(Please be patient with my unfolding argument in the following posts. The line of reasoning is a little layered so it will take a few posts before I can really get to the meaty points of dispute)I wanted to mention, by the way: With the previous post in mind, one may set the hermeneutical strategy of the New Testament writers in broader terms. It appears that some wanted to overstressed continuity between the Old Testament and the New in such a way that was unfaithful to the authors of the NT. The Ebionites can be seen as an example of this - as could the Judaisers, depending on how one approaches the complex issues involved in their identification. On the other hand, a damaging understanding of total discontinuity between the testaments can be seen in Marcion, for example. But the NT consistently avoids both of these extremes, and it is the process of understanding exactly how they do this that raises the question of hermeneutics, and consequently part of my problem with CZ. Right, hopefully that frames the problematic helpfully enough. On to the NT material.
I’m a Paul man, so apologies that my examples tend to be rather one-dimensional. I refer to Steve Motyer’s article for a fuller appreciation of the wider NT hermeneutical issues at hand. I shall upload it in the next few days as Steve has kindly given me permission to make it available here. So to Paul. In Gal 3:16 Paul controversially claims:
‘Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,” as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ’.
This is the NRSV translation which renders spe,rma as offspring. Perhaps better is simply ‘seed’. Motyer writes of this verse: ‘He asks, ‘who is the “seed” of Abraham to whom the promises are given?’—and instead of replying ‘Israel, of course, Abraham’s descendants,’ his answer is ‘Christ’ (3:16).’ (7).
So why can Paul so confidently use promises that explicitly relate to the Land, and use them in this way (Cf. Dunn, Galatians, on the ‘land’ issue here)? Motyer continues:
‘Paul does not feel that he is denying the ‘meaning’ of the texts he quotes. He thinks that the real heart and core of the promises to Abraham was the one in Genesis 12:3, which he quotes in Galatians 3:8, ‘All the Gentiles will be blessed in you.’ He thinks that this is the underlying purpose behind the whole election of Israel—the ‘blessing’ of the rest of the world. And that never happened in the Old Testament: it is only happening now, through his own ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The blessing is not coming to the Gentiles through Israel, but through Jesus—therefore Jesus must be the ‘seed’ to whom the promise is addressed, ‘in you all the nations will be blessed.’’ (8, italics his).
To be continued ...
10 comments:
Galatians is probably the key letter for your discussion: and also the most difficult! Forgive me if I take the liberty of quoting almost direct from a recent talk I gave on the "Church: New Israel?" issue:
"The key point of Galatians is that Gentile believers don’t need to take up Jewish rituals e.g. circumcision to be saved – just need to have faith in the death of Jesus.
6:14-16. “May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Yeshua Messiah, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even (kai) to the Israel of God.”
Who does Paul mean by “the Israel of God”?
Does he mean “those who follow the rule that what really counts is a new creation” – i.e., presumably, all Christians, Jew and Gentile – which is what the NIV translation suggests?
Or does he mean something else?
The word the NIV translates “even” is the Gk word “kai”. It normally means “and”, though it can also mean “even”. If it is translated “even”, as in the NIV, the effect is to blur the distinction between “all who follow this rule” and “the Israel of God”. If, however, it is translated “and” (as in the ESV and NASB), then that would suggest the “Israel of God” are a different group from those who “follow this rule”. What then could Paul mean by “Israel of God”?
Calvin argued that Paul was talking, ironically, of the Judaizers. Others interpret the phrase to mean the Jewish believers who follow the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone. Still others interpret it to mean Jewish believers who have misunderstood this rule, but whom Paul is gently seeking to win back.
However the phrase is interpreted, it would seem a big leap to base “New Israel” teaching upon one verse, the translation of which is disputed. For completeness, however, we should look at the wider context of Galatians.
In 3:7, 3:29 and 4:28, Paul says that those who have faith in Jesus are Abraham’s children, Abraham’s seed, children of promise. Does this mean also that Christians are the true Jews i.e. also true/ new Israel?
Not necessarily: cf Romans 4 – told that Abraham is the father of many nations, and also that he was called by God and had faith before he was circumcised!
Within Galatians itself: 2:15-16, 3:6-8, 3:14 – Abraham is the example of being justified by faith and being blessed. So to be his seed means to be justified – being put right with God – through faith in Jesus. To be a “child of Abraham” is not synonymous with “being Jewish”. It doesn’t mean that Gentile Christians are the true Jews! Nor, in line with Romans 11, can it mean that ethnic Israel has been rejected. God has not rejected his people."
By the way the reason for my last (long) post was to prompt consideration of whether Galatians is relevant to the land issue. I'm not sure that it is... perhaps the Motyer article will shed light on this?
Thanks for these thoughts, James. I'll respond in more depth when I get a bit more time. As you may have noticed, I've been away from blogdom for a few days! And I wanted to read some of the material you sent me before I continue with the series - at least if I find time, which I hope to!
Hello Chris,
I stumbled across your blog through several links - and was interested to see you writing about Zionism. A few friends and have been discussing this. Two posts and the ensuing discussions will probably interest you.
Hi Sam, nice to hear from you. I'll have alook at the links - I see you are in Marburg, but you are originally English, oder?
Sam - hello there. I'm a Messianic Jew based in the UK. Have you read "The Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz? It is the best resource I know setting out the case for Israel's right to exist and defend herself, and it comprehensively dismantles much of the ubiquitous anti-Israel propaganda which is in circulation - from which, sadly, Christians are not always immune. Incidentally, Dershowitz (himself an atheist Jew) writes from an entirely secular perspective.
Chris - I gather you've been unwell the last few days - hope you're on the mend. Had another look at this Motyer quote: ‘Paul does not feel that he is denying the ‘meaning’ of the texts he quotes. He thinks that the real heart and core of the promises to Abraham was the one in Genesis 12:3, which he quotes in Galatians 3:8, ‘All the Gentiles will be blessed in you.’ He thinks that this is the underlying purpose behind the whole election of Israel—the ‘blessing’ of the rest of the world. And that never happened in the Old Testament: it is only happening now, through his own ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The blessing is not coming to the Gentiles through Israel, but through Jesus—therefore Jesus must be the ‘seed’ to whom the promise is addressed, ‘in you all the nations will be blessed.’’ (8, italics his).
I'm not sure about Motyer's assertion. Blessing DOES come to the nations through Israel - renewed, restored Israel in the shape of the Jerusalem church and the Jewish apostles. Don Robinson's "Faith's Framework" sets this out very clearly. Aussie evangelical Rory Shiner, whom I think you are in contact with, has done a thesis on Robinson's work and I'm sure would be happy to correspond with you on this.
Hi Chris, yes - I come from the (Warwick) Shire. I'm studying at a bible college "Tabor" in Marburg with roots in the Landeskirchliche Gemeinschaftsbewegung - theologically similar to the Bengelhaus in Tübingen.
Dear James,
I haven't read "The Case for Israel - thanks for the tip. In the comments following the posts I clarified my statements a bit - I am not against the state of Israel, and don't deny the right to defend on the basis of a carefully argued application of Romans 13 to international politics. I would probably agree with Dershowitz if he argues on this basis.
My concern is to show that the theological justification of a special political status for Israel (and a blanket approval of any political action) is not tenable, since God's kingdom, inaugurated by Yeshua, is fundamentally non-nationalist.
My strong tone reflects my distaste for militant nationalism, and not a desire to single out any particular nation. Please read my comments in this light.
Sam
This comment will probably not be seen but if it is, I would like to suggest to James M that the NIV translation of Gal 6:16 is the correct one.
In this particular verse, I think the context provides strong support for the final "kai" as being an "ascentive conjuction" and should be translated "even". An "ascentive conjuction" expresses a final addition or point of focus. I think that is what Paul did here, he added on the phrase "the Israel of God."
Here is another example of a verse where "kai" functions as an "ascentive conjuction"
1 Cor 2:10, "the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."
It's not a big deal but there are other possibilities for "kai" than "and," and I think one should not just automatically throw it in there, try other possibilites, then if they don't work, put in "and." In the case of this verse (grammatically), I am sticking with "kai" functioning as an "ascentive conjunction" and translating it as "even" on the basis of the grammar showing "Israel of God" as being either a final addition to the sentence or as a point of focus. (See Wallace's Grammar pg 670ff for more info on the role of conjunctions).
Perhaps Paul does not explicitly state that Israel is an incorpration of both Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith, but I think he is quite compellingly implicit in Gal 3, which was his earliest letter. I think too, one can see Jesus also highlighting the switch from ethinicity to faith in several of his parables such as the parable of the wedding banquet and several others.
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the response. Dershowitz compellingly weighs many of the various accusations made against Israel in the light of international law - with some conclusions that might surprise you. He does not give blanket support for every Israeli action. Interestingly, the moderate CZ writer Walter Riggans is insistent that Israeli actions should not be endorsed uncritically but should be carefully weighed against Biblical principles.
Brian - thanks for your comments too. I'll think about what you have said about "kai". I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head as far as Chris' blog is concerned. Salvation has always been a matter of faith rather than ethnicity; the question is whether the physical gifts to (largely) unbelieving Israel are withdrawn on the basis of that unbelief, particularly in light of Romans 11:28-29.
Post a Comment