16:37, Paul does not hyphenate his Roman citizenship when presenting his bona fides.
In Acts 16:37 he says those with him are ἀνθρώπους Ῥωμαίους ὑπάρχοντας.
According to Luke Timothy Johnson (Acts: Sacra Pagina) this designation was used for all Roman citizens: “sharers in the citizenship rights of the city of Rome, which during this period had been widely extended.”
Now, I am out of my depth here and it would take a good bit of work on my part to determine distinctions in terminology between Romans and citizens of Rome who were not Roman. So, for now, I’d have to admit this verse uses terminology which might, I underline might, go against the Roman vs. Roman citizen distinction. Even if it does, it would be historically foolish to deny that Roman ethnicity and Israelite ethnicity were important categories for people and not to be confused with citizenship rights.
Michael:
David Stern’s commentary is old and cites no research on things like ethnicity in the Roman period. It is not a source to be taken as an authority in technical matters. It is a devotional commentary with theological insight, to be sure.
Israelite, as I have said, is an ethnic designation. Ethnic. I hope I get the word ethnic through.
Ethnicity and identity are inseparable in antiquity. I cited Paula Frederiksen’s book for reference. And Frederiksen’s knowledge of cultural and sociological issues in the Roman period is far beyond mine or your’s or David Stern’s. To take issue with someone as studied as Frederiksen on a matter like this would require citing scholars of similar depth whose argument are based on history and sources.
You would like to use the word Israelite in a non-ethnic manner: one who has the privileges of the promises made to Israel. But no one in Paul’s time would use the word Israelite that way. The “Israel of God” designation is corporate, not individual.
Pick the knowledgeable Second Temple Judaism scholar of your choice and email them. Ask them if in their opinion “Israelite” is an appropriate designation for non-Jews even within the theology of Paul.
I’m sorry I don’t have all your fancy learnin’ and commentaries, Derek. When condescension creeps into the conversation, productivity leaves to make room for offense.
Shabbat Shalom.
I did not detect condescension in Derek’s reply. He was pretty matter-of-fact. There is a not-so-subtle difference in the ancient world between citizenship an ethnicity.
Michael:
I did not assume I was speaking to someone without fancy learnin’.
Any condescension you detect was not intended.
@Derek,
I don’t think there’s a lot more to say. So I’ll leave you with this:
1) In posting my original comment on this blog entry, it was not my intention to enter into a debate with you on a matter about which I know we disagree. My intent was to suggest how you might avoid being misunderstood (I only include my own opinion as context for those same readers).
2) In Scripture, when I read about “citizenship,” whether that citizenship is in Israel (Eph 2:12) or in heaven (Phil 3:20), I think of a civil construct, not an ethnic one. However, I’ve never studied Frederiksen.
3) I think your position is exacerbating the very problem you’re seeking to remedy. It comes off as exclusive of believing Gentiles who want to experience the fullness of G-d (making some ripe for Two-House Theology), but who have also not studied Frederiksen.
Shabbat Shalom
#3 is a problem only if you believe that being a bona fide Israelite is the only way to experience God’s fullness. Paul was very strongly opposed to that notion.
Shabbat Shalom, Michael.
@ Andrew T
Because I do not believe “Israelite”= Jews exclusively, I would say #3 is a problem only if you believe that being a JEW is the only way to experience G-d’s fullness (and, of course, that assertion was defeated at the Jerusalem Council [Acts 15] when it was determined that Gentile believers need not take on full Torah observance [essentially converting] to follow the G-d of Israel [Rom. 3:29]).
I agree. Paul WAS very strongly opposed to that notion, and very clear. However, he made his position clear drawing distinctions between “Jew” and “Gentile” and between “the Circumcised” and “the Uncircumsized” and between “Wild Branches” and “Natural Branches.” He did not clarify his position drawing a distinction between “Israelites” and “Citizens of Israel.” In my estimation, Paul did not use “Israel” in his writings to refer only to Jews. Consequently, I see distinguishing between “Israelites” and “Citizens of Israel” as neither useful for any good purpose, nor Scriptural. I only see such a distinction as an occasion for division and pride. Whereas, if “Israelite” can be applied equally to Jewish and Gentile believers in Yeshua, any reason for “confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:4) is removed. Moreover, so is any reason for a Gentile believer to be persuaded there is something to be gained by coming to the mystical revelation that they are an “Ephraimite.”
f what you are saying is true, then across history an awful lot of people have become “Israelites” without a shred of connection to what made one an “Israelite” in the time of the Prophets or Patriarchs (language, culture, etc.). And if that is the case, then “Israelite” status really and truly is the only road to a Godly encounter…not what Paul was trying to communicate.
@Andrew T
If Hebrew was prerequisite to be an “Israelite,” during the Second Temple period, would there have ever been a need for the Septuagint? Moreover, Yeshua certainly challenged his audience’s definition of “Abraham’ children,” just as Paul challenged his audience’s understanding of the “sons of Abraham.” I think the mystery Paul was called upon by G-d to reveal did challenge the definition of “Israel” in his day.
We are getting into a terribly nuanced level here, and I’m out of my depth, so I’ll leave this alone.
“#3 is a problem only if you believe that being a bona fide Israelite is the only way to experience God’s fullness. Paul was very strongly opposed to that notion.”
Tell it to Derek, he does not believe it and got himself “converted…”
Again with the conversion hit-and-run? He didn’t get converted for justification reasons…at least, I am willing to believe he didn’t.
“ton nomon ten entolon en dogmasin katargesas `ena tous d`uo ktise en autou eis `ena kainon anthropon poion eirenen” (Eph 2:15) The focus of the above discussion is apparently on “katargesas” (usually loosely translated as “having abolished”) in combination with “kainon” (usually loosely translated as “he might create”) and the phrase “eis `ena kainon anthropon” (loosely translated as “into one new man”). It might serve to note first that these English translations are not really accurate but only approximate meanings of these words and phrase. This is one of the reason I hate translating languages, something is almost always lost in the translation! Our Jewish People, ages ago, invented a method of transmitting a more accurate meaning of an old, often misunderstood, passage by means of allegory–i.e., “drasha” from which we get a story-form style of writing known as “midrash” (lit: to “dig out”, i.e., the inner meaning of a passage). In this passage, there is actually a drashic accompaniment following the immediate passage meantioned above, (RSV), “and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we BOTH have access the Father by ONE SPIRIT”. Also, verses 19-22 help to explain the plain meaning of the passage. The phrase “S`umpolitai” (roughly translated “fellow citizens”) should be more accurately described, drashically speaking, as a “foreign traveler (not of the same family nor related, i.e., not-Jewish in a Jewish land, or perhaps a Jew visiting in a foreign non-Jewish land) within a much larger united land wherein the entire land is under a single ruler (i.e., the foreign lands under a the single Roman Rule). Then, as both of these two sets of peoples (i.e., the Jews and the non-Jews) both of whom are living within the extended Roman Empire which occupies both the Jewish and non-Jewish lands, they are together “as citizens” and “members of the [same] family”. The passage is not referring to a one-or-the-other (i.e., Jewish or non-Jewish) but a combined composite of both within a much larger and inclusive framework (i.e., the Roman Empire). This is something like the Citizens of Europe, though they belong to individual European Nations, they are still part of a much larger “European Economic Community” inwhich the primary token of exchange is the Euro! Shalom Shabbat!
You wrote: “As I argue in my response, “citizen” in a Roman imperial context makes one equal in privilege but does not make one a Roman — and neither does being a “citizen” of Israel make one an Israelite.”
Derek,
Two quick things:
(1) Paul seems to be talking about covenant in the Jewish polity, not about the nuances of citizenship in the client states of ancient Rome. We have to be careful to stay in the immediate context and subject matter–the usus loquendi–so that we don’t make the exegetical error known as the unwarranted associative fallacy (see Carson on Exegetical Fallacies pg. 117).
(2) A citizen of Israel is an Israelite. The hebrew word here is “ezrach” and it means someone who has all the rights and obligations of a native Israelite. The word literally means “native” but connotes “citizen.” Here’s how the Jewish polity works:
“The Jewish people (Am Yisrael) is a polity of equals, a commonwealth (edah), with all that implies for the organization and conduct of Jewish political affairs….The classic Jewish political worldview can be summarized as follows: The family or kith (moledet) of tribes (shevatim) descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which God raised up to be a nation (goy) became the Jewish people (Am Yisrael) through its covenant (brit) with God, which, in turn, laid the basis for the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth (edah) under Divine sovereignty (malkhut shamayim) and hence bound by the Divine constitutional teaching (Torah). The am so created must live as a community of equals (kahal) whose locus is the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel), under the rule of law (hukah, hok) which applies to every citizen (ezrah), defined as a partner to the covenant (ben-brit).” Daniel Elazar, The Jewish Polity.
I’m sure you know all the passages in Torah that say the ezrach is obligated to the full Torah so I won’t bore you with a long, tedious list.
Let me know if you require further evidence for the points I’ve just made.
Blessings to you brother,
Peter
P.S. On a personal note, I would like to thank you for your kindnesses via email. You are a decent and admirable guy. And you have the most interesting blog on the internet.
Peter:
Thanks for the kind word.
The halakhic sources you are talking about are much, much later than the New Testament. We are in the context of Second Temple Judaism when interpreting Romans. You are bringing up later halakhah. I’m not versed on the “ezrach” discussion in halakhah. What texts from antiquity are the source for Daniel Elazar’s statement?
In Second Temple Judaism, there were proselytes and God-fearers. God-fearers did not enjoy privileges of Jewish identity. Proselytes were circumcised converts a la Nicolaus in Acts 6 and Timothy in Acts 16.
That’s how ezrach is used in Torah. It’s early stuff. : )
Peter:
אזרח Ezrakh is used 17 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is the word translated “native” in most versions, as in: “There shall be one law for the native and for the resident alien residing among you” (Exod 12:49).
Your interpretation is that πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ politeias tou Israel “citizenship of Israel” in Ephesians 2:12 is equivalent to “native.”
That interpretation does violence to Ephesians 2.
“… that he might create in himself one new man out of the two” — so the one new man is the Native Israelite. God took the enmity between Jew and gentile and solved it by making everyone in Messiah a Jew? The gospel is, God accepts you gentiles, as Jews without circumcision? Be careful gentiles in Messiah not to get circumcised, even though you are now a Native-born Israelite to God?
Further, it does not fit the law-free statements of Paul for the gentile congregations. It makes a mockery of James’ statement in Acts 15.
I didn’t say that the uncircumcised Believers were citizens in Israel; that’s what the author of Ephesians 2 said.
As to whether this jibes with the larger context of the New Testament, I’ll write you a brief paper, answering all of your concerns, email it to you and you can let me know if it does justice to the other portions of Scripture you mentioned.
Blessings,
Peter
And while I’m doing that let me just address one thing that you mentioned.
You shouldn’t think it’s weird that the uncircumcised become ezrach by participating in the Passover Lamb–this is exactly what Exodus 12 says happens to the ger when a ger participates in Passover–he becomes an ezrach. Look at the Hebrew there because it’s pretty cool.
Blessings,
Peter
Peter:
I will look forward to your paper. But we have a disconnect from the get-go.
You are equating אזרח ezrakh “native” from the Torah with Paul’s πολιτεια politeia citizen in Ephesians 2:12. Paul is not using Torah language. He is using Greco-Roman language. As an attorney, you would say, “Objection!” if the opposing counsel started making connections between different languages, cultures, and audiences that were unwarranted.
Then, to justify your equation of “native” with “citizen,” you cite the comment of a modern author (what is he a scholar of?) without any reference to Second Temple Jewish thought or Greco-Roman understanding of ethnicity vs. citizenship.
In case you think I am being unfair, please discuss this with a New Testament scholar at a local university.
Derek,
Have you looked at those references in the Torah? Torah employs ezrach as citizen. Don’t criticize me for using ezrach for citizen when that is (1) how it is used in Scripture and (2) how it has always been used–even in modern Hebrew.
There is an advanced political science lexicon IN THE TORAH which has been studied by political science students throughout the centuries–even borrowed by the founders of our own country in creating our government. I have studied this over many years and am not speaking flippantly or being loose with Hebrew. They all agree that ezrach is used to mean citizen in the Old Testament.
Our Torah, our Sages, our Community uses ezrach as citizen and so should you. Look at the Scripture references and see for yourself. In the meantime, I’ll write you the paper.
Blessings,
Peter
Peter:
You said: You shouldn’t think it’s weird that the uncircumcised become ezrach by participating in the Passover Lamb–this is exactly what Exodus 12 says happens to the ger when a ger participates in Passover–he becomes an ezrach. Look at the Hebrew there because it’s pretty cool.
Torah does not say that. Exodus 12:48-49. The uncircumcised resident alien is forbidden to eat the Passover meat. In order to eat it, he must be circumcised (which I have argued makes him ezrakh, the same as native, similar to modern conversion).
But Paul forbids the gentiles in his congregations as a general rule to be circumcised because they were tempted to do it in order to be kosher to God, which opposes Paul’s gospel.
So, are you saying Paul is overturning Exodus 12:48? Funny that Paul would declare something in Torah changed without even writing about it.
Derek,
All of the Israelites were circumcised before Sinai, correct? Yet before the Israeli Covenant, they were separate tribes and had not yet become Israel. So it wasn’t the circumcision that made them Israel—it was the Passover.
I can cite Rabbinic sources for the above point—it’s not really disputed that I’m aware of.
Just so you know I’m not making it up that it’s Passover that creates citizenship in the Jewish polity, take from the greatest political scientist that Israel ever produced–Daniel Elazar:
“Between Exodus 12 and 23, we are given a step by step description of the process of the founding of the Israelite polity. At the beginning of chapter 12, God commands Moses and Aaron to initiate a new calendar for the Israelites, beginning with the spring month of Nissan (12:1-2). He then names the new polity Adat Bnai Yisrael (12:3) and sets down procedures for establishing citizenship in it through the sacrifice of the pascal lamb and the observance of Passover (12:3-28 and 43-51).” pg. 178 of Covenant & Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations & Jewish Expressions.
If the Passover lamb of the Old Covenant made someone a citizen of Israel then how much more does the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant make someone a citizen of Israel?
Does my logic make sense Derek?