The Word Spoken in the Son Surpasses Moses

Overview

 The epistle to the Hebrews was a “word of exhortation” to a Christian congregation facing renewed pressure from pagan neighbors, perhaps even outright persecution (Hebrews 2:15, 10:32-34, 12:4, 13:22). Consequently, some members considered withdrawing from the assembly. Certain remarks suggest this congregation consisted primarily of Jewish Christians. If so, some likely contemplated a return to the local synagogue to escape persecution[1] (2:16, 10:25).

The focus of Hebrews was not theological but pastoral.  Its Author’s goal was to prevent members from apostatizing.  He urged them to faithfulness rather than relapse to non-Christian Judaism or other means of escape (Hebrews 2:1-3, 3:6, 12-14, 4:1, 11-13, 6:1-12, 10:26-31, 10:35-39, 12:3-17, 13:9). Perseverance was the only proper response to persecution (Hebrews 12:22-29). He warned repeatedly of the dire consequences of faithlessness to Jesus (Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:12-13, 4:1, 4:11, 6:4-8, 10:26-30, 12:25).

The Author employed a rhetorical strategy known as synkrisis, a series of comparisons that demonstrate the superiority of one thing to another.  The epistle’s comparisons highlight the superiority of the Son, his word, ministry, priesthood and sacrifice to the Old Covenant. This included his superiority to angels (Hebrews 1:5-14), Moses (3:1-6) and Aaron (5:1-10); the supremacy of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical system (7:1-25), his sacrifice over the repeated animal sacrifices of the Tabernacle (7:27, 9:26), the New Covenant over the Old (8:4-10:18), and the New Zion over Mount Sinai (12:18-29). 

The purpose of the comparisons was not to disparage God’s past revelation but to show HOW MUCH MORE the glory of the new revelation was compared to it. The Author interspersed between his several comparisons dire warnings about failure to heed the Son.

The paragraph in Hebrews 3:1-6 emphasizes how the Divine Word spoken in the Son surpasses that given by Moses.

 

Hebrews 1:1-5

The opening paragraph of the epistle presents the Author’s main proposition:  The word of God spoken in His Son is final and complete, surpassing even the revelation given to Israel.  In the past God spoke by means of the prophets “in many parts and in many ways.” The earlier “word” was true but incomplete and preparatory. 

God’s Son, after achieving purification of sins, sat down at His right hand having become superior to angels by inheriting a more excellent name; namely, “Son.” At no time did God ever call an angel “My Son.” The introduction of the Son’s more distinguished name prepares for the first comparison:  the Son to the angels.

Hebrews 1:6-14: First Comparison

The first contrast begins, “for to which of the angels said he at any time, ‘you are My Son, I, this day have begotten you?’ And again, ‘I will become his father and he shall become my Son?’” Angels are mighty and glorious beings in their own right, God’s “ministers of state” (verse 7) who “render divine service” (verse 14). Yet God commanded the angels “to pay homage” to His Son (verse 6).

It is the Son who has been appointed ruler of an everlasting kingdom (verses 8-9), not angels; God declared to the Son, “sit at my right hand until I make your foes your footstool” (verses 13. Cp. Psalm 110:1). Throughout the paragraph the implied answer to the rhetorical question, “to which of the angels said he at any time you are my Son,” is clearly none.

 Hebrews 2:1-4: First Warning

      The demonstration of the Son’s superiority to angels leads directly into the letter’s first warning (Hebrews 2:1-4). Two key themes are presented: the need to “heed” the Word spoken in the Son and the dire consequences of failure to do so.  Both themes are reiterated throughout the epistle (Hebrews 4:1-11, 6:4-8, 10:26-31, 12:25-26).

      The paragraph begins, “for this cause.” This connects Hebrews 2:1-4 to the preceding discussion about the superiority of the Son to angels.  Because of the surpassing excellence of the Son’s word believers must hold fast to it lest they drift away. 

      “The word spoken through angels.” The reason the letter’s first comparison is to angels stems from the Jewish tradition that the Law or Torah was given to Moses by angels (Deuteronomy 33:2, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19).  This does not disparage angels, Moses or the Law. Angels also are glorious ministers of God and Moses was His honored servant.

The Law given at Sinai through angels was also the word of God.  Regardless of the use of angelic intermediaries, the Divine word “spoken through angels became firm and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense.”  Since terrible retribution fell on all who failed to heed the partial but word through angels, how shall Christians escape far greater punishment if they abandon the vastly superior Word spoken in the Son?

      With the onset of the “last days” (1:2 – “upon these last days”) and the arrival of God’s final revelatory Word, returning even to the earlier but partial Word is not an option.

Hebrews 2:5-18: Expanded Explanation

The next section begins with a proposition:  God has not subjected the coming habitable world to angels but to man.  Though the Son is now highly exalted, the Author presents him as one who is fully human and previously participated in all the frailties of man’s mortality. 

This Son endured unjust suffering just as the recipients of the epistle faced.  Though God’s consummated Kingdom lies in the future, suffering Christians in the interim see Jesus, who “was made some little less than angels, by reason of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he might taste death in behalf of every one.”

Jesus now rules from God’s side but his exaltation was the result of enduring suffering and humiliation.  Abasement was the necessary prelude to glory and by it Jesus demonstrated his solidarity with humanity. In order to “bring many sons to glory” Jesus was “made complete through sufferings.”  This points to his death as necessary so that “he might paralyze the one who held the dominion of death, the Devil, and thereby release as many as by fear of death were all their lifetime liable to bondage.” 

In achieving salvation for humanity Jesus did not “lay hold of angels” but of human beings (verse 16). To fulfill his mission it was necessary for Jesus “to be made like the brethren in every way.” Because the Son fully embraced the plight of mankind, he is now able “to give succor to those who are being tested.” In this context “tested” has primarily in view not temptation to commit sin but undergoing suffering and persecution.

In this section the Author lays out two more themes worked out in subsequent segments of the epistle:  first, Jesus our “pioneer” who blazed our trail (Hebrews 2:10, 12:2) and, second, Christ our “faithful high priest” who evermore intercedes for us (e.g., Hebrews 2:17, 3:1, 4:15-16).  The motif of Jesus as “high priest” becomes dominant in chapters 5-7.

  

Jesus Superior to Moses

Hebrews 3:1-6, “Wherefore, holy brethren, partners in a heavenly calling, attentively consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, as one faithful to him who made him: as Moses also in all his house. For of more glory than Moses has this one been counted worthy, by as much as more honor than the house has he that prepared it. For every house is prepared by someone, yet God prepared all things. Even Moses, indeed, was faithful in all his house as an attendant, for testimony of the things which would be spoken; but Christ as a Son over his house, whose house are we if the confidence and boast of the hope we hold fast throughout firm.”

The Author now compares Jesus to Moses, demonstrating the superiority of the former to the latter and “by implication the superiority of Jesus to the law.”[2]

The comparison to Moses is appropriate at this juncture.  In the opening paragraph of the epistle the Author compared the Word spoken in the Son to the earlier revelation through the prophets.[3] Although Moses was the chief representative of the Old Testament prophets, he was also more honored than the others for God spoke to him face to face, not through visions and riddles (Numbers 12:8 and see below).[4] The greater rank of Moses serves in the comparison to emphasize just how vastly superior the Son is to all that went before him.

As our “apostle” Jesus is the one sent from God to deliver His final revelatory Word.  As our “high Priest” Christ represents us to His Father and makes intercession on our behalf.

The description of Jesus as “one faithful” and the reference to Moses “also in all his house,” allude to Numbers 12:7 from the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament or the Septuagint (“My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house”). In that passage Moses was the only one in Israel to whom Yahweh spoke “mouth to mouth,” not indirectly or via intermediaries.  Hence, initially Jesus is set on a par with Moses, arguably the most pivotal and honored figure in Israel’s history. God also spoke face to face to the Son.

In Jewish tradition Numbers 12:7 demonstrated that Moses received greater honor and rank than angels.  Since Hebrews 1:6-14 presented the Son as superior to angels, and since 2:1-4 warned that disobedience to the Word spoken by the Son would require a far greater degree of punishment than that given by angels, it is natural to next prove the superiority of the Son to Moses, the great Lawgiver.[5]

The key words “faithful,” “priest” and “house” allude to a prophecy from 1 Samuel 2:35 where God promised to one day “raise me up a faithful priest; according to that which is in my heart and in my soul will he do. Therefore will I build for him an assured house.” Jesus is now presented as that promised “faithful priest” set over God’s “house” (cp. Hebrews 10:1-14).

But there is a difference.  Jesus has been found worthy of far more honor than Moses just as the preparer of a house is worthy of more honor than the house.  Jesus is closely associated with the builder or God. Christ has been set over God’s house whereas Moses was a servant in it. “Moses, as important as he was, served in a role of preparation, not one of fulfillment (cf. 11:39f.).”[6]

The Greek verb kataskeuazō in verse 3 more correctly reads “prepared” rather than “builder” (translated “builder” in the King James, New American and New International versions). This Greek term was used for supplying vessels and furnishings to prepare a household for habitation.[7] The description is not of Jesus as the builder and architect, but the one who prepares and completes God’s household.

“The course of the argument through this portion of the sacred text is evident—if we bear in mind that the controlling purpose is to re-ground the Hebrew converts in their faith and to move them to steadfast boldness in confessing it. As to the ‘house of God’; was Moses faithful therein?  Admitted!  So was Christ—with this difference, that the position of Christ in God’s house is higher than was that of Moses; and that the house itself is nobler, namely, a ‘house’ or ‘household’ of living members, among whom we have the honour and responsibility of being counted; only we must not shrink from filling up our place therein.”[8]

In verse 5 Moses is said to have been an “attendant” in God’s house “for testimony” of the word that “would be spoken.”  The Greek clause uses a future tense participle in the passive voice that is difficult to translate word-for-word into English, but the intended sense is clear.  As God’s faithful attendant Moses served as witness or testimony to the word that would come later.  Put another way, this is another picture of the preparatory function of the Old Covenant revelation, including the Law issued at Sinai.  It was penultimate not ultimate.

In this paragraph “house” refers not to God’s Tabernacle or Temple but metaphorically to the living community of God’s people, the church.  Jesus is “over His house whose house are we” (verse 6). Believers “are” (present tense) his household as long as they hold fast their “confidence and boast of hope.”  Repeated is a key warning of the book (2:1-4):  the necessity to hold firmly to our confession and persevere to the end.

Nowhere in this paragraph does the Author denigrate Moses.  His comparison is built on “a shared high regard for Moses. Christ’s superiority to Moses aims not at disqualifying the latter as a servant within God’s house but rather at enhancing the honor of the former as Son over God’s house.”[9]

The Author takes a view based on Salvation History, the historical progress of God’s Redemptive plan. As great as he was, Moses was part of an “era that has been eclipsed with the coming of God’s Son.”[10] This is not dissimilar to Jesus’ point that “among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). As great a prophet as was John the Baptist, the least member of God’s kingdom is “greater” because he or she lives in the time of fulfillment.

The paragraph in Hebrews 1:6-14 prepares for the section that follows in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 - the example of the Wilderness generation that received God’s Word through Moses but failed “to hold fast to their confidence and hope.”[11]

Concluding Remarks

In the first chapter of the letter the Author declared that God’s ultimate and final revelation has been spoken in His Son.  God’s previous revelation made in the prophets was excellent and divine in origin, but preparatory and incomplete.  He then demonstrated how the Son was and is superior to angels, as magnificent as they are. This comparison led into the letter’s first warning (2:1-4); the danger of ignoring the most excellent Word spoken in the Son.

If the revelation of God given through angels at Sinai required severe punishment for every disobedience, how much more severe will punishment be for those who ignore the vastly superior Word revealed in His Son?

The letter’s next comparison is found in Hebrews 3:1-6, a comparison of the Son to Moses.  None of what the Author says disparages Moses; if anything Moses is put forward as a servant who deserved the highest rank and honor.  Nevertheless, the Son is even more excellent than Moses, and by implication so is the revelation given in the Son to that given by Moses.

This paragraph concludes with a reiteration of the warning given in Hebrews 2:3. Believers are God’s living household but will only remain so as long as they “hold fast their confidence.”

ENDNOTES:

---

[1] Unlike Christianity Judaism had legal standing in the Roman Empire. Jews were exempt from certain requirements imposed on others, including participation in the imperial cult.  At first Roman authorities viewed Christianity as another Jewish sect and it benefited from the legal protections given to Judaism.  By around 65-70 A.D. Rome began to perceive Christianity to be a new religion distinct from Judaism and it eventually became an illegitimate religion without legal protection.  Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. the divide between church and synagogue became more pronounced and believers came under increasing Roman scrutiny.

[2] Donald Hagner, Hebrews (Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), p. 59.

[3] Victor Pfitzner, Hebrews (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1997), p. 72.

[4] Ben Witherington III, Letters & Homilies for Jewish Christians (Downers Grove, IL:  InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 169.

[5] Victor Pfitzner, Hebrews (Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1997), p. 72.

[6] Hagner, p. 60.

[7] Joseph Rotherham, Studies in Hebrew (Restoration Reprint Library), p. 78.

[8] Ibid. p. 84.

[9] David DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude (Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), p. 135.

[10] Witherington, p. 170.

[11] DeSilva, p. 140.

 

Paul's Versatility in Athens

Today a growing chorus of voices claims that over the centuries Christianity has been thoroughly corrupted by Greek concepts and philosophy.  What is needed is a return to the “Hebrew Roots” of the faith. All “Greek corruptions" must be ejected to recover the original pure faith.

It is true that Christianity has imbibed many ideas from Greek philosophy and other non-Christian sources, often resulting in corruptions and deception. This proposition is true as far as it goes.  But it does not follow that all things Greek or non-Hebraic are inherently “pagan” nor is immersion into a Hebrew mindset, culture or language any guarantee of spirituality, orthodoxy or purity of religion.  To this the history of Israel eloquently attests.  As the Apostle Paul wrote, “we proclaim a Christ who has been crucified, to Jews a scandal and to Gentiles folly.” The Cross of Christ is an equal opportunity stumbling block.

The New Testament provides ample evidence that the early church did not hesitate to utilize the Greek language and other morally neutral but non-Hebraic tools to promote the gospel. The New Testament itself not only was penned in the common Greek dialect of the eastern Roman Empire (the koiné), several of its authors were well educated in Greek and the art of rhetoric (e.g., Luke, the Author of Hebrews).  They used what they had for the sake of the gospel.

Case in point is the Apostle Paul’s encounter with the major Greek philosophical academies in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). 

Circumstances resulted in Paul finding himself alone in Athens (Acts 17:10-15, 1 Thessalonians 3:1), the historic center of Greek culture, language and philosophy. 

As was his practice Paul sought opportunities to preach the gospel, first in a local synagogue, then in the marketplace or agora near the foot of the Acropolis. There he proclaimed “Jesus and the resurrection.” In the marketplace he encountered representatives of the “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” that were taken aback by Paul’s teachings. They described him as “a declarer of foreign deities.”

Consequently, Paul found himself hauled before the “the Areopagus” for examination, a council responsible for matters of public morality, religion and education, as well as the regulation of lecturers who wished to speak in the city. It was so named because its original place of meeting had been on the Areopagus or “Mars Hill.” In Paul’s day it met in the Royal Portico in the marketplace.[i]

Paul gave his “defense” in Greek, as the book of Acts clearly shows.  This makes perfect sense considering where he stood.  Any suggestion that he spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic before the Areopagus is sheer nonsense. Not only so, but his speech was well crafted, his syntax approaching the higher literary levels educated Athenians adored. 

The book of Acts has provided an abridged version of what Paul originally said.  Nonetheless, it is sufficient to demonstrate that Paul was well schooled in a variety of subjects and skills prized in the Greek-speaking world.

Paul began by addressing his audience:  “Men! Athenians!”  This was an unusual address for Paul but conformed to the rhetorical conventions of Athens.[ii]

He next commended the Athenians for their religiosity and began his formal presentation by referring to their “altar to an unknown god.” This was Paul’s launching pad, his way of establishing common ground with a group unfamiliar with Judaism or Christianity, educated men who would have found many Jewish beliefs strange, incomprehensible and, as it turned out, offensive (verse 32).

Paul identified the “unknown god” as the One God Who created all things, the sole Ruler of all (verse 24). This God was not in the least dependent upon man and instead men were dependent on Him even for their very breath. He disparaged temples and idols but this was tactical and not intended to offend. Stoicism conveyed essentially the same attitude toward temples and idols.[iii]

Arguing from the concept of monotheism Paul contended all men are from a common stock.  God had “determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,” references to the annual seasons and God’s provision of zones fit for human habitation. This was so all men might seek Him (verses 26-27).

“Shockingly,” Paul next cited two Greek poets to substantiate his points (verse 28). Though Paul’s speech included concepts derived from the Old Testament, he never quoted any scriptural passage to his audience.  There would have been no point.  None would have been familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures; none would have recognized them as authoritative. 

Both citations are from poems that originally concerned Zeus.  Paul was not equating the God of the Bible with Zeus but using sayings familiar to his audience to bolster his point regarding mankind’s relationship to the true God. Paul used language from poets and philosophers his hearers would recognize as authoritative.

The first was a stanza from a poem by Epimenides of Crete (“in him we live and move and have our being”).  In it the poet denounced fellow Cretans for impiety because they claimed the tomb of Zeus could be seen in Crete. It read,

          They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one;

          The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.

          But you are not dead: you live and abide forever;

          For in you we live and move and have our being.[iv]

(Interestingly, Paul cited a line from this same poem later in Titus 1:12 - “Cretans! Always false, mischievous wild-beasts, idle gluttons”).  Paul was not agreeing with the pantheism of Stoicism or identifying God with Zeus, but he used the citation to substantiate his point that the true God is the author and sustainer of all life.

The second quotation was from Aratus of Cilicia, a poem on Natural Phenomena (Phaenomena 5, “for we are his offspring”). This was originally in praise of Zeus:

"Let us begin with Zeus: never, O men, let us leave him unmentioned.  Full of Zeus are all the ways and all the meeting-places of men; the sea and the harbors are full of him.  It is with Zeus that every one of us in every way had to do, for we are also his offspring.”[v]

By quoting these two poets Paul was finding common ground with which to bridge the gap between him and his audience. The mutual understanding that “all are God’s offspring” was the basis for his proposition that God should not be represented by idols (verse 29).

In Acts 17:31 Paul introduced specific Christian content, the claim that a day of judgment was coming when God would judge the world by a man He had appointed, demonstrated by His raising him from the dead. Repentance was necessary because the One Who created all things would bring them to a conclusion with a day of judgment.

This led to the key issue that caused all but one of the Greek philosophers present to reject Paul’s words.  While the idea of a man’s spirit or soul ascending to heaven was not unknown or unacceptable, the notion of a resurrected person was, resurrection entailing the raising of body and soul.  Greek philosophy maintained an irreconcilable dichotomy between spirit and matter, the latter including the human body.  Salvation for them meant liberation of the spirit from the body.

Throughout this speech Paul’s Greek was literate and cultured.  It was designed to appeal to the sensibilities and, to a certain extent, the egos of his well-educated Greek-speaking audience. In it he made good use of alliteration (repetition of initial consonant sounds), assonance (like sounding words) and word plays.

Additionally, his speech had a definite rhetorical structure that conformed to the conventions of forensic rhetoric. It was divided into the exordium (verses 22-23), the propositio (verse 23b), the probatio (verses 24-29) and the peroratio (verses 30-31). “The speech in general follows the basic rhetorical pattern of first establishing ethos, then offering logos, finally concluding with pathos.”[vi]

Paul’s hearing before the philosophers of Athens presents us with Paul at his most versatile and creative.  He was able to adapt his speech to the needs and circumstances of his audience.  He did not hesitate to avail himself of all his linguistic, rhetorical and oratory skills derived from his education and experience.  He did not compromise his Christian beliefs or the fundamental content of the gospel message but he was able to present it in terms his audience could comprehend.

In Athens the Apostle Paul did not shy away from his education in Greek and rhetoric.  As best he could he adapted and appealed to the sensibilities of his audience.  He did not hesitate to cite pagan philosophers if it would serve to promote the gospel message.  In short, Paul’s actions epitomized his stated strategy to “become all things to all men in order that he might save some.”

“Therefore became I to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might win; to those who were under the Law as under law, not being myself under the Law, that those who were under the Law I might win. To those who were without the Law as without law, not being without law to God but lawfully subject to Christ, that I might win those who were without law. I became to the weak, weak, that the weak I might win:  -to all men have I become all things that by all means some I might save” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22).

ENDNOTES:

---

[i] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), p. 238.

[ii] Ben Witherington, Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 520.

[iii] Mark Strom, Reframing Paul, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 121.

[iv] F.F. Bruce, p. 242.

[v] F.F. Bruce, p. 242.

[vi] Ben Witherington, Acts, p. 518.

Jesus Responds to a Greek-Speaking Canaanite Woman

Certain voices within the Hebrew Roots and related movements claim it is necessary to be conversant in Hebrew language and culture to have a true appreciation and proper understanding of Jesus and the Gospel. As one wrote, “The New Testament, or B'riyt HaHhadashah in Hebrew, was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews and within an Hebraic Culture” (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_newtestament.html).

Such claims should be weighed against one the most precious stories found in the synoptic gospels:  Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 15:21-28).

To a scrupulously Torah-observant Jew this woman had four strikes against her.  First, she was hellênis, a Hellenized Gentile assimilated to Greek culture and language. Second, by race she was Syrophoenician. Third, she was also a “Canaanite” (Matthew 15:22). Accordingly, she was a descendant of one of Israel’s ancient enemies. And, fourth, she was a woman. Devout first-century Jews avoided direct contact with Gentiles as much as possible and interacting with an unrelated female was socially inappropriate and risked one’s ritual purity.

Jesus met this woman in the vicinity of the ancient Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, a largely Gentile area located outside the traditional boundaries of Israel.

Matthew and Mark portray Jesus speaking directly with this Hellenized woman. This suggests he understood at least some Greek. While the evidence from the gospel accounts indicates his native tongue was Aramaic (e.g., Mark 15:34), it does not logically follow that Jesus did not understand one or more additional languages. To function effectively in an area like Galilee with a mixed race population involved in commerce would have necessitated some familiarity with other languages and cultures.

Some argue one of his disciples served as translator between Jesus and the woman. This is unlikely.  First, both Mark and Matthew present Jesus speaking directly with the woman. Second, neither account gives any hint of such an idea. Third, the disciples wanted nothing to do with her (“his disciples came and begged him, saying, ‘Send her away’” – Matthew 15:23).

In both Matthew and Mark the immediately preceding story is the account of a confrontation in Galilee between Jesus and a group of Pharisees and Scribes from Jerusalem. They objected to Christ’s disciples eating bread with “unwashed hands” (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Jesus took the opportunity to critique the Scribes and Pharisees for “transgressing the commandment of God” by their human traditions. He then instructed the multitude: “Nothing that enters into the mouth defiles a man, but that which proceeds out of his mouth, that defiles him.”  Food does not render a man or woman “unclean.”

Jesus next gave a short explanatory parable to his disciples to stress that sin defiles man, not food or eating with unwashed hands.  As usual the disciples failed to understand the parable (“To this moment are you also without discernment?!” - Matthew 15:16).

The account of the Syrophoenician woman is set in contrast to the preceding story. Rather than Galilee Jesus found himself in Gentile territory where a Greek-speaking woman implored him to deliver her daughter from a demon.  Jesus responded: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…Let the children be fed first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.”

At first glance this appears to be Christ’s outright rejection of the woman’s request. Moreover, his comparison of her to “dogs” at first glance sounds truly offensive.  However, Jesus did not repudiate her request but simply pointed out the priority of Israel in God’s redemptive plan (“let the children be fed first”). He said “first” not “only.” The Gospel came first to Israel but the eventual redemption of Gentiles was always part of God’s promise to Abraham (Matthew 10:5, Romans 1:16, 2:9, Genesis 17:5-6).

Jesus responded with a parable (“let the children be fed first, for it is not good to take the bread of the children and cast it to dogs”). In it he did not use the normal Greek word for “dog” or kuōn, but instead the diminutive form, kunarion or “little dogs.” This referred not to street mongrels but to small dogs often kept as house pets. 

The woman reacted by adding her own observation to Jesus’ parable. In so doing she applied it directly to her situation: “True, lord, but even the little dogs (kunarion) eat of the crumbs of the children under the table.” She thus placed herself inside the household though she also humbly acknowledged her inferior position.

The woman next took a cue from Jesus to change one of his words.  Jesus referred to “children” using the more general Greek term teknon, implying the “children of Abraham.” She introduced the more personal and endearing Greek diminutive, paidion or “little children.” As a Gentile she might have been in an inferior position but was nonetheless a member of the Divine household and also a child of God, one who was willing to eat the leftovers from Israel’s abundance.

This usage of Greek diminutives so vital to the storyline would be difficult to reproduce in Aramaic and Hebrew. It is another indicator that Jesus understood Greek, at least to some extent.

The Syrophoenician woman is the first person in the gospel accounts not only to understand a parable of Jesus, but also to insert her very self into it.  Jesus responded to her humility and insight by declaring, “Oh, woman! Great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire!”

The story of the Syrophoenician woman stands in sharp contrast with the preceding section in which Jewish males consumed with the minutiae of Torah confronted Jesus over small violations of dietary restrictions (Matthew 15:1-20).  Israel’s religious leaders could not understand Jesus whereas the Gentile woman, by definition “unclean” and outside the Covenant, not only recognized but also freely submitted to him.  She therefore received deliverance for her daughter even though the time was not yet for the Gospel to go out to Gentiles.

Unlike the disciples, Pharisees and Scribes, this woman understood a parable of Jesus (Matthew 13:13, “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand”). It was to a Gentile woman living outside Jewish territory that Jesus attributed “great faith.” In contrast he described his disciples and the religiously meticulous Pharisees and Sadducees as those of “little faith” (Matthew 8:26, 16:8).

Fluency in Hebrew, immersion in Jewish culture or scrupulous observation of the Mosaic Law is no guarantee of spiritual insight or acceptance by God.  The God Who revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth responds to genuine faith and humility, not ethnicity, cultural or linguistic purity.  

Circumcision – A Cutting Issue

Inconsistencies in Christian Torah Observances

A growing number of groups teach Christians to adopt Torah-Observant lifestyles, in particular the so-called ‘Hebrew Roots Movement.’ After all, was not Yahweh’s original covenant with Abraham that was reaffirmed at Mount Sinai an “everlasting covenant?”  And if so is not the Torah still in effect and ought not believers conform their lives to its regulations and statutes? 

Torah-keeping sects typically observe Sabbath and other sacred dates on the Jewish calendar, keep Levitical dietary regulations and so on.  “I am a believer in the Most High God, that God is One; salvation is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile; the Shabbat is on the 7th day and the other Holy Days are to be kept forever; and last but NOT least that Torah (which really translates as instruction, not law) is the answer to all problems and THE measure of all truth” (see “Are You a Christian?”).

At first glance this makes good sense.  Yahweh declared his covenant with Abraham to be “everlasting” (Genesis 17:7). Though Jesus did institute some changes he did not introduce a new religion but a faith based on that of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.  Christianity grew out of Israel’s ancestral faith. Did not Jesus proclaim: “think not that I came to abolish the law and the prophets; I came not to abolish but to fulfill…until heaven and earth pass away not one yod or stroke will pass from the law” (Matthew 5:17-20)?

But there is a glaring inconsistency in this latest attempt to impose the Mosaic Law on Christians, namely, the ancient rite of circumcision. While proponents of Torah-keeping commonly keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath and feast days, in general circumcision is not required, or at least not openly so.

The problem with this omission is that God instituted circumcision as the fundamental sign of his covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-11, Romans 4:11, Acts 7:6-8). The rite of circumcision was an integral component of the covenant from the start, an everlasting covenant between Abraham and all his descendants. Every male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day following birth (Genesis 17:12). A man who was not circumcised was “cut off from among his people” (Genesis 17:14). By definition an uncircumcised male was heathen and outside God’s covenant.

The circumcision requirement was reiterated at Mount Sinai in the Mosaic Law or Torah. Thus in Leviticus 12:1-3 Yahweh commanded Israel to circumcise every male child on the eighth day following a male child’s birth. Only circumcised males could participate in the annual Passover feast.  A sojourner who wished to participate in Passover had to first be circumcised. There was to be “one law for the native and for the sojourner”  (Exodus 12:43-49).  While circumcision was instituted in God’s covenant with Abraham, it was also integral and foundational to the Law of Moses and the identity of Israel (John 7:22 – “Moses gave you circumcision…”).

By the first century circumcision had become basic to the definition of who was a Jew and member of God’s covenant people.  Circumcision was not optional for males. It was so important that when the eighth day fell on a Sabbath the requirement to circumcise a male eight days after birth took precedence over the prohibition of work on the Sabbath (John 7:22).

Circumcision was so central to Israel’s identity that Jews often divided mankind into the categories of “Circumcision” and “Uncircumcision.” Paul, for example, described how he had been “entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcision just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision” (Galatians 2:7. Compare Acts 11:2, Romans 2:26, 3:30, 4:9, Galatians 2:12, Ephesians 2:11, Colossians 3:11, 4:11, Titus 1:10).

When the Gospel was first preached to Gentiles circumcision immediately caused dissension. After Peter preached to the household of Cornelius the Holy Spirit fell on those listening causing certain Jews with Peter to be astonished that the same gift of the Spirit received by circumcised Jewish believers had been poured out on uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 10:44-46). Upon Peter’s return to Jerusalem some men “of the circumcision began to fault Peter’s actions at Caesarea saying, ‘he went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them” (Acts 11:1-3). The chief complaint was that Peter had table fellowship with “uncircumcised” Gentiles thus demonstrating how important questions about circumcision were in the early years of the church.

The issue came to a head in Acts chapter 15 bringing about the first church summit.  Some Jewish believers taught, “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1-5). This question was foundational to the church’s self-identity:  must uncircumcised Gentiles become full-fledged Jewish proselytes to be acceptable members in the covenant community?

Proponents of circumcision had a perfectly understandable position with scriptural precedent on their side (Genesis 17:10-11, Leviticus 12:3). Yahweh had commanded Abraham and his descendants to circumcise every male as part of His “everlasting covenant.”  It was a non-negotiable requirement of the Torah. “Therefore to be a beneficiary of God’s righteousness, the saving acts covenanted to his people, it was necessary to be a member of that covenant people.  That meant, in the first place, circumcision—the terms of the covenant with Abraham left no room for dispute about this (Gen. 17.9-14)” (emphasis added).[i]

Yet the Apostolic leadership in Jerusalem issued a ruling in which circumcision was no longer a requirement for membership in God’s people (Acts 15:23). Instead several basic requirements were given to Gentile believers, specifically “to abstain from idol sacrifices and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (verse 29). These constituted minimal requirements necessary to maintain unity between Jewish and Gentile believers. No calendrical observations or rules concerning “clean” and “unclean” meats were included.

In his Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle Paul dealt with similar developments in the house churches of Galatia.  Certain Jewish believers had arrived proclaiming a “different gospel” than Paul’s (Galatians 1:6-7). The bone of contention once again was circumcision (Galatians 5:1-4) (and possibly also calendrical observations - 4:9-10). But Paul rejected any attempt to impose circumcision on believers at Galatia (Galatians 2:3, 3:1-4, Galatians 5:1-4).

Teaching Christians to observe Torah runs into difficulties in the New Testament.  If circumcision IS NOT practiced or required there are fundamental inconsistencies with the original covenant. If circumcision IS practiced there are insurmountable barriers posed by several New Testament passages.

Circumcision was instituted by Yahweh as THE “sign” of His “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), a requirement reiterated at Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).  Anyone who refused circumcision was cut off from the covenant; it was not optional. If believers are still under Torah then circumcision remains in force.  Thus there is inconsistency with today’s insistence on Sabbath keeping and keeping kosher while jettisoning the Law’s circumcision requirement. Moreover, the Law itself required anyone who accepted God’s covenant to do all that it required (Deuteronomy 11:26-28, Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10, Galatians 5:1-4).  It was never a pick-and-choose menu but always an all-or-nothing proposition.

In contrast to the Law’s circumcision requirement are those New Testament passages that teach circumcision is no longer a requirement for membership in God’s people (e.g., Acts 40:44-48, 11:1-18, 15:1-35, Galatians 2:15-21, 5:1-4, 6:13-15, 1 Corinthians 7:19, 12:13, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:11, 3:5-10, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 3:11).

The very fact that something as foundational to God’s covenant with Abraham as circumcision is no longer required means fundamental changes have occurred between the Old and New Covenants.  And if a requirement as basic as circumcision is no longer required then what else has changed as a result of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus?  Is circumcision the only requirement of the Law done away with or are there other ones no longer in force?

Proponents of the Hebrew Roots Movement can point to New Testament passages like Galatians 5:1-4 to justify abandonment of circumcision but this highlights inconsistencies in their beliefs and practices. Why acknowledge New Testament verses that teach circumcision is no longer required but ignore other ones that teach calendrical observations and dietary restrictions are no longer necessary also (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:15-19. Romans 6:14-15, 10:4, 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8:8, 9:20-21, Galatians 3:23-29, 4:4-5, 5:18, Colossians 2:16-17, 2:19-23, 1 Timothy 4:4, Titus 1:15, Hebrews 7:12)?

Jesus did not come simply to reaffirm the old regime, Christianity is not simply a continuation or expansion of the Mosaic Legislation.  There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Law and what God instituted through Jesus Christ.  A new order has come into effect. Paul confirmed this fundamental change at the covenantal level when he taught that instead of being under the Mosaic Law Christians are now under the “law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Galatians 6:1-2, Galatians 5:13-14, Galatians 5:18).

Paul admonished Christians in Colossians 2:16-17 to let no one judge them regarding “questions of food and drink or feast day or new moon or Sabbath.” Such ancient rites required by the Mosaic legislation turn out to be “only shadows the coming good things, but the substance is of Christ.” The true reality has been actualized in Christ.  To now return to the mere shadow is not wisdom or greater spirituality, but a retreat to the shadow from the reality now available in Christ. 

  

ENDNOTES:

---

[i] James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul & the Law (Louisville:  John Knox Press, 1990), p. 11.

The Scandal of the Cross

Christianity was born within Second Temple Judaism and on many levels was in continuity with the ancestral faith of Israel.  The proposition that a proper understanding of the history and beliefs of Israel is beneficial for a fuller understanding of the origins of Christianity is true within certain limitations. However, in light of the witness of Christian Scripture it should not be viewed as a guarantee of correct spiritual understanding or warrant for Torah-observant practices.  There is also discontinuity between Christianity and Judaism. New groups today like the Hebrew Roots Movement have turned a commonsense but limited proposition into a religious maxim to justify its innovations and even departures from Christian Scripture, often claiming a Hebraic mindset is necessary to achieve deeper spirituality and a more complete faith (Galatians 3:1-4).

In the gospel record few if any Jews contemporary with Jesus recognized who he was.  While demons cast out by Jesus knew him to be Messiah and Son of God (Mark 1:24, 1:34, 5:7), no human being prior to his crucifixion truly comprehended his identity.  In reaction to his exorcisms the crowds asked in confusion, “what is this?” (Mark 1:27). Jewish audiences were consternated and “astounded at his teachings” (Matthew 7:28-29). Even his closest disciples were clueless, exclaiming after Jesus calmed a storm, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” (Mark 4:41). 

Peter once seemed on the verge of understanding who and what Jesus was, for a moment even proclaiming him “Messiah” (Mark 8:29), that is, until Jesus explained that his Messiahship meant suffering, rejection and death (Mark 8:31-32). This Peter aggressively rejected (8:32).  The notion of a suffering and humiliated Messiah was anathema to Peter and devout Jews. Nothing in the Hebrew scriptures prepared them for this reality. And it was some of the most devout religious leaders of Judaism who plotted to destroy Jesus and were most complicit in his death (Matthew 11:18, Mark 3:6, 12:12, 14:1).

In the gospel accounts only on the cross was Jesus recognized for who he truly was and by the most unexpected individuals. It was one of the thieves crucified next to Jesus who acknowledged him as “Christ” or Messiah (Luke 23:39-43).  It was Pontius Pilate, the representative of Gentile Rome, who unwittingly and ironically bore witness to the kingship of Jesus when he nailed the board on the cross, declaring:  “Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews” (John 19:19). In the greatest irony of all it was a Roman centurion and very likely the very one in command of the execution squad that at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross, proclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). In contrast the religious representatives of the Jerusalem Temple were present on Calvary to “sneer” and taunt Jesus - “let him save himself if this is the Messiah of God” (Luke 23:35)!

The apostle Paul bore eloquent witness to this same negative reaction to Jesus in his own life. Prior to his Damascus Road conversion Saul of Tarsus was a devout Jew well schooled in the scriptures of Israel and exceedingly zealous for the Law or Torah.  “Circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, regarding Torah a Pharisee, regarding the righteousness that is on the basis of the Law, blameless.” It was his very zeal for Torah that motivated Saul “to persecute the church” of God and thereby made himself the “worst of all sinners” (Philippians 3:4-6. Compare 2 Corinthians 11:22, 1 Timothy 1:12-14). While the Torah-observant Saul formerly accounted his Jewish background of great value, after his encounter with the Risen Christ he put it in the "loss" column for the sake of Jesus (Philippians 3:7), not because God’s previous gifts were evil or of no value, but because the excellence of the knowledge of Jesus Christ was of infinite worth.

In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul claimed that the message about the cross is “foolishness” to those who are perishing but “God’s power” to those who are being saved (1 Corinthians 1:18). Paul proclaimed a Messiah who had been crucified:  a “scandal” to Jews and “folly” to Gentiles. The idea that Israel’s greatest enemy, Rome, had executed the Messiah of Israel was scandalous to a devout Jew. The Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses, the nation’s greatest leader whom God used to deliver Israel from Egypt’s bondage. The Messiah was to be the son of David and the royal king of Israel.  To claim Israel’s Messiah died an ignominious death as a messianic pretender at the hands of idolatrous Gentiles and enemies of Israel was beyond the pale. A crucified Messiah was an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Did not the Law itself teach that a man who died on a tree was under the “Law’s curse” (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26)?

This is not to pick on Jews.  A crucified Messiah was also “folly to Greeks.”  To a Hellenized Gentile of the Empire the suggestion that God’s ultimate answer to evil and death was the shameful execution of an (apparently) impotent political upstart by the world’s most powerful State was sheer nonsense (verses 23-24), yet this very thing became “God’s power and God’s wisdom.” The Cross of Christ is the great Leveler of all mankind and God’s final “mystery,” though one that can only be understood by the revelation of His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:5-16). It defies human logic and wisdom.

Certainly an understanding of the Old Testament and the history of Israel are of value for understanding scripture.  But the idea that Jesus or Christianity can only be fully comprehended from a Hebraic point of view is contradicted by History’s key event – the Crucifixion of Christ. Furthermore, to teach that God’s ultimate answer to Sin, Death and Satan is the execution of a man from a backwater region of the Empire with no political or military power runs contrary to all human experience regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion or language.  Rather than overthrow evil by political, economic or military might God chose to use what is from a human perspective, either Jewish or Gentile, a weak and foolish thing.

It was the “rulers of this age,” the Roman State and the Jewish Temple authorities in Jerusalem, that were responsible for the judicial murder of Jesus. If they had understood God’s wisdom and plan they would not have “crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7-9).

The Great Paradigm for Christian conduct is Christ Crucified, the Cross is the True Measuring Rod of Divine truth. Those who contend a “Hebraic mindset” is necessary to properly understand Christianity or go on to the deeper things of God, forget history as well as the failure of far too many of the most devout and Torah-compliant Jews to submit to God’s Crucified Christ.  Did not Paul himself observe that though Israel possessed the covenants and the oracles of God, only a remnant had come to faith in Christ (Romans 9:4, 11:1-10)?

“Replacement Theology” or the Age of Fulfillment?

Certain groups sometimes accuse those who teach that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, that the promises of the Old Covenant have found their fulfillment in Jesus and in him the old distinctives that kept Jews and Gentiles separate are now matters of religious indifference, of engaging in “Replacement Theology.” But what does scripture say?

In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel who came to fulfill all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-20). A key theme throughout Matthew is that the Hebrew Scriptures have found their fulfillment in Jesus (Matthew 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:17, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 13:48, 21:4, 26:54, 26:56, 27:9). 

In John’s gospel Jesus is presented as the true Tabernacle where the unveiled glory of God resides (John 1:14-16).  In him “grace instead of (anti) grace” has been given.  The Law was given through Moses, but “grace and truth came to be in Jesus” (John 1:17).  Likewise Jesus is the true Temple, not a physical building in Jerusalem (John 2:19-21).  The time has come when the true worshippers of God no longer worship him in sacred places but instead worship Him in the Spirit and truth (John 4:23-24).  The ancient feasts of Israel have found their fulfillment and true counterpart in Jesus (John 7:37-39). Jesus is the true “living bread from heaven” that imparts life, not that which Moses gave to Israel in the Wilderness (John 6:50-51).

Following the ascent of Jesus to heaven, the Book of Acts details how on the day when Pentecost was “fully filled up” (sympléroō – Acts 2:1) God’s Spirit was poured out on all the brothers and sisters gathered together “with one accord” in Jerusalem. Peter proclaimed that this outpouring was the fulfillment of the promised Spirit announced hundreds of years earlier by the prophets (Acts 2:16-21, Joel 2:28-30). This was the “promise of the Spirit” given to Jesus upon his exaltation to God’s right hand, which Christ then began to pour out that very day.  What was once promise had become reality.

In his Letter to the Galatians the Apostle Paul explained that Jesus came to “redeem us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse in our behalf,” and this so that “the blessing of Abraham should come to the Gentiles” (Galatians 3:13).  The promise was originally made to Abraham and to his “seed.” The Law, the Torah was given to Israel to serve as custodian until the time of fulfillment when the promise would be revealed (Galatians 3:19-24).  Now that the promised “seed” has arrived the time of the “custodian” was at an end.  Christ is the “end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe” (Galatians 3:25, Romans 10:4).

The Mosaic Law was an interim step between initial promise and final fulfillment. Jesus came in “the fullness of time” to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we now may receive “the sonship” (Galatians 4:4-7). Consequently, for those who are “in Christ” there no longer can be “Jew or Greek, bond or free, male and female.” All who have “put on Christ” are now one in him, “Abraham’s seed and according to promise, heirs” (Galatians 3:26-29, Colossians 3:11).

To now return or begin to “observe days and months and seasons and years,” to require circumcision and live lives conformed to food and other purity regulations (Galatians 4:10, 6:12, Romans 14:1-17, Colossians 2:13-17, 2:21-23), is nothing less than submission to the Storcheion, “the weak and beggarly elemental spirits” that previously tyrannized us (Galatians 4:8-9). Such a retreat amounts to replacing the Spirit with the death-dealing letter of the Law and our liberty in Christ with the curse of the Law (2 Corinthians 3:6-7), since all who are under the Law are obligated to keep it in its entirety (Galatians 3:10, 5:1-3).

The Epistle of Hebrews opens with a declaration of how God “in many parts and many ways long ago spoke to the fathers in the prophets; upon these last of days he spoke to us in a Son.”  Before the arrival of Jesus God spoke partially, here a little and there a little. Now He speaks with finality in His Son. God’s past word was true but promissory, preparatory and incomplete.

Hebrews demonstrates that the Son is superior to angels (Hebrews 1:5-14), to Moses and to Aaron (Hebrews 3:1-6, 5:1-10), that the word spoken by Jesus is superior to the Law given to Moses through angels (Hebrews 2:1-5), that the Son’s priesthood greatly surpasses the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7:1-25), his sacrifice that of the animal sacrifices of the Tabernacle (Hebrews 7:27, 9:26), and the New Covenant makes the Old obsolete (Hebrews 8:4-10:18).

The Law was incomplete and not without shortcomings.  The fact that a new priesthood of a different order was necessary demonstrates the need for a change of law (Hebrews 7:11-12 – “for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law”). There is a setting aside of the former commandment because of “its weakness and unprofitableness, for the Law was unable to make anyone complete” (Hebrews 7:18). Jesus is the “guarantee of a better covenant legislated on better promises” (Hebrews 7: 22, 8:6-7). If the first covenant had been “faultless” there would have been no need for a second (Hebrews 8:7).

The Old Covenant constituted “glimpses and shadows of the heavenly realities” (Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:9-10), “copies” or “patterns” of the heavenly and real things (Hebrews 9:23-24). The Old Regime has been made obsolete by the New and vastly superior covenant established in the Son. “Let no one, therefore, be disqualifying you in eating and in drinking, or in respect of feast or new moon or Sabbath, which are a shadow of the things to come, whereas the substance is of the Christ” (Colossians 2:9-17). To turn from the substance to the shadow is regression, not progress or illumination.

All of us, both Jew and Gentile, were at one time “dead because of our trespasses and sins…but God being rich in mercy…gave us life together in Christ by grace” (Ephesians 2:1-5). We who are Gentiles must remember how previously “separated from Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and godless in the world, yet now in Christ Jesus we who at one time were afar off have been made nigh by the blood of the Christ” (Ephesians 2:11-13). Jesus is the promised Seed of Abraham and the Messiah of Israel who has “dismantled the middle wall of partition and in his flesh brought to nothing the law of commandments in decrees, that the two he might create in himself into one man of new mould” (Ephesians 2:14-15). In Christ both believing Jews and Gentiles have received their “introduction in one Spirit to the Father” and therefore are no longer “strangers and sojourners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:17-19).

The Church, the true Assembly of God, has been built on “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, there being for chief corner stone Jesus Christ himself, in whom an entire building is being fitly joined together growing into a holy Temple in the Lord…a habitation of God” (Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16). Members of the Church are to keep diligently “the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting-bond of peace,” for in Christ there is only “one body and one spirit…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:3-6). The one God of Israel is God of both Jew and Gentile, “who will declare righteous the circumcision on the basis of faith and the uncircumcision through the faith” (Romans 3:29-30).

The Church consists of believers in Jesus, both Jew and Gentile, who are “resident aliens” and “sojourners” (1 Peter 1:1-2), a people without a national homeland in this fallen age but who nonetheless possess the incorruptible inheritance of salvation to be “revealed in the last ripe time” (1 Peter 1:3-6).  This is a glorious salvation the prophets of the Old Covenant “sought out and searched out,” to whom it was revealed that not to themselves but to us” they were announcing these things  (1 Peter 1:10-12). 

Christians are the “living stones being built up into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices well-pleasing unto God through Jesus Christ.”  This honor is to “those who believe” regardless of ethnicity or gender, who have now been established “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a peculiar treasure,” a people that “at one time were a no-people but now are the people of God” (1 Peter 2:4-10, Exodus 19:5-6).

Jesus established his church to be “a kingdom of priests to his God and Father” (Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6, Exodus 19:6). Christ, the slain Lamb and crucified Messiah, is worthy because by his blood he “redeemed unto God men out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and made them a kingdom and priests unto our God” (Revelation 5:9-10), a company that is in process of becoming a “great innumerable multitude from every nation” that will stand before the throne of God and the Lamb (Revelation 7:9).

The theme elaborated throughout the New Testament is fulfillment. The New has surpassed the Old order.  It is in Christ, not Torah, that “all the promises of God are, 'Yea!', and in him, 'Amen!'” (2 Corinthians 1:20).  God defeated Sin, Satan and Death not on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple, but on Calvary outside of the Temple and the City. The “mystery of God” hidden in past ages has been fully revealed in Jesus Christ, especially in “Christ crucified” (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:3-5, 1 Corinthians 2:1-9).

If this constitutes “Replacement Theology” so be it.  But if the substance of God’s Promise has now arrived in the person of Jesus Christ, why return or any longer embrace the shadow?