Is the Church the New/True Israel?

In Dialogue with Matt Novenson (Part 1)

Paul and Carnal Israel

Matt Novenson’s essay on “Carnal Israel” in Paul and Judaism at the End of History is perhaps the best example of how Paul within Judaism (PwJ) can be differentiated from the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). While both schools of interpretation want to read Paul as a Jewish figure with a Jewish messianic faith, nonetheless, they disagree on how that works out in principle and especially how it applies to the ethnic integrity of Jews as Jews and the socio-religious identity of Gentile Christ-believers.

In a nutshell, Novenson’s thesis is that Jewishness is genealogical and not transferable, and Paul never redefines Israel so as to include Gentiles.

Novenson is concerned that a redefinition of Israel to include Gentiles leads to a dispossession of Israel by Gentiles (91 n. 51). He insists that new creation “entails gentiles sharing in the happy fate of Israel, but not becoming Israel” (243). Such a view is merely the product of Christian theologizing (162).

I’d go so far as to assert that sine qua non of PwJ, strikingly similar to Dispensational theology, is the distinction between Israel and the Gentile Church. But that is an axiom that needs to be robustly tested.

Jewish Identity in an Identitarian Age

Before I begin with a critique let me offer an observation about the socio-political context for Pauline studies.

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) emerged in the post-Holocaust era with increased interest in Christian anti-Judaism, concerns about supersessionism in Christian theology, and there were concerted attempts to exonerate the Jews and Judaism from the charge of “legalism.” It was also at a time of intense turmoil in global geo-political affairs. For those old enough to remember, the 70s to 90s was a time that witnessed the climax and defeat of South African apartheid, horrendous inter-tribal violence in Rwanda, violent reprisals for deep-seated ethnic resentment in the former Yugoslavia, as well as uprisings in the former Soviet Republics. The NPP picture of Paul as one seeking to erase ethnic differences in the churches spoke powerfully to a world embattled with ethno-tribal violence. In fact, this comes out explicitly in Richard Hays’ Galatians commentary in the NIB (11:248 citing E. Thomas, “Can These Bones Live?” SOMA (Sharing of Ministries Abroad) Newsletter [Oct 15, 1996]: 1-15):

[T]he history of the church provides numerous impressive testimonies of the power of the gospel to break down the wall of separation between different races and cultures. One of the most remarkable stories of this kind from recent history emerged from the bloody conflict in Rwanda, where in 1994 members of the Hutu tribe carried out mass murders of the Tutsi tribes. At the town of Ruhanga, fifteen kilometers outside Kigali, a group of 13, 500 Christians had gathered for refuge. They were of various denominations: Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, and others. According to the account of a witness to the scene, “When the militias came, they ordered the Hutus and Tutsis to separate themselves by tribe. The people refused an declared that they were all one in Christ, and for that they were all killed,” gunned down en masse and dumped into mass graves. It is a disturbing story, but it is also a compelling witness to the power of the gospel to overcome ethnic division. Paul would have regarded these Rwanda martyrs as faithful witnesses to the truth of the gospel. Having been ‘crucified with Chirst,’ they preferred to die rather than to deny the grace of God that had made them one in Christ.”

Similarly, we have to remember that PwJ exists within an identitarian age, where ethnic identities are discreet entities and any attempts to foster trans-cultural unity are castigated as either colonial or imperial projects. In such a time as ours, ethnic groups are not hybrids, but monocultural entities whose particularities must be prized and protected against hegemonic forces of religion, culture, and politics. It is ironic that xenophobes and critical theorists find common cause when it comes to justifying ethnic partitioning, even if for vastly different reasons.

Think of former Canadian PM Justin Trudeau’s claims that Canada is “the first postnational state” and there is “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” If Canadian-ness can be defined, then it is something that can be possessed or not, it becomes exclusionary as much as inclusionary. Accordingly, in Trudeau’s postnational Canada, each ethnic identity who lives in Canada exists only as a minority, there is nothing they share in a distinctive way with other Canadians. There are Black people in Canada, not Black Canadians. There are Jews in Canada, but not Jewish Canadians. Ethnic identities are nouns not adjectives! One should not define Candian-ness, for to define it would be to limit it, and to limit would be to exclude people. That’s the logic! Canadian-ness cannot be shared because there is nothing distinctive or transferable about being Canadian. Otherwise some people can claim to be “more Canadian than thou” which would be affronting to certain sensibilities.

Applied to Paul vis-à-vis Judaism, even ancient Jewish identity and its particularities must be protected from Christian universalism, even if that requires a radical reinterpretation of Paul, who was in many estimates the chief architect or inspiration for Christian universalism (NB: I don’t mean “universalism” in the sense of “everyone will be saved,” but as a “religion” that can transcend ethnicity since Christianity does not belong to any race, region, or linguistic group, i.e., it can be universal).

I am not alleging that PwJ can be reducible to an identitarian project and can be dismissed as such. Mē genoito! My concern is that, per the NPP, we need to take stock of how cultural currents may be shaping our scholarly discourses. The reality is that we live in an age where ethnic identity is regarded as irreducibly particular, and transcultural meta-identities rooted in either religion or nationality are treated with grave suspicion. Such views comprise the backdrop where our discussions of Paul, Judaism, and identity take place.

Let’s now look at some of the main texts that Novenson discusses.

Israel According to the Flesh

Contra Origen, Paul’s passing reference to “Behold Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor 10:18) in a section warning about visiting pagan temples, does not, says Novenson, imply there is an Israel according to the Spirit. That is because Paul has no platonizing doctrine of an earthly form of Israel with a spiritual counterpart (163-64). On this point, I concur, since the fact that one can know Christ “according to the flesh” does not imply that Christ is known “according to the Spirit” in some parallel realm which replaces mere earthly knowledge (see 2 Cor 5:16).

The Israel of God

This verse really is the epicenter of the debate about whether the church exists as Israel or with Israel! Paul writes:

“And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).

Is Paul issuing a blessing to anyone who abides by his rule that Gentile Christ-believers do not have to be circumcised, and does he give them the honorific label “Israel of God” irrespective of whether they are Jews or Gentiles? Or else, is Novenson correct when he argues for a translation to the effect that Paul is speaking about two different groups: “As many as walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy also upon the Israel of God” (166-67)? So that, “Paul wishes peace upon his gentiles-in-Christ, but he wishes mercy upon God’s people Israel” (167). That translation and its interpretation is certainly possible, but is it convincing?

What prevents me from adopting Novenson’s rendering is a few things.

First, Paul’s “Israel of God” strikes me as very similar to other Jewish discourses that identify Israel as either a superordinate group or else as a sectarian sub-group among “all Israel.” For example, Philo’s description of “Israel who sees God” is a philosophical category, not an ethnic one, as it appears to denote any ethically-minded and vaguely-monotheistic person, including even some Gentiles (a superordinate “greater Israel”). In addition, in the Qumran scrolls, there is mention of priests who among the sect “proclaim all his merciful favours towards Israel” (1QS 1.22; cf. 4Q503 I-III 10) which is very similar to Gal 6:16. Yet also in other Qumran writings there is an identification of the “congregation of Israel” as co-terminus with the sectarians as the sons of Aaron, Sadok, and light, as well as identifying themselves as “the elect ones of Israel in the last days” (4Q174 I 1.19), the “house of truth in Israel” (4Q258 1.4-5), or even as the “converts of Israel” (CD 6.5; 8.16). The sectarians believed that there was “all Israel” expressed in the tribes, cities, land, and children of Israel, and they were cast not as Israel’s replacement, but the representatives of Israel in the messianic age (indicating an “Israel within Israel” for a sectarian sense of Israel). I suggest that Paul’s “Israel of God” could either be superordinate (as per Philo) or a sectarian group (as per Qumran).

Second, Paul’s letter to the Galatians is concerned in part with the unity of Christ-believers irrespective of their ethnic origins. Paul wants to unify Jewish and Gentile Christ-believers in their shared faith and in the practice of shared meals and he would be unlikely at the end of the letter to then divide the Christ assemblies between those who are part of the prestigious “Israel of God” and those are are not.

Here I must point to an article that Novenson himself alludes to by Susan Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9-11.” New Testament Studies. 56:3 (2010): 367-395; repub. “Israel and Divine Mercy in Galatians and Romans.” In, Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner with the assistance of Frank Schleritt. WUNT. Tübingen: J. C. B. Möhr, 2010.

Eastman surmizes that:

Paul pronounces peace on all those who remain faithful to his vision of the gospel, which makes a new creation in which the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision no longer matters. But then, precisely because the undoing of that distinction thoroughly shuts the door on Jewish privilege and identity markers, thereby calling Israel's destiny into question, he also prays for God's saving mercy on unbelieving Israel: ‘And peace be upon as many as walk in line with this rule, and mercy even upon the Israel of God’.

In Gal 6.16, Paul pronounces a benediction of peace on all who will walk in line with the rule of the new creation, in which there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, and a prayer for mercy on unbelieving Israel. When he pens the letter and the prayer, he does so in the knowledge that there is an on-going mission to the circumcision led by Peter and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church. It is quite likely, therefore, that his prayer includes hope for the success of that mission.

That is a highly plausible reading and one which gives me pause for thought. So while I do prefer the “Israel of God” as a designation for the Christ-believing assemblies of Judaea, Syria, and Anatolia, Novenson and Eastman do sow seeds of doubt in my conclusion.

For further discussion see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Dalls, TX: Word, 1990), 296-99 ; Gregory K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background to Galatians 6, 16b,” Bib 80 (1999): 204-23; Andreas Köstenberger, “The Identity of the Israel Tou Theou (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16,” Faith and Mission 19 (2001): 3-24.

We Are the Circumcision

Some of Paul’s most polemical remarks can be found in Phil 3:1-11. As he launches into his tirade, he insists, “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3).

According to Novenson, the “we” is Paul and his fellows Jew contrasted with certain Gentile proselytes who want to push circumcision on Gentile Christ-believers. While Paul possesses the inherited privileges of his Jewish pedigree, these Philippian opponents do not because they are not properly Jewish. Accordingly, for Novenson, “So far from taking the title ‘circumcision’ away from Jews and awarding it to gentiles in Phil 3 Paul actually does the opposite. He takes it back from proselyte-circumcised gentiles and restores it to Jewish apostles like himself” (171).

That Paul’s opponents in Philippi are Gentile proselytes is admittedly possible, but not certain, and is speculative ground to build an exegetical case upon.

Not only that, the “we” that Paul uses in the polemical sections of his letters can vary between “we Jewish Christ-believers” (Gal 2:15) to “we Christ-believers of any ethnic group” (Rom 7:14), to “we the apostle to the Gentiles and his Gentile converts” contrasted with Jews” (2 Cor 3:13-18). Each we-passage needs to have a case-by-case analysis.

That said, I do not think Paul is talking about “we Jews who are circumcised” because it requires also reading in the same verse “we Jews who boast in Christ Jesus.” Such is problematic because while all Jewish males might be circumcised, it is certainly not true that all Jews boast in Christ Jesus.

Perhaps the “we” in Phil 3:3 is Paul and other Jewish Christians, but it cannot be Paul in solidarity with all Jews in contrast to the Gentile opponents.

In part two, next week, I’ll continue my review of Novenson on Carnal Israel.