Israel and the Church - a 3 part harmony?

Below is a summary of  my understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church.

It has been developed over a considerable period of time as I have sought to understand the Bible, the role of Israel and the place of Gentiles in God's plans.

While I have always rejected Replacement Theology, it has been a considerable struggle to determine how to read and interpret the many NT scriptures that are principally used to support this false and heinous doctrine.

The Jewish Annotated NT introduced me recently to a number of Jewish theologians such as Mark Nanos (check out at www.marknanos.com), Amy Jill-Levine and Pamela Eisenbaum (for example, 'IS PAUL THE FATHER OF MISOGYNY AND ANTISEMITISM?' - http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm), who have an incredible amount of insight to offer on this challenging issue.

I am also, as always, most indebted to the brilliant scholarship of Frank Selch (his book 'Replacement Theology' should be required reading for this issue). Frank and other Gentile followers of Yeshua (including many Facebook 'friends') have helped me to recognize that Paul was a Torah observant Jew. 

The Family of God:

Paul, in recognizing that Yeshua was the Messiah, has recognized that the great Day of the Lord is about to dawn when ‘all Israel will be restored’ (Ezek 38,39).

We can see his appreciation that the Messianic Age has dawned, and that the Coming Age is imminent, by his comments in Romans 8:18-25:

¹⁸ For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
 ²¹ that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
 ²³ And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Paul, who is already a member of Abraham’s family also understands that from Isaiah 49 and other prophecies that people from many nations (Gentiles) need to come into Abraham’s family if the Coming Age is to fully dawn, as God had told Abraham that he would be a father of many nations (Gen 17:4). Despite the fact that Abraham had had other children along with Isaac and was thus already the father of many nations, in the Second Temple Period; in Paul’s day, Abraham was considered that patriarch of the ‘Jews’ only (more correctly the 12 tribes, the children of Jacob).

So Paul saw the crucifixion and resurrection as somehow opening up the door so that Gentiles could enter into Abrahams family through Yeshua the Messiah. At the same time, he saw that they needed to remain people from many nations and not become Jewish for the prophecies to be fulfilled.

So how could these Gentiles come into the family of God; into the family of Abraham and yet not become Jewish. The brilliant answer is ‘grafting’. A graft of an orange onto a lemon tree means that orange can be supported and grow to maturity through the nutrients from the root of the tree but it remains an orange!

Paul therefore saw that Israel remains Israel and he believed that ‘all Israel’ would be saved (Romans 11:26 & Isaiah 59), and that many gentiles would also enter the Kingdom.

Clearly then the church is not Israel and cannot be Israel. The ‘church’ (believers in Yeshua) is part of the family of God but not the whole family. Also God is not just the God of the Jews but the Gentiles as well.

To be explicit, the family of God, are the children of Abraham through the 'promise' (through the Spirit), but this means both the natural sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as the Gentiles who enter via the ‘libation’ (Ps 2:6) of Yeshua. 

This family of saints is then made up of three groups;

1)      obedient/faithful Jews;

2)      obedient/faithful Jewish followers of Yeshua; and

3)      obedient/faithful Gentile followers of Yeshua.  

Groups 1 and 2 together are Israel; Groups 2 and 3 together are the 'Church'.

This is why in all of Paul’s writings he speaks in ‘family’ terms and describes the Gentiles he is witnessing to as brothers and sisters, as now members of the family of Abraham.

This is why he informs that Gentiles that they are not to become proselytized Jews, though clearly that are called to be obedient to the Torah of God as it relates to Gentiles (essentially, the 10 Words plus the Noahide Laws of Acts 15).

Paul may have been one of the first apostles to fully appreciate how Gentiles could, through Messiah, become full members of the family of God, just not guests of Israel, but full and equal members, though with some different expectations.

For example the natural sons of Jacob were to continue to undergo and observe circumcision, etc., but the new members of the family from the many nations did not need to, and in fact, for obvious reasons, should not get circumcised and become Jewish. In this way, even the food laws remain for Israel, that is for all Jews, but they are not always obligatory for gentile followers of Messiah Yeshua.

This was the dawning of a new relationship between Jew and Gentile. While this new relationship had been foretold in the Tanakh (OT), it was to most of Israel a mystery. It required considerable impetus from the Almighty to even be considered, such as the Cornelius House and the Damascus Road events.

When fully considered and thought through, this understanding removes most of the seeming contradictions apparently present in the NT, especially in the epistles of Paul.

If we also consider the Apostle Peter, the Apostle to the Jews and his(?) comments in 1 Peter 2 it makes sense that he is speaking primarily to Jewish followers of Yeshua. Could the Gentiles followers in these communities he addresses, also have been included and therefore considered priests? Yes, in the sense that all who put their trust in the Almighty are then ‘priests’ or mediators between man and God as they are to be ‘lights’ for God in the communities in which they live.

Certainly, as  Rev 5:10 makes clear, in the Coming Age (the Millennial Kingdom)  all of Abraham’s family will be part of the Kingdom of God and priests to the mortal world they are to witness to. 

I am sure that this understanding raises many different and varied questions for many readers. I believe I have heard most of these questions, and I believe I can satisfactorily answer them within this paradigm. 



Your questions are welcome. 

“*WE* are the circumcision ..” (Phil 3:3)

Many Christian scholars see this text as referring to the church. 

Typical of this view is this statement from a very well known Christian scholar and Professor:

“Since WE means the church, then WE are the true Jews, Jews and circumcision being the same.”

My argument is that WE does NOT mean the church but that it means Israel, as 'circumcision ' is a metonym for being an Israelite or Jewish. 

The whole problem with this faulty understanding both here and throughout all of Paul's epistles stems from a triumphalistic ‘church’ based worldview.

This worldview leads to a great many problems in Christian practice as well as much more significantly, anti-Semitism and all the great evil that has arisen from this baseless hostility.

I have addressed this faulty understanding of the Apostle Paul a little in a number of places and most specifically in my article 'The Apostle Paul: Disciple or Fraud" (at www.circumcisedheart.info )

While I have been aware of these problems with the traditional approaches to Paul's epistles for some years, I have only very recently been introduced to a Jewish theologian, Prof. Mark Nanos, who addresses these problems brilliantly and suggests a much more satisfactory perspective and approach.

He argues that the solution lies in seeing Paul’s work as the writings of a Torah observant Jew from an inter/intra Jewish position.

This is brilliantly summed up in this quote from one of his articles below:

“Scholars should consider approaching the historical and rhetorical situations for interpreting

Paul’s texts on thoroughly inter/intra-Jewish instead of inter/intra-Christian models, and they

should be careful not to mix them, which can undermine the effort. There is good historical

reason to explore these approaches, since Paul and the other early believers in Jesus were Jewish and understood what they were doing to be Jewish.

I think it likely that they thought of themselves in terms of a coalition, a Jewish subgroup or subgroups engaged in a temporary task on behalf of Israel, and not founding a new religion or sect that was in some way less Jewish.

These approaches (and they) have a better chance of yielding the desired ideological benefit, to the degree that they consistently recognize the issues at dispute in Paul’s letters did not revolve around the question of whether or to what extent Jewish norms such as Torah applied, but to how they applied to the new reality he claimed his groups represented; namely, the dawning of the age to come within the present age, so that Israelites and members of the nations worshipped the Creator God of all humankind as one, however, remaining both Israelites and representatives of the nations when doing so.

When the shared term is Jewishness, as it is in intra-Jewish terms, the contrast shifts from discussing whether there is something problematic with Jewishness, to whether or not a person or group believes in Jesus Christ, and the associated claims for what difference that makes. In other words, unlike when the shared term is Christ, the difference between two groups does not fall along a line differentiating levels of respect for Jewish identity and Torah, since Jewishness is likely upheld to be essential by Jewish groups.

Imagining the dispute between and within Jewish group boundaries keeps the focus on the meaning of faith in Jesus for themselves, and others, as Jewish groups.

Another benefit of this conceptualization is that difference is respected. The intra-Jewish

construction allows the historical participants as well as the interpreter to respect that having a different opinion about the meaning of Jesus Christ or of appeals to him to legitimate social change within Jewish groups need not represent value judgments that one decision or the other is better, just different.

As I understand Paul, he upheld the Jewish notion that, although social (and biological) differences remain in the present age, that is, there remains Jews and non-Jews in Christ, the discrimination usually associated with such differences should not prevail, just as is expected to be the case in the age to come, when even the wolf and the lamb will dwell together.

This seems to me to be a sensible and noble ideal for how to approach each other today in Jewish/Christian relations’ terms, whether sharing his belief that this age has dawned in Jesus Christ, or not." - from http://www.marknanos.com/SBL-03-Inter-Christian-Prob.pdf 

see also http://www.marknanos.com/Phil3Dogs-Reverse-6-27-07.pdf

I highly recommend these articles.

Re-evaluating Philippians 3

The most common interpretation of Philippians 3 is that it is a polemic against either ‘the circumcision’ (Jewish people) or, even more commonly, against ‘Judaizers’ (a term used to define those arguing that gentile ‘Christ-followers’ need to take on all the markers of Jewishness, that is, that they need to be circumcised, etc).

Given the very common Hellenistic mindset, that most uncritically approach this text with, it is not at all surprisingly how it is then understood in this way. In fact, I suspect it would be very difficult for any Gentile believer attending a typical (Hellenistic) church in today’s world to see this text in any other way.

The traditional view is also both anti-Semitic and supportive of Replacement Theology. In case this is not clear consider two quotes by Gerald F. Hawthorne, in the Word Biblical Commentary (1983) on Philippians 3:2. His comments are typical of Christian commentaries on this passage. He states:

“The Jews were in the habit of referring contemptuously to Gentiles as dogs—unclean animals with whom they would not associate if such association could be avoided…. Paul now hurls this term of contempt back "on the heads of its authors."

And

“to Paul the Jews were the real pariahs that defile the holy community, the Christian church, with their erroneous teaching.”

To try to give pause for some serious reflection and reconsideration then, let us assume for a moment that the Apostle Paul is attacking ‘Judaizers’ here (remembering that these were people who had accepted Jesus/Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah but were arguing for circumcision, etc). In verses 18-19 Paul goes on to say of these ‘Judaizers’:
18 “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction … “

Is Paul really saying that these ‘Christ-followers’ are ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’ and that ‘their end is destruction’! Surely not! Surely, there must be something wrong here with this traditional interpretation.

Hopefully, this shocking statement (within this contextual understanding) will give you the impetuous to look a little deeper here.

Consider the context again. Paul's letter was sent to a Romanized city, populated by many Romans and peoples from many other lands; with very strong social stratification. They were very much an agricultural and thus highly interdependent city where many cults were practiced and many gods, including Egyptian gods, were worshiped.

Into this pagan mix, consider that the Apostle Paul was a Torah observant Jew (as I argue in a number of other articles in some depth), had arrived to establish and support groups practicing Judaism with a belief that Yeshua was the Messiah (though the Gentiles within these groups were encouraged by Paul and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 to remain Gentiles and not become proselytized Jews). Here though Paul is communicating with these groups by letter.

In this context then, Paul is declaring opposition to and revulsion toward the idolatrous cults that abounded here. He is also trying to encourage the Gentile believers to no longer have their worldview and behaviour shaped by the Roman social world in which they have grown up; but that, this now marginalized group, acquire the worldview and behaviour of those who follow the ‘divine instructions’ (Torah) of the One God.

With this perspective let us look at a few of the terms used by Paul. For example, consider v2 “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.”

For a start there is no literary evidence from the Second Temple Period or afterwards that in expressing ethnic prejudice, Jews called non-Jews ‘dogs’. Thus the common argument that Paul is reversing this expression cannot be valid. Rather, there was in Phillipi a cult or philosophical group, called in English the ‘Cynics’, which is based on the Greek word for dogs. As a means to demonstrate what they saw as the errors of the society of their day they tried to outdo all others in "doggish" type behavior.

Consider also the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. These prophets were clearly ‘evil doers’ and also mutilators of the flesh (see 1 Kings 18).  Isn’t it more likely then that Paul was comparing the local pagans and cults as similar to the prophets of Baal? In fact, Paul does compare himself with Elijah and invoke these very images of ‘evil workers’ and ‘mutilators’ in Romans 11:1-5. Remember also that the Torah makes it clear that mutilation of the flesh is not to be practiced by the Jews. See for example Lev 19:28 “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD. “ and therefore that there is no way that Judaism considered circumcision as a form of ‘mutilation’ of the flesh.

Let us look at v18-19 again: “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.” and in particular the terms ‘their god is their belly’ and ‘they glory in their shame’, which are used to identify the people, behaviour and cults that Paul is condemning.

Consider the events described by Luke in Acts 16:12-40:

“12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. …

16 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling….

19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.

20 And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city.

21 They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.

The slave girl is said to have a spirit of python (see ‘pneuma pyhona’ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_spirit) from the cult of Apollo (the special god for Augustus, who won the battle for him at Philippi). This divination was also called ‘belly talking’, and could thus be described as a ‘god in their belly’. The Cynics doggish behaviour involved behaving in the most animal and shameful manner to expose what they saw as the hypocrisy of their society. Thus this group of local pagans could be described as ‘glorifying in their shame’.

                                        

Now we are ready to look again at verse 3-17. In Phil 3:3 it now appears that Paul is contrasting these local pagan practices and beliefs with the Way (Ps 119) of the Jews (note also in the story from Acts 16 above that he was accused of pushing Jewish customs), which involved ‘serving God by spirit’ instead of putting their faithfulness in the flesh as these pagan cults do.

It is also important to remember that when Paul speaks favourably of the Abrahamic covenant, that it was a covenant that enshrined male circumcision as an eternal marker of Jewishness.

Now, I think a re-reading of the whole chapter should indicate that in speaking of his historical high standing within the Judaism of his day, Paul is including his addressees, the Gentile ‘Christ-followers’ of Philippi, into the Jewish community, but then even further elevating his and their status because they have recognized and embraced the Messiah of Israel and are endeavouring to live with the same faithfulness as Yeshua to the One True God.

Let us turn specifically to verse 3-7:

“3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit[1], rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 

4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 

5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 

6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.”

So now hopefully it should be clear than when Paul states ‘we are the circumcision’ (note he does not say ‘we are the spiritual circumcision’ or ‘the true circumcision’ or the circumcision of the heart’), he is NOT stating that the Church of God is now the circumcision and has replaced the people of Israel as ‘the circumcision’.

I believe when he states ‘we are the circumcision’ he is speaking to his Gentile audience and identifying himself with his fellow Jewish followers of Yeshua, who could all boast in their heritage but no longer do so because they have seen the Messiah, the King of Israel and instead boast in him.

He is thus encouraging his Gentile audience that they now may also have great confidence that through the Messiah, the Christ, they have now been grafted into the ‘circumcision’, the chosen people of God.

With this understanding of this chapter, it is no longer seen as seriously anti-Semitic.

Also, it can no longer be used as an argument for Replacement Theology, which is exactly what is normally promoted through the traditional understanding and perspective.

This is only a very short introduction and overview to a more consistent and less contradictory view of this whole chapter.

For a more in-depth presentation I recommend  "Judaizers"? "Pagan" Cults? Cynics?: Reconceptualizing the Concerns of Paul's Audience from the Polemics in Philippians 3:2, 18-19” by Prof Mark Nanos – see http://www.marknanos.com/Cynics-In-Phil3-May11.pdf as well as “Paul's Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles 'Dogs' (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog” – see http://www.marknanos.com/Phil3Dogs-Reverse-1-17-08.pdf from which I am indebted to for much of the argument here.

---

[1] or, as some codices have it, 'who serve God the Spirit,' or 'the Spirit of God’.

Some thoughts on 1 Thess 2:14-16:

I recently re-read this passage and it almost literally jumped out at me that:

1) no way did the Apostle Paul write this, and

2) it was written after 70 CE (- the original letter was written circa 51 CE).

Why is this important and what does this mean?

Firstly the passage in question (many include v 13 as well):

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind

16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!

How wrong (‘the Jews’ did not kill Jesus, and the latest evidence indicates that synagogue ‘expulsions’ (‘drove us out’) did not occur until well after 70 CE), how exaggerated and anti-Semitic. Also the writer appears to glorify in a nations(?) suffering (the Fall of Jerusalem)!

No wonder I know plenty of committed God-fearers; as well as Torah observant Jews; and even followers of Yeshua, who reject the Apostle Paul as a fraud and a traitor to the faith of Israel, the proto-Judaism of his time!

So let’s look a little more deeply at this passage.

After much scholarly research and debate, especially ‘form-critical’ work 1 Thess 1:10 has been generally accepted as the end of the ‘thanksgiving’ section and 1 Thess 2:17 as the beginning of the ‘apostolic parousia’. Also then, 1 Thess 2:1-12 has emerged as the initial section of the ‘body’ of this letter, leading quite naturally to 2:17 and leaving 1 Thess 2:13-16 as an intrusion, that is, as not ’fitting in’; as not an original portion of the letter.

Scholars have argued that this is a more plausible explanation than seeing 1 Thess 2:13 as the beginning of a second letter that has been joined to the first letter by a later editor.  Some scholars (Pearson for example – see Birger Pearson: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interploation HTR 64 -1971) have shown that the content of 1 Thess 2:15-16 appears contemporary with the perspective of several post-70 CE Matthean passages. That is, Pearson has given a good argument that this added portion was written some 20 years (post 70 AD) after the original epistle (circa 51 AD).

It has been mainly through modern linguistic techniques that scholars have been able to more conclusively show that 1 Thess 2:13-16 was not part of the original letter and was added by a different author. As I am no linguist, I will not attempt to even explain how this is done. For those who wish to follow-up on this though, I recommend ‘1 Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation’ by Daryl Schmidt,  Journal of Biblical Literature (June 1 1983).

A dissenting view argues that, given that there are no ancient manuscripts which exclude these verses; that they can be seen in some ways to fit logically and stylistically into the epistle’s context; and that the strong language here is consistent with other statements by Paul against his opponents, the Pauline authorship of this text should be presumed.  It is also possible that ‘the Jews’ being referred to here was not the whole nation of Israel, but just the Judeans. These possibilities, even if correct, would in no way change the historical impact of these anti-Semitic words.

In summary then, some consensus has been established that the content of 2:13-16 does not fit well into 1 Thessalonians, nor into Pauline thought in general, and that formally this section intrudes into the overall structure of the whole letter.

Also, that the linguistic evidence suggests that it did not come from the same author as the rest of the letter, but is rather built around an amalgamation of Pauline expressions.

Scholars therefore politely call it an interpolation (added text into a passage).

I think it would be fairer and probably more accurate to call it a corruption; a sinister, evil, inexcusable perversion.

Why?

Because it is passages like this in the NT that have directly led to false understandings and interpretations of scripture; which in turn have been used to justify a great many pogroms and evil perpetuated against the Jewish people over the last 1900 years.

It is because of corruptions of the NT like 1 Thess 2:14-16 that minimally result in ‘Replacement Theology’ and anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour.

Believing that the vitriolic and virulent words here are Scripture and hence reflect the mind of God leads some otherwise decent and well-meaning Christians to take a stance that is very un-godly and unhelpful to say the least.

I see Christian scholars, even scholars of considerable standing, who believe that they are not anti-Semitic and don’t subscribe to Replacement Theology (for example, that the ‘Israel of God’ is the church) and yet appear to read this text without flinching!

It is way past the hour! It is time that Christians recognized that many of their doctrines are not only wrong but lead to great evil because they have been developed through a Hellenistic mindset. It is time for Christians to reject Hellenistic Christianity and begin to learn to view the Bible with Hebraic eyes and as a result to more accurately and honestly see the One True God and His eternal purposes and plans.

How can this be accomplished?

Here are just a few ideas:

• Seek out Jewish theologians who have studied the NT such as Prof Amy-Jill Levine and Prof Mark Nanos;
•  Enrol in courses with organisations like The Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding & Cooperation (www.cjcuc.com);
•  Join local organizations which pray for Israel and are similar to The Olive Tree Connection (for those who live in Brisbane, Australia - www.theolivetreeconnection.com);
• Seek out teaching on the Hebraic mindset;
• And try to befriend any Jewish neighbours or acquaintances you may have and try to humbly learn from them.

Israel of God (Gal 6:16):

“And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. “ (ESV Gal 6:16)

This term is unique in the Bible. Thus warning bells should immediately go off when someone tries to base doctrine on it.

More significantly, Dr Peter Richardson did a very comprehensive historical study of this term and the associated ‘replacement’ doctrines (see ‘Israel in the Apostolic Church’) and states that  the adoption by Christianity of Jewish prerogatives and attributes, and in particular with its assumption of the name 'Israel' took place over a long period.

In fact, Richardson argues that the equating of the Church as the 'true Israel' does not occur, until the mid-second century in the works of Justin Martyr.

Clearly then, in Paul’s time no-one saw this term as meaning the Christianity was the ‘Israel of God’.

Further though, look at the context. If Paul was referring to these Gentile converts as Israel, it would undermine his effort to persuade them to remain non- Israelites by resisting the offer of proselyte conversion to resolve their identity problems.

Paul emphasizes that God has included them by way of the Messiah into Abraham's family, but he does not declare them to be members of the family of Israel. Rather, it is likely that Paul is reflecting a sentiment not unlike that expressed in Romans 11 toward his fellow ‘natural’ Israelites, looking for a day when there will be peace among them, rather than division.

While the whole Galatians epistle focuses on the circumcision/proselyte issue, at this point in Gal 6, Paul is not seeking to represent the fate of some of Israel, but to warn the wild olive (the gentiles) of the fate it/they will meet, if it/they are unfaithful. An allegory intended to condemn Gentile arrogance can’t suddenly become a source for descriptions of Jewish exclusion and replacement.

Rather, in the context that the Apostle Paul sees the coming restoration of all through the Messiah’s appearance and the prophetic inclusion of Gentiles in the Kingdom, it may well be that Paul is in some ways reflecting on Ps 126 which foresees a time when all Israel will be properly and truly called the ‘Israel of God’.

The ‘old wine is better’ – revisiting the ‘Wineskins’ parable:

This classic parable of Yeshua that speaks of the problems of pouring new wine into old wineskins has been so much a part of the Church and church doctrine that I had never seriously looked at it, though, without even any serious reflection, it had always somehow disturbed me.

Recently in a debate over aspects of the foundations of the NT, one of the scholars I had been arguing with said: “Jesus warned against pouring new wine into old wine-skins.  Attempts to domesticate the Christ of scripture by pouring the new wine of the Spirit into the old wine-skins of Second Temple Judaism are doomed to fail.  If they do not burst the old skins the sweet wine of the Spirit will be turned into the vinegar of the death-dealing letter of the Law (2 Corinthians 3:6).” – David Maas (in an email to Anthony Buzzard on Sat, Oct 15, 2011 and cc’d to me).

When I read this statement above, it struck me very forcefully, how emphatically this ‘wineskins’ statement of Yeshua was been used to support a very strong doctrine of ‘Replacement’. That is, that the church has replaced Israel in God’s affections and plans.

Maas is very clear here in equating the Jewish religion of Yeshua’s day (what he terms ‘Second Temple Judaism’) that adhered to the Hebrew Scriptures (The Tanakh or Old Testament), with the ‘old wineskin’, and Christianity as the ‘sweet (new) wine of the Spirit’.

Here is also very clearly equates this so-called ‘Old Covenant’ (Second Temple Judaism) with the ‘letter of the Law’ and the so called ‘New Covenant’ of Christianity with the ‘Spirit of the Law’.

This ‘Replacement Theology’ whether intention or not (surely most ‘Christians’ who support it are not intentionally anti-Israel and against the Jewishness of Yeshua), has resulted in a great deal of anti-semitism which has ultimately led to great persecutions and pogroms against the Jewish people.

In fact, it could be argued that the miss-understanding of this parable has been instrumental in much evil (‘bad fruit’) against the Jewish people and helps explain why when Jewish lovers of the Almighty look at the ‘fruit of the tree’ of Christianity, they do not see ‘good fruit’ but bad, and consequently reject the messenger because of the falsehood of the message. In this vein you may wish to revisit Matthew 7:16-20, Luke 13:6-9 and then John 15:2-16.

In seeking commentary where this parable was first used to argue that the church had replaced Israel and Judaism, I found that it appears to have been first proposed by the seriously anti-semitic Marcion (85 – 160 CE) in his ultimately successful efforts to separate Christianity from Judaism (I would recommend a reading of Frank Selch’s book ‘Replacement Theology’ for more detail on the history of this rejection of the Hebraic roots of Christianity).

So, thanks to David Maas comment, which I found very disturbing, I was interested in returning to and reconsidering this parable.

Thanks to the incredible work of the late David Flusser (Hebrew University) and the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, I now understood that the Gospel of Luke was most likely written before the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and these well before John’s gospel.

Therefore it seemed sensible to start in Luke (Luke 5:36-39):

“He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But the new wine must be out into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desire new wine, but says ‘The old is good’.” (Some manuscripts, such as the KJV have ‘The old is better’) – The Jewish Annotated New Testament

I had read and listened to this scripture a great many times and even heard preachers speak on it but I had amazingly missed the last sentence where Yeshua said the old wine is better! You may need to do a double take yourself here. Yeshua states that it is the old wine, not the new wine in new wineskins that is better!

It is also perhaps worth noting some different ways verse 39 is translated into English:

“ … And no one who has ever tasted fine aged wine prefers unaged wine." – The Message

“Of course, nobody who has been drinking old wine will want the new at once. He is sure to say, ‘The old is a good sound wine.’” – JB Philips

“And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good enough.’” - NASB

I am not sure though that these translations bring anything new or more helpful to the simple comment that the ‘old wine is better’.

When we turn to the two references to this same parable in Mark (2:22) and in Matthew (9:17) we find this last sentence missing. Without this concluding sentence it is much easier to interpret this parable as Marcion and Maas have. Perhaps this part of the parable was excluded from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark deliberately by copyists or translators, for this very reason.

It should not take much reflection then to see that this parable can in no way be suggesting that the ‘sweet (new) wine’ of Christianity is somehow superior to the old wine of Judaism. If these were the two concepts and approaches being compared, it would mean that Yeshua was saying that Judaism was better!

So now, we need I think to ask, is this what the parable is suggesting or is it something a little more subtle?

The late Dr Robert L Lindsey (a Baptist Pastor and student of Flusser) argues most convincingly in his book ‘Jesus, Rabbi and Lord’ (see Chapter 19) that all throughout the Gospel of Luke the structure of each narrative is three fold: (1) An incident in Yeshua’s life is related; (2) this is followed by a teaching discourse by Yeshua; and (3) which then concludes with 2 parables.

Consider how this ‘wineskins’ parable fits with this approach.

We see in Luke 5:27, that the tax collector (Matthew Levi the possible author of the Gospel of Matthew or at least the original Hebrew ‘History of Yeshua’) has prepared a great feast for Yeshua. A number of the Pharisees and scribes question Yeshua about spending time with these ‘sinners’ (the tax collectors had chosen their unrighteous occupation which meant they had chosen to separate themselves from community welfare and fellowship with their ‘healthy’ or righteous brethren).

Yeshua then makes the classic statement or teaching that the healthy do not need a doctor. He was saying here, as he had elsewhere, they he had come to call the unrighteous, the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ back to the covenantal relationship that the family of Israel had with their Father, the Almighty.

It is thus, in this context that he gives the two parables; the parable about sewing a piece of new cloth onto an old garment and the wineskins parable. In this context, I would argue that the ‘old wine is better’ refers to those of Israel who have been, and remain in, communion with the God of Israel. That is the healthy sheep of Israel that are not lost (the mainstream Jewish ‘man in the street’ represented in the religious context by the Pharisees - Yeshua himself being essentially a Pharisee – see ‘Jesus’ by Flusser).

They are ‘better’ or ‘good enough’ because they have a developed intimacy with the Almighty, which the Jewish tax collectors and other sinners, through no longer walking right with God (halakha), have turned their backs on.

In calling these ‘sinners’ back to the Father, Yeshua sees them as like new wine needing a different treatment and approach (new wineskin) which he offers. The same can surely be said when many years later, Gentiles would be accepted into the Kingdom of God, the movement of Yeshua. They would also need a ‘new’ or different approach as they would not have grown up with the ‘oracles of God’, with anything like the knowledge of the Tanakh and mitzvot (commandments) that the Jewish people have from birth. This ‘new wineskin’ essentially encompasses the Ten Commandments plus the four Noahide Laws as detailed in Acts 15. I have dealt in a little detail with the edicts of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) in my article ‘Circumcision – A Step of Obedience?’.

This parable has nothing to do with a comparison between living under the ‘letter of Torah (Law)’ or the ‘Spirit of Torah’. I have dealt with this issue elsewhere. See for example, ‘Siblings of the King: Living in the will of the Father’.  The well known scholar James Dunn also discusses this very commonly misunderstood phrase in ‘The Theology of Paul the Apostle’.

For a much more in-depth look at the ‘wineskins’ parable I highly recommend ‘The Old is Better: Parables of Patched Garment and Wineskins as Elaboration of a Chreia in Luke 5:33-39 about Feasting with Jesus.’ By Anders Eriksson (http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/VolumeSpecialIssue2/Articles/Eriksson.pdf )

Who is Jesus?

His correct (shortened) name is Yeshua.

He was born into a Jewish family; raised under Torah; learned obedience to his parents Mirriam and Yosef; learned the Tanakh intimately; learned early in his life that he was anointed by the Almighty (of course, it didn’t hurt that his parents, Simeon, Anna, Zechariah & Elizabeth, the wise men from the East  - probably diaspora Jews from Babylon, and the shepherds all knew he was something special when he was born); worked as a stonemason (and/or carpenter) around the Galilee, then around the age of 30 years, having helped raised his siblings as his human father, Yosef had died early, set off as an itinerant preacher and informed his Jewish brethren that if they joined him, the would become part of a ‘movement’, the Kingdom of God (which has both a present sense and a future, fuller inauguration – yet pending).

He told all who would listen that his mission was to preach the good news of the Kingdom of God (Luke 4:43) and that he and his followers were bringing this message to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e. Jews not Gentiles – he of course knew also from the Tanakh that Gentiles would be included in due time).

He, being far more knowledgeable on the Hebrew Scriptures that anyone else, knew that he was the ‘Anointed One’ (Messiah) of Deut 18, Ps 110 (the most cited scripture from the Tanakh in the NT), Ps 2 and many other scriptures.

He called sinners (the lost sheep, which by implication means not all of Israel were lost …), to repent, that is to turn back to YHWH (meaning they were once – when children – right with the Almighty). Sinners like Zaccheus, did indeed repent and Yeshua told him that he and his household had that day found salvation (note this was before the cross and did not require any blood atonement, though it would have required Zaccheus to follow through on his words to the full extent as required by Torah).

Yeshua lived and demonstrated a life in communion with the Almighty (unlike most of his fellow Israelites who called the Almighty, ‘Our Father, our King’ - Avinu Malkeinu in Hebrew (Isaiah 63:16), Yeshua called him ‘My Father’, such was his intimacy. He could even say ‘I and my Father are one’ because his purpose was exactly that of his Father, just as the prophecy of Deut 18 had predicted.

Yeshua lived the ultimate example – he said “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (Jn 15:12-14).

Yeshua said this knowing that he would one day lay his life down, just as the Tanakh had foretold (see Ps 2:6 for example - “I pour out (as a libation) my king on Zion, my holy hill.”).

When Yeshua was resurrected he ascended to his Father and presented himself as both the wave sheaf (‘first fruits’ of a new humanity) offering, as well as the new High Priest (a role he has undertaken to this day).

So as the Messiah of Israel, the anointed one of Ps 2, Ps 110, Isa 49, etc., he presently performs the duties of High Priest, which in part is being a mediator (1 Tim 2:5) for all those who have the faith OF Yeshua (Rom 3:22, Rev 14:12), which is the faith of Abraham, and that is faithfulness in (trusting in and obedience to) the Almighty.

As I am sure there are a few questions with this brief overview of ‘who is Jesus’, I recommend my articles ‘Psalm 2 verse 6’, ‘The Faith of Jesus’, “Yeshua The High Priest’ and 'Isaiah 49 – a commentary’ as a bare minimum, especially as some of your translations will have different renderings. See www.circumcisedheart.info