A Defense of Israel’s Expectation, Part Two

[For part one, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-defense-of-israels-expectation-part.html]

Objections considered

One reason why many Christians believe that a rebuilt temple and reinstituted sacrificial system would not have divine approval (whether in this eon or the next) is based on the commonly-held belief that the law given by God to Israel ended nearly 2,000 years ago (either at the time of Christ’s death, or at the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD). For example, commenting on my article concerning John’s expectation, one reader wrote that “…70 AD is crucial to understanding that the Law has been fulfilled and is no longer part of God's plan for the rest of the ages.”

When this reader referred to the law as having been “fulfilled,” I assume that she was referring to the following words of Christ in Matthew 5:17-20:

”You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill. For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring.”

However, this passage in no way proves that “the Law is no longer part of God’s plan for the rest of the ages.” For Christ to have come to “demolish” the law and the prophets would mean that he came to put an end to them, and make them no longer applicable to (or authoritative for) Israel. But this is the very thing that Christ declared he didn’t come to do. Instead, he came to “fulfill” them. Although many Christians interpret the word “fulfill” to mean “bring an end to,” such an interpretation is untenable (as it would essentially have Christ contradicting himself by declaring that he didn’t come to put an end to the law or the prophets, but to put an end to them).

When a certain prophecy is “fulfilled,” that which was written or spoken by the prophet is not “ended” or “terminated”; rather, that which was prophesied actually occurs or is brought about. It is, in other words, carried out, or carried into effect. Thus, for the law and the prophets to be “fulfilled” (or “made full”) by Christ involves that which is written in the law and the prophets being fully carried out by Christ (such that it actually occurs and is brought about). And we know from the prophets that the law given to Israel will continue to be in effect during the eon to come (e.g., Isaiah 2:3; 66:22-23; Jer. 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:24; 44:15-17, 24; 45:21, 25; Micah 4:1-2; Zech. 14:16-18; etc.). Thus, it follows that the passing by of the law given to Israel cannot occur before the next eon ends. Until “heaven and earth should be passing by,” the following words spoken by Christ in his “sermon on the mount” (which immediately follow his words in Matt. 5:17-18) will remain applicable to Israel:

“Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be super-abounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.”

[For a fuller defense of this view, see part three of my study, “God’s Covenant People” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/09/gods-covenant-people-why-most-believing_83.html).]

Concerning the ending of the old covenant, I was once assured by another believer that the author of the letter to the Hebrews “emphatically declared that the old covenant had been done away with.” However, we actually read no such thing in this letter (despite the fact that the author very easily could have said this, had he believed it to have been the case). Rather than saying that the old covenant had been “done away with,” the author of Hebrews instead wrote the following concerning it: 

“In saying ‘new,’ [God] has made the former old. Now, that which is growing old and decrepit is near its disappearance.” (Hebrews 8:13) 

To say that something is “growing old and decrepit” and is “near its disappearance” is not the same as saying that it has, in fact, ended or disappeared. And since that which the author wrote was true at the time when he wrote his letter (which was likely more than 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ), it would mean that Christ’s death and resurrection did not end the old covenant.

The “nearness” of the disappearance of the old covenant (and the implementation of the new covenant) is inseparably connected to the return of Christ. In Hebrews 1:2 the author referred to the era in which he wrote as “the last of these days” (cf. Acts 2:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:20), and in Heb. 10:25 he referred to the future day of the Lord as “drawing near” (cf. verses 26-31). James wrote that the “presence of the Lord is near” and “the Judge stands before the doors.” Peter wrote in his first letter, “Now the consummation of all is near.” Insofar as the nearness of Christ’s return was true when the author of Hebrews wrote, the disappearance of the old covenant could be said to have been “near” as well, since it is at the consummation referred to by Peter (when the “Chief Shepherd is manifested”) that the old covenant will disappear, and the new covenant will go into effect (and which will involve Israel, as a nation, being supernaturally empowered by God to successfully keep the law).

As far as the events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, this was not the first time that Jerusalem fell to a foreign power and the temple was destroyed (nor was it the first time that the Jewish people were exiled from their land). The same thing happened in 587 BC under King Nebuchadnezzar. And we know that this judgment didn’t involve the end of the Mosaic Law or the old covenant. On the contrary, that which took place at this time was in accord with the old covenant (which threatened Israel with curses for disobedience; see, for example, Lev. 26:14-39 and Deut. 28:15-68). And in accord with God’s promise of national restoration and healing, the Jewish temple was eventually rebuilt. In light of these considerations, we can conclude that the events of both 587 BC and 70 AD are proof that God’s covenant with Israel was still in effect at these respective times in the nation’s history, and in no way suggest that the Mosaic Law (or even the old covenant) ended when the temple was destroyed.

Another objection is based on the following words of Stephen in Acts 7:46-50: 

“And he requests that he may find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. Yet Solomon builds Him a house. But the Most High is not dwelling in what is made by hands, according as the prophet is saying, “‘Heaven is My throne, yet the earth is a footstool for My feet. What kind of house shall be built for Me?’ the Lord is saying, or what is the place of My stopping?” Is it not My hand that does all these things?'”

The problem with this objection is that God’s “not dwelling in what is made by hands” is something that was just as true (and just as understood to be true) in Solomon’s day as it was when Stephen spoke before the Sanhedrin. Stephen wasn’t giving Israel any “new revelation” here. For anyone to believe that God did dwell in what is made by hands would be to believe something that was not even true in Solomon’s day, when the first Jewish temple was built! Although Solomon declared that he had “built…a House, a residence for [God]” and “a site for [God] to dwell in for the eons” (1 Kings 8:13), even Solomon knew and openly acknowledged that the newly-constructed temple was not something that could possibly contain the transcendent Creator of heaven and earth, or keep him bound to a single location on earth as a dwelling place (see 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 2:6).

Nevertheless – and this is the point that needs to be emphasized here – the temple in Jerusalem could still, in all truthfulness and legitimacy, be referred to as the “temple of God” or the “temple of Yahweh” (1 Kings 8:10-11, etc.). Why? It wasn’t because God was literally contained within its walls (for again, not even Solomon believed that). We’re told that God promised David that his son would “build a House for My Name” (2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 5:5). God himself declared in 2 Chron. 7:16, “Now I have chosen and sanctified this House for My Name to be there unto the eon. My eyes and My heart will be there all the days.” God also told Solomon that he had chosen the temple to be “a house of sacrifice” (2 Chron. 7:12). And this wasn’t just true of Solomon’s temple; the second Jewish temple (commonly referred to as “Herod’s temple”) was just as much the temple of God or “temple of the Lord” as the first (Luke 1:9).

Christ himself even referred to the second temple as “my Father’s house” (John 2:16; cf. Luke 2:49), and both his words and his actions made it clear that he understood the temple to be a holy and sacred place (Matt. 23:16-17; Mark 11:15-17; cf. Isaiah 56:7, which Christ quoted when he “cleansed the temple”). Obviously, Christ would’ve agreed with Stephen in Acts 7:46-50 (and with Paul in Acts 17:24) that “the Most High is not dwelling in what is made by hands.” And yet, Christ still considered the temple to be his “Father’s house” (and, it should be noted, the temple that Christ referred to as his Father’s house did not even contain the Ark of the Covenant)! Thus, unlike many Christians today, Christ clearly believed that the Jewish temple – despite not being a place in which God literally resided or dwelled – was, nonetheless, a place with which his Father’s honor was greatly connected. The problem in Christ’s day was not with the temple itself (which, again, is something that God himself said would be for his “Name”), but rather with the hearts of those who worshiped and offered sacrifices there.

Christ’s priestly ministry

The book of Hebrews is often appealed to by Christians in support of their belief that the Levitical priesthood has been abolished and invalidated, and that Israel’s sacrificial system will thus never be reinstituted (at least, not with God’s approval). One of the main passages on which this widely-held view is based is Hebrews 7:11-19. In Young’s Literal Translation, this passage reads as follows:

If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchizedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come, for he of whom these things are said in another tribe hath had part, of whom no one gave attendance at the altar, for [it is] evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchizedek there doth arise another priest, who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life, for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchizedek;' for a disannulling indeed doth come of the command going before because of its weakness, and unprofitableness, (for nothing did the law perfect) and the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God.

Because we’re told perfection is not “through the Levitical priesthood,” it’s assumed that the Levitical priesthood must have been abolished (or that it lost its validity/divine approval) when Christ became Chief Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek.” However, a fact of which many who hold to this view seem unaware (or which is simply overlooked) is that the Levitical priesthood was never meant to bring about the “perfection” referred to in this passage. This was never the intended, God-given purpose and design of the Levitical priesthood. 

So the fact that Christ’s superior Melchizedekian priesthood does bring about the perfection referred to in v. 11 does not logically lead to the conclusion that the inferior Levitical priesthood was abolished when Christ became Chief Priest (since, again, it was never the job of the Levitical priests to bring about the perfection referred to). Since the two priesthoods have two different purposes/functions, the superior (Melchizedekian) priesthood in heaven need not be understood as replacing the inferior (Levitical) priesthood on earth. They can – and, I believe, will – exist simultaneously, with each of the priesthoods fulfilling its distinct purpose and role in the respective realm to which each inherently belongs. 

According to Vine’s Greek New Testament Dictionary, the word translated “priesthood” in the above passage (hierosune) “signifies the office, quality, rank and ministry of ‘a priest’” (https://studybible.info/vines/Priesthood,%20Priest's%20Office; see also https://studybible.info/strongs/G2420). Similarly, the Greek-English Keyword Concordance of the CLNT defines it as “that which was associated with the priestly office.” Based on the context, I believe it can be reasonably concluded that, in Heb. 7:12, 24, the author of Hebrews was referring specifically to the office and ministry of chief priest. But what does it mean for the priesthood to have been “changed” (v. 12)? 

The word translated “changed” in this passage is metatithemenēs. According to the Greek-English Keyword Concordance in the Concordant Literal New Testament, the elements of this word are “after-PLACE.” In the CLNT, this term is translated “transferred” in Heb. 7:12 (however, it should be noted that the same term is translated “bartering” in Jude 4). The term “transferred” seems to communicate the idea that the Levitical priesthood – which is in view in v. 12 – was transferred from one location (or person/people) to another. However, we know that’s not the case. And this fact alone suggests to me that metatithemenēs does not mean “transferred” in Heb. 7:12. 

Does this mean that “changed” should be seen as the better translation here? Perhaps. However, there’s another possibility. In contrast with both the CLNT and Young’s translation, the term metatithemenēs is translated “displaced” in the Dabhar translation: “For due to the priestdom being displaced, of necessity there becomes a displacement of law also.” I believe this translation gets us closer to the actual meaning of the term (at least, as it’s used in Hebrews 7:12) than either “changed” or “transferred.” If the term does mean “displaced” in this verse, then the idea being communicated is that the Levitical office and ministry of chief priest on earth was, following Christ’s ascension to heaven, displaced by Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood.

We know that, even before Christ was made a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” the chief priest Caiaphas disqualified himself as chief priest by his own law-breaking actions (see Matthew 26:65 and compare with Leviticus 10:6; 21:10). However, it was not until after Christ ascended to heaven that the Levitical office of chief priest was displaced by Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood. The reason for this is provided in the next chapter of Hebrews. 

In Heb. 8:4-5, the author made it clear that, if Christ were on earth at the time the letter was written, he would not even be a priest (since there was, at the time the letter was written, a Levitical priesthood on the earth operating in accord with the law). And based on what we find revealed in prophecy (see, for example, Jer. 33:20-22, Zech. 14:20-21 and all the reference to the priests in Ezekiel 40-48), it’s clear that the Levitical priesthood will, in fact, be present and operative on the earth during the next eon, after the kingdom has been restored to Israel (however, it should be noted that, according to Ezek. 43:19 and 44:15, only those who are of the family of Zadok will have the privilege of offering sacrifices and ministering in the future sanctuary).

So it’s reasonable to conclude that the chief priestly office on earth was displaced by Christ’s priesthood after he ascended to heaven. Moreover, since Christ is not of the tribe of Levi (he’s of Judah), the displacement of the chief priestly office on earth necessarily involved a displacement of the law concerning who can (and who can’t) be a chief priest. In v. 17 we read that the basis of Christ’s priesthood is “not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life.” And a few verses later we read the following: 

“And, in as much as it was not apart from the swearing of an oath (for these, indeed, are priests, having become so apart from the swearing of an oath, yet that One with the swearing of an oath by Him Who is saying to Him, “The Lord swears and will not be regretting it, ‘Thou art a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.’”) (Heb. 7:20-21)

In other words, the law concerning who can become a chief priest was, in the case of Christ, displaced by God’s oath. In accord with this understanding of the displacement of the law referred to in Heb. 7:12, the “repudiation of the preceding precept” (v. 18) refers to the repudiation of the “fleshly precept” referred to in v. 16. This precept concerns the requirement that a chief priest be from the family of Aaron (it’s called “fleshly” because it involves the fleshly lineage of priests). In Exodus 29:9 we read that “the priesthood shall be theirs [i.e., Aaron and his sons] for a perpetual statute.” This precept concerning the Aaronic priesthood requirement is said to be “weak and without benefit” insofar as it appointed men chief priests “who have infirmity” (v. 28), and who, consequently, couldn’t adequately deal with sin and bring Israel to perfection (and, it should be emphasized, this was never the job of the Levitical priesthood in the first place).

In contrast with this “fleshly precept” concerning who can (and can’t) become chief priest, we read that the “word sworn in the oath which is after the law appoints the Son, perfected, for the eon” (v. 28; cf. vv 20-21). Thus, the repudiation of this precept should not be understood as involving the abolishing/annulling of the entire Levitical/Aaronic priesthood (for, again, it’s prophesied that this priesthood – as well as its associated sacrificial system – will be present and active on the earth during the next eon). Rather, the “fleshly precept” being “repudiated” simply means that this precept was rejected by God as having any binding force on Christ (who became Chief Priest in accord with God’s oath, in conjunction with “the power of an endless life” that Christ received when he was raised from the dead by God). That is, the precept concerning qualifications for becoming chief priest was repudiated only in regard to Jesus’ present, heavenly priesthood. This precept simply does not apply to (or have any authority over) Christ in his present, heavenly location. 

In summary, the Levitical office of chief priest was displaced by Christ’s office as Chief Priest, and the associated law/precept concerning qualifications for becoming chief priest was, in the case of Christ, displaced by God’s oath. However, although Christ’s heavenly, Melchizedekian priesthood is superior to the earthly, Levitical priesthood, the Levitical priesthood was not invalidated or abolished when Christ became Chief Priest. Based on what we read in Ezekiel 40-48 and elsewhere (e.g., Jer. 33:20-22 and Zech. 14:20-21), it’s clear that the Levitical priesthood will be present and operative on the earth during the next eon.

A response to Stephen Jones

Recently, a fellow believer posted some excerpts from a book by Stephen Jones (an “anti-dispensationalist” Christian teacher who denies that God's covenant people, Israel, have any future expectation that is distinct from that which belongs to believers in the body of Christ). In the excerpts shared by the believer, the author attempts to defend the view that none of the prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures that reveal a future millennial temple and reinstituted sacrificial system during the eon to come are actually going to be fulfilled. The remainder of this article will therefore consist of a response to each of the claims and objections made by Stephen Jones that were shared by the believer.

Stephen Jones: “The modern teaching in Dispensationalism that animal sacrifice will be reinstituted is based upon Old Testament prophetic statements such as Ezekiel 44, which prophesies in Old Testament terms, but which must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.”

I’m not sure what, exactly, Stephen Jones means by “…based upon Old Testament prophetic statements such as Ezekiel 44, which prophesies in Old Testament terms.” I find this to be unhelpful, ambiguous language. What, exactly, are “Old Testament terms?” I doubt that, by these words, Stephen Jones is simply referring to terms that are found in the Hebrew Scriptures (or “Old Testament”), for that would be a stupid thing to say. Obviously, Ezekiel’s prophetic statements are part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and were recorded using the Hebrew language. Perhaps, then, Jones means something like, “terms that pertain to the Old Covenant.” But this understanding of Stephen’s words would imply that Ezekiel 36-48 concerns the Old Covenant. However, the prophecies found in Ezekiel 36-48 are all about Israel’s future destiny under the New Covenant. In other words, Ezekiel was, in these last twelve chapters of his book, prophesying concerning conditions that will not be present on the earth until after the New Covenant has gone into effect! 

Thus, it’s absurd to say that Ezekiel’s prophecy in chapters 36-48 reveals a future destiny for Israel in “Old Covenant” terms (and if Stephen Jones believes that what is revealed in these chapters reflects an “Old Covenant” relationship between God and Israel, then this simply means that he doesn’t understand what the New Covenant is or involves).

Stephen Jones: “The Temple that God is now constructing is of the New Jerusalem, as described in Ephesians 2:20-22.”

I disagree that the figurative temple to which Paul referred in Eph. 2:20-22 is “of the New Jerusalem.” But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that it is. We know that there’s not going to be a literal temple in the New Jerusalem, so this state of affairs would be consistent with Paul’s reference to the figurative “temple” of Eph. 2:20-22. But would this mean that we should understand the millennial temple described in the final chapters of Ezekiel as a description of the figurative temple referred to in Ephesians 2:20-22? Not at all. 

Paul’s reference to a figurative temple in Eph. 2:20-22 in no way justifies the interpretive decision of those who, because of their own doctrinal bias and assumptions, see Ezekiel’s prophecy of the millennial temple as an elaborate allegory that will never literally be fulfilled (despite the fact that, unlike Paul’s words in Eph. 2:20-22, there is no indication that the temple prophesied by Ezekiel is anything other than a literal temple). Everything of which Ezekiel prophesied can be understood in a normal, straight-forward way without contradicting anything Paul wrote in Eph. 2:20-22.

Stephen Jones: “This is the Temple from which Jesus Christ will rule in the Tabernacles Age to come. He does not intend to rule the earth from an old-style temple in the old Jerusalem, nor will He call Aaronic priests to minister with animal sacrifices upon an altar on the Temple Mount.”

Actually, we’re not told in Ezekiel or the other prophets that the millennial temple will be located “in the old Jerusalem,” or that it will be located on the present-day “Temple Mount.” In fact, we know that major topographical changes are going to be occurring in the land of Israel at the time of Christ’s return to the earth (Zech. 14:3-5). These changes will result in a much-larger/expanded Jerusalem that will be elevated above the rest of the surrounding land (which, in Zech. 14:10, we’re told will be turned into a plain). At this time, Mount Zion (which will be the sight of the future temple in Jerusalem) will be the most elevated location in the land of Israel:

“The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:1-3

Stephen Jones is, of course, free to dismiss this and all of the other related prophecies concerning Israel’s eonian destiny (e.g., by allegorizing them away or making them conditional in nature), but he is simply mistaken if he believes that his interpretation is somehow more consistent with the rest of Scripture than the understanding of those with whom he disagrees. There is absolutely no contradiction between what the Hebrew prophets wrote concerning Israel’s covenant-based expectation during the eon to come (and which will be in accord with the New Covenant) and what we read anywhere in the Greek Scriptures (including the book of Hebrews).

Contrary to the belief of Stephen Jones (which, I should add, reflects the belief of most Christians), the law-keeping and temple-based worship system that prophecy reveals will characterize the national life of God’s covenant people during the eon to come will not be a “step backwards” for them, or (as one believer put it) a “change back” to an Old Covenant-based relationship with God. Life under the New Covenant will be a huge step forward for Israel. When the New Covenant goes into effect, Israel will be empowered to walk in God's statutes and obey his rules for them (Ezek. 36:26-27). This, of course, is one of the main purposes of the New Covenant: empowering Israel to do what they were unable to do under the Old Covenant. Thus, although Israel’s relationship with God in the millennial kingdom will involve a degree of continuity with their relationship with God when they were under the Old Covenant, the differences will be far greater and more profound.

Stephen Jones: “Modern Dispensationalism has brought us once again to the same problem that Paul faced in the first century. The attempt is being made to turn the Church back to the Old Covenant, which would empower Levites to re-institute animal sacrifices in a physical temple in Jerusalem. Like the Jerusalem Church, the Christians are trying to add Jesus to the Old Covenant and its old priestly system.”

I’m not sure who, exactly, Stephen Jones had in mind when he asserted that “modern Dispensationalism” is attempting “to turn the Church back to the Old Covenant.” However, insofar as my own “dispensational” position is concerned, Stephen’s assertion is a complete straw-man and misrepresentation of what I believe. No one who correctly distinguishes the body of Christ from that company of saints referred to by Paul as “the Israel of God” (i.e., believers from among God’s covenant people) could, with any consistency, believe that the body of Christ should “turn back to the Old Covenant!” Such a position as this would be completely absurd. 

Moreover, even if “the Church” to which Stephen Jones was referring is understood as that which is comprised of believers among God’s covenant people (which is the “church” to which Christ was referring in Matthew 16:18), it still wouldn’t be true to say that, after Christ returns, these believers will be turning “back to the Old Covenant!” Ezekiel 36-48 is not about the Old Covenant, or Israel’s future under the Old Covenant. It’s all about the New Covenant. If this fact is problematic for Stephen Jones’ understanding of the New Covenant (and it is), then it simply means that Stephen’s understanding of the New Covenant (and Israel’s covenant-based expectation) is seriously flawed.

In fact, not only is it not the case that the body of Christ should “turn back to the Old Covenant” (which would be impossible, given the fact that most members of the body of Christ were never under the Old Covenant), but we don’t even have anything directly to do with the New Covenant! Although Israel’s life under the New Covenant won’t be a “step backwards” for them, their covenant-based expectation would be a “step backwards” for Jewish believers in the body of Christ (such as Paul). The reason for this is as follows: Israelites who have been chosen beforehand by God for membership in the body of Christ – and who are subsequently called by God through the “evangel of the Uncircumcision” – cease to be in a covenant-based relationship with God (and thus cease to be members of God's covenant people, Israel) when they become members of the body of Christ. 

Paul referred to the status of those who were in a covenant-based relationship with God (and who thus had a covenant-based obligation to keep the law given by God to Israel) as being “under law” or “in law” (Rom. 2:12; 6:14-15; 1 Cor. 9:20-21; Gal. 4:4-5, 21). Conversely, those who Paul referred to as being “without law” are simply those who aren’t members of God’s covenant people, Israel, and who thus don’t have a covenant-based obligation to keep the law of God given to Israel.

Now, according to Paul, those in the body of Christ – whether they’re of a Jewish or Gentile background – are not under law (Romans 6:14-15). Despite the fact that “the law is holy” and “the precept holy and just and good” (7:12), those in the body of Christ have been exempted from the law (7:1-6). In fact, Paul clearly believed that those in the body of Christ who wanted to be circumcised and “be under law” were greatly mistaken, for this was not in accord with their calling and status as members of the body of Christ (Gal. 3:23-29; 5:1-10). Thus, we can conclude that Paul did not have (nor did he consider himself as having) a covenant-based obligation to keep the law given to Israel. And, consequently, Paul couldn’t have considered himself as having been a member of God’s covenant people, Israel, during his apostolic ministry.

In contrast with Paul’s status and relationship to the law as a member of the body of Christ, it’s evident that the “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews referred to by James in Acts 21:20 understood themselves as having a covenant-based obligation to keep the law. Consider, then, the following argument:

1. The “tens of thousands” of believing Jews referred to in Acts 21:20 were a continuation of the “little flock” referred to by Christ in Luke 12:32, and were part of the believing remnant among God’s covenant nation, Israel.

2.  As members of God’s covenant nation, Israel, these believing Jews had a covenant-based obligation to keep the law of Moses (they were, in other words, “under law”).

3. The body of Christ – being a company of saints that is distinct from God’s covenant people, Israel – does not have a covenant-based obligation to keep the law of Moses (we are exempt from the law).

4. The “tens of thousands” of believing Jews referred to in Acts 21:20 were not members of the body of Christ, and Paul was not a member of the company of saints to which these believing Jews belonged.

In the body of Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. But for the Israel of God, circumcision remains essential to their identity as members of God's covenant people, and it will still be of importance even in the millennial kingdom (Ezek. 44:9).

Stephen Jones: “Such a view may admit that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant in His first coming, but it strongly suggests also that Jesus becomes the Mediator of the Old Covenant in His second coming.”

Stephen Jones’ belief that a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 36-48 would somehow make Jesus “the Mediator of the Old Covenant in His second coming” simply betrays Stephen’s own misunderstanding of what Israel’s relationship with God under the New Covenant will involve. Again, Ezekiel 36-48 is all about Israel’s eonian destiny under the New Covenant (which Christ, upon his return to earth to restore the kingdom to Israel, is going to put into effect). To imply that Jesus would “become the Mediator of the Old Covenant” by fulfilling God’s promises to Israel and bringing about everything prophesied in Ezekiel 36-48 is simply ridiculous. Stephen Jones is reading his own unscriptural beliefs about the New Covenant (and what it will involve for Israel in the eon to come) “in between the lines” of the book of Hebrews. Nothing written in the book of Hebrews contradicts a literal fulfillment of any prophecy concerning Israel’s expectation in the eon to come.

Stephen Jones: “There is hardly a doctrine that is more detrimental to the foundations of Christianity than this. It overthrows virtually all that Jesus accomplished on the Cross. It reverses virtually every major change that took place under the New Covenant that is described in the book of Hebrew. If this teaching were allowed to stand, the book of Hebrews would eventually be removed from the New Testament.”

There is nothing prophesied in Ezekiel 36-48 that “overthrows” anything Jesus accomplished on the cross, or that “reverses every major change that took place under the New Covenant that is described in the book of Hebrews.” The real contradiction is actually between what God has revealed concerning Israel’s eonian destiny under the New Covenant and Stephen Jones’ own erroneous views of the New Covenant and what Jesus accomplished on the cross.