The Israel of God, Part Two

As noted in the previous installment of this study, most Christians understand the “Israel of God” to which Paul referred in Gal. 6:16 to be just another reference to the Christian church. According to this view, the church/body of Christ is understood as being either (1) a company of (primarily Gentile) believers who have replaced Israel as the people of God, or (2) a continuation of the faithful believing remnant within Israel. Since the replacement of Israel with a predominantly Gentile body of believers (one in which ethnic distinctions are irrelevant) would imply that Israel has been “thrust away” by God (contrary to Paul’s words in Romans 11), we can therefore conclude that the body of Christ has not replaced Israel. But what about the view that the body of Christ is simply a continuation of the believers among God’s covenant people?

Despite seeming more “Israel-friendly,” the second view is nothing more than a re-packaged version of the more historical “replacement” view, and leads to the same unscriptural conclusion that Israel, as an ethnically distinct people in covenant with God, has been “thrust away” by God and has no future, prophesied role to play in his redemptive purpose for the earth. For what’s true of the company of saints that is (supposedly) a continuation of the believing remnant of Israel is so essentially and radically different from what’s true of Israel that it cannot legitimately be identified as a part of “Israel” at all. Or, to put it another way, that which must be true of the believing Jewish remnant in order for them to actually be members of God’s covenant people is in no way true of members of the body of Christ.

Consider, for example, the following logical argument:

1. In Paul’s day, the believers among God’s covenant people, Israel, had a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children and keep the law that God gave them.

 2. Members of the body of Christ have never had a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children or keep the law given to Israel.

3. The body of Christ is not (and never has been) a continuation of the believing remnant within Israel.

Most Christians who believe that the body of Christ is simply a continuation of the believing remnant within Israel would affirm the second premise. However, in order to avoid the logical conclusion of the argument, they would have to reject the first premise and argue that, in Paul’s day, believers among God’s covenant people no longer had a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children and keep the law given to them by God. This would imply that God’s covenantal relationship with Israel has been abrogated. But when did the believers among God’s covenant people – such as the “many tens of thousands” of believing Jews referred to by James in Acts 21:17-22 (and who, we’re told, were “all inherently zealous for the law”) – come to believe that their covenantal relationship with God had been terminated (and that they were no more “God’s people” than the Gentiles)? I submit that this never occurred, and that the believers among God’s covenant people never stopped believing that they had a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children and keep the law given to them by God.

In an attempt to avoid accepting the first premise of the above argument, some will appeal to what Peter declared at the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15:7-11). However, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/10/gods-covenant-people-response-to.html), nothing said by Peter on this occasion supports the view that Israel (and the believing Jewish remnant of which Peter, James and John were a part) no longer had a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children or keep the precepts of the law. Rather, everything Peter said at the meeting was based on what he’d previously learned through the events involving the salvation of Cornelius and his household (as described in Acts 10). What God had revealed to Peter was that certain people from among the nations could be saved apart from getting circumcised and keeping the precepts of the law. Which people from among the nations did Peter believe could be saved in this way? Here are Peter’s opening words to Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:34: “Of a truth I am grasping that God is not partial, but in every nation he who is fearing Him and acting righteously is acceptable to Him.” 

By “acceptable to Him,” Peter meant that, by virtue of their fear of God and righteous conduct in relation to God’s covenant people (conduct which we find specified in Acts 10:1-4, 22, 33), Cornelius and his household were eligible to enter the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel after Christ’s return to earth. In other words, Peter learned that God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles such as Cornelius and his household did not have to become members of God’s covenant people in order to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel. They could be saved (i.e., qualify for this eonian expectation) without having to lose their identity as Gentiles. However, what must be emphasized and kept in mind is the kind of Gentiles that Peter had come to believe could, through faith in the evangel he heralded, qualify for an eonian allotment in the kingdom of God. It was not just any Gentiles that Peter had come to believe could be saved. Rather, it was specifically those among the nations who, by virtue of the fact that they feared God and acted righteously, were “acceptable to God.”

Moreover, what Peter learned concerning the salvation of certain eligible Gentiles was a truth that had already been revealed (at least, implicitly) in Hebrew prophecy. That is, it had previously been revealed that, in the days when the new covenant is concluded with the “house of Israel” and “house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31) and God’s covenant people are saved and made to ”dwell securely…in their own land” (Jer. 23:5-8), there will be people from among the nations enjoying an allotment in the kingdom alongside God’s covenant people Israel. For example, in Ezekiel 47:21-23 we read that, during the eon to come, there will be people from among the nations who will get to enjoy an allotment in the land of Israel alongside the people of Israel: 

“This is how you will divide this land for yourselves among the tribes of Israel. You must allot it as an inheritance among yourselves and for the foreigners who reside among you, who have had children among you. You must treat them as native-born among the people of Israel; they will be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the foreigner resides, there you will give him his inheritance,” declares the Lord Yahweh.[1] 

In fact, at the very council in which Peter spoke in defense of the truth that Gentiles could be saved without losing their Gentile identity, James – in defense of what Peter declared – quoted another prophetic passage of Scripture in defense of this truth. Quoting from Amos 9:11-12, James proved that it was always in accord with God’s prophesied plan that people from among the nations would be saved and enjoy a share in Israel's expectation while remaining Gentiles (Acts 15:13-18). Although the prophecy from which James quotes makes a clear distinction between the saved nations and God’s covenant people (who, in Amos 9:14, are referred to by God as “my people Israel”), it’s clear that the Gentiles in view are going to be able to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom along with the people of God to whom the kingdom is going to be given (i.e., Israel).

Thus, even in those prophetic passages where it's clear that people from among the nations (of whom Cornelius and his house can be considered representatives) will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel, it's clear that God’s covenant people will retain their ethnic and covenantal identity during this time (an identity which, as already noted, involves a covenant-based obligation to circumcise their children and keep the law given to them by God). So it’s simply not the case that Peter learned that there was any change in his (or any other Israelite’s) covenantal status and relationship with God. The ability for God-fearing, righteous-acting Gentiles like Cornelius to enter the kingdom that’s going to be restored to Israel without becoming proselytes in no way made it irrelevant to actually be a member of the covenant people to whom the kingdom is going to be restored. In addition to the fact that Israelites will have an elevated status in the kingdom of God on earth (which will give them privileges that even saved Gentiles won’t have), it’s also the case that Cornelius’ eonian salvation is entirely dependent on the past and future existence of God’s covenant people. If God’s covenant people, Israel, permanently lost their covenantal identity (of which circumcision is the sign), Cornelius and his household would not be able to share in Israel’s eonian expectation. For it would be impossible for any Gentiles to share in the expectation of a covenant people whose covenant-based identity has been nullified by God, and whose covenant-based expectation is thus no more.

A response to (more) objections

According to what some members of the body of Christ have come to believe, every individual who could be referred to as a “saint” or a “believer” during the apostolic era (i.e., the period of time covered by the book of Acts) were members of that company of believers that Paul referred to as the body of Christ. According to this doctrinal position, believers among God’s covenant people, Israel, do NOT have a calling and expectation distinct from that which belongs to the body of Christ, Paul did NOT have two gospels in view in Gal. 2:7 (despite the grammatical evidence to the contrary), and believers in the body of Christ will NOT be enjoying their eonian life in the heavenly realm where Christ is presently located (despite Paul’s clear testimony to the contrary). With regard to the number of gospels there are/have been (as well as the destiny of God’s covenant people and the relation that they have to the body of Christ), the position to which these believers have come to hold is actually what most Christians in the world today believe (and have believed throughout “church history”). It is, in fact, the same position to which I held back when I was a church-going Christian (and to which I continued to hold for a number of years after I came to a realization of the truth of universal reconciliation and, shortly after, Paul’s evangel).

One believer who has come to hold to the position summarized above recently shared some thoughts in a Facebook post concerning why he no longer holds to the “two evangels” doctrinal position, and why he believes this position has “significant problems.” Although I have already responded to objections raised by this particular believer in another series of articles ( http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/10/revisiting-two-evangels-controversy.html), I believe the doctrinal position that this believer is criticizing is important enough to warrant a response to his more recent objections. The comments of the believer to whom I’ll be responding will be in red.

“Paul makes it very clear that fleshly distinctions are done away with. A “Jew” is a Jew inwardly. Physical Circumcision avails nothing. Paul argues VERY emphatically that faith and inclusion in Christ and who a Jew is and who Israel is has not one thing to do with genealogy or bloodline, but faith.”

What the objector is erroneously presupposing is that, in Paul's day, there were no believing Jews/Israelites outside of the body of Christ. He must believe this in order to maintain that “genealogy and bloodline” were irrelevant for all believers during the “Acts era.” However, we know there were believing Israelites before the body of Christ ever came into existence. For example, the twelve apostles belonged to a company of believers that predated the death and resurrection of Christ. In Luke 12:32, Christ referred to this company of believers as the “little flock.” This “little flock” – which, by the late 50’s A.D., had come to consist of “tens of thousands” of believing, law-keeping Jews (Acts 21:17-22) – was a company of believers that was constituted by those among God’s covenant people who had been called through the “evangel of the Circumcision,” and who had entered the “narrowed path” that Christ said is “leading away into life” (Matt. 7:13-14).

There is no good reason to believe that all of these believing Israelites became members of the body of Christ. Instead, most believing Jews remained members of the “Israel of God,” and have a covenant-based expectation that is in accord with what we find prophesied in, for example, Ezekiel 36-48 (which is the subject considered in my recent study on Israel's expectation: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-defense-of-israels-expectation-part.html). Thus, although Paul makes it crystal clear that fleshly and ethnic distinctions are done away with in the body of Christ (and argues emphatically that membership in this particular company of saints has nothing to do with ethnicity or covenant identity), the same cannot be said for the believing members of God’s covenant people that Paul referred to as the “remnant” and the “Israel of God.” Circumcision was (and still is) the sign of God’s covenant with Israel, and everything that God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:9-14 was just as true and authoritative during Paul’s day as it was when God first spoke these words to Abraham.

When the objector remarks that a Jew is “a Jew inwardly,” he is implying that members of the body of Christ are “Jews” (and thus comprise a “spiritual Israel”). However, in the immediate context of the verses to which the objector is alluding (i.e., Rom. 2:28-29), Paul was not even referring to believers in the body of Christ, or the eonian destiny of those in the body of Christ. The kind of person that Paul referred to as “the Jew” (whose “circumcision is of the heart, in spirit” and whose “applause is not of men but of God”) is someone whose eonian destiny is going to be based on his conduct, and whose justification is based on doing the law.

In Rom. 2:5-13 we read the following:

Yet, in accord with your hardness and unrepentant heart you are hoarding for yourself indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God, Who will be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those, indeed, who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption, life eonian; yet to those of faction and stubborn, indeed, as to the truth, yet persuaded to injustice, indignation and fury, affliction and distress, on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and of the Greek, yet glory and honor and peace to every worker of good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God, for whoever sinned without the law, without law also shall perish, and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged. For not the listeners to law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.

This passage concerns the judgment of people outside the body of Christ, and the criterion by which God will judge them “in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God.” God is going to give “life eonian” to those ”who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption.” Similarly, we’re told that, on this day of judgment, “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Remarkably, there are some who think that what Paul wrote in this passage is compatible with what Paul wrote elsewhere concerning the justification and salvation of those in the body of Christ. However, in complete contrast with everything Paul wrote about those he had in view throughout Romans 2, the eonian life of members of the body of Christ is not based on our conduct, and our justification is not based on being “doers of the law.” For example, in Rom. 3:28 Paul wrote that “we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law” (cf. Rom. 4:4-5 [cf. Rom. 11:6]; Eph. 2:4-9; 2 Tim. 1:8-11; Titus 3:3-7). Since the justification and eonian destiny of those in the body of Christ is not based on our conduct (or on our being “doers of the law”), it follows that anyone who thinks that what Paul wrote in Romans 2:28-29 is directly relevant to those in the body of Christ is necessarily mistaken.

One believer who does believe that what Paul wrote in Romans 2:28-29 is directly relevant to those in the body of Christ has attempted to reconcile Paul’s words in Rom. 2:13 with his words in Rom. 3:28. This believer has stated that the justification referred to by Paul in Rom. 3:28 and elsewhere is a justification that is “before Yahweh” and “according to His Law,” whereas the justification that is in view in Rom. 2:13 (and in James’ letter) is “about being justified before men, where the works that Yahweh brings forth in a man ‘show’ that his faith is genuine, and ‘show’ that Yahweh is working in him to bring forth fruits of righteousness, little by little.” However, this strained attempt at reconciling the differences between how justification is referred to by Paul in Rom. 2:13 and later in Rom. 3:28 is entirely inadequate.

Notice that, in contrast with the quoted words of the believer above, Paul did not say that the justification in view in Rom. 2:13 is one that is “before men,” or that the works in view simply show/manifest the fact that one’s “faith is genuine.” Rather, the justification in view (which will take place on the day of judgment to which Paul previously referred) is clearly said to involve being “just with God” and is based on being a doer of the law (i.e., it’s based on the works/acts of those who are going to be judged at this future time). And not only this, but it’s clear that “faith apart from works” has nothing at all to do with the justification of the human beings who are in view in this passage. Here, again, is the criterion by which Paul says people will be judged and – in some cases – justified at the time that Paul had in view:

“…Who will be paying each one in accord with his acts…”

“…who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honor and incorruption, life eonian…”

“…yet glory and honor and peace to every worker of good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek.”

Contrast the above excerpts from Romans 2:5-13 with the following from Romans 3:28 and 4:4-5:

“For we are reckoning a man to be justified by faith apart from works of law.”

“Now to the worker, the wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as a debt. Yet to him who is not working, yet is believing on Him who is justifying the irreverent, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.”

To claim that the justification Paul had in view in Rom. 2:13 is based on faith apart from works (i.e., faith alone) is just as absurd as claiming that the justification he had in view in Rom. 3:28 and Rom. 4:4-5 is based on faith that requires works/acts in order for one to be saved. Despite the claims of the objector to the contrary, the obvious differences between what is being said in these different chapters of Paul’s letter do not merely create an apparent contradiction. Rather, Paul was, in these two different chapters, describing how two different classes of people are justified and receive life eonian at two different times (and in two very different ways). In fact, I submit that Paul intended and expected his readers to appreciate the contrast when, after reading everything he wrote in chapter two (including that “the doers of the law shall be justified”), they finally arrived at the astounding truth introduced in chapter three (i.e., that sinners may be “justified gratuitously in [God’s] grace, through the deliverance which is in Christ Jesus,” and that this justification is received “by faith apart from works of law”).

In Rom. 2:17-29, Paul begins addressing an imaginary Jew who thinks rather highly of himself, and believes himself to be the “ideal Jew” (as Paul understood himself to be before his conversion). However, in the next few verses, Paul points out the hypocrisy of the imaginary Jew he’s addressing, and goes on to explain how circumcision is of no benefit to those who aren’t “maintaining the just requirements of the law.” According to Paul, the uncircumcision of Gentiles who are maintaining the just requirements of the law will be “reckoned for circumcision” (v. 26); that is, the righteous conduct of one who is uncircumcised will entitle him to the blessing of eonian life that is said to be “to the Jew first” (Rom. 2:7, 10). Such righteous Gentiles will, evidently, comprise the non-Jewish “sojourners” who, in the eon to come, will be “allocated an allotment in the midst of the tribes of Israel” (Ezek. 47:21-23). However, the circumcision of the law-transgressing Jew “becomes uncircumcision” in the sense that his lawless conduct makes him no different than those among the uncircumcised who are not maintaining the just requirements of the law (thus making him unworthy of the eonian blessing that is “to the Jew first”). 

We then come to the verses under consideration: 

“For not that which is apparent is the Jew, nor yet that which is apparent in flesh is circumcision; but that which is hidden is the Jew, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose applause is not of men, but of God.” 

When Paul referred to “the Jew” in these verses, it must be kept in mind that, in the immediate context, Paul is addressing a hypocritical Jew (vv. 17-24) who is not “putting law into practice,” and who “through letter and circumcision,” is a transgressor of law (v. 25-27). That is, Paul's focus in this section of his letter is on those who are already circumcised in the flesh. In accord with this fact, the heart-circumcision referred to in v. 29 is the sort of “circumcision” that God had long ago said that his covenant people needed in order to be pleasing to him (Deut. 10:12-16), and which he would do for them in the future (Deut. 30:6; cf. Ezek. 44:7-9). What Paul wrote earlier, in Rom. 2:13, should be kept in mind when reading verses 28-29: “For not the listeners of the law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified.” The “circumcision of the heart” that Paul had in mind is that which enables the physically circumcised to be “doers of law” and to be “maintaining the just requirements of the law.” It is these – and not those who are circumcised in flesh only – who will be justified and receive eonian life on the day when God “will be paying each one in accord with this acts.” 

Thus, rather than broadening the meaning of “Jew” to include Gentiles in Rom. 2:28-29, Paul was narrowing the meaning to include only those Jews whose hearts are circumcised, and whose “applause...is of God.” This narrower definition of “Jew” is in accord with Paul's later narrower definition of “Israel” in Rom. 9:6-8 (where Paul makes it clear that only those Jews who were “children of the promise” were being reckoned “for the seed” and would consequently be saved for the eons; cf. Rom. 9:27-29; 11:5-7). 

“Knoch (supposedly) translated the Concordant New Testament with a non-biased method of selecting one English word that is the equivalent for the one Greek word he was translating and not deviating from that. But, of course; he did deviate in instances in which the Greek word that he translated as “works” was used by Peter, James, or John, but when the SAME Greek word was used by Paul (as in his letter to Titus), Knoch renders that word as “deeds”, rather than “works”. Why did he do that? Because being “zealous for good works” as a member of the Body of Christ conflicts with his premise.”

The objector is, I believe, flat-out wrong that Paul’s exhortation for believers to be zealous for good works conflicts with what he calls Knoch’s “premise.” There is a huge difference between doing good works and being justified and saved on the basis of good works (or on the basis of faith + good works, as James clearly taught; see below). At the same time, I do wish that the translators of the CLNT had just consistently translated the Greek term “ergon” as either “works” or “acts.” What this translational inconsistency ends up doing is fueling skepticism among those who are already inclined to reject the truth of the two evangels (or, for those who already reject this truth, it leads to them being further cemented in their erroneous position). However, the believer who raised the above objection has, on another occasion, openly acknowledged that this particular translational inconsistency does not actually constitute an argument against the two evangels position, or against the view that righteous conduct serves a different purpose for those in the body of Christ than it does for “the Israel of God.” So I'm not sure why he would once again appeal to this point as if it somehow supported his view. It’s a complete red herring, and his continual appeal to it only serves to highlight how weak his overall position actually is.

In any event, what is far more relevant to the question of how many evangels there are (and whether all believing Jews in Paul’s day were in the body of Christ) is how the term ergon is actually used in Scripture in connection with the salvation of certain people. For example, we know that Paul revealed that the believers to whom he wrote are justified and saved apart from works. In contrast, works are said to be necessary to the justification and salvation of the believers among “the twelve tribes in the dispersion” to whom James wrote. Consider, for example, the following excerpts from chapter two of James’ letter (which was written anywhere between 20-30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ):

“What is the benefit, my brethren, if anyone should be saying he has faith, yet may have no works? That faith cannot save him.”

In the context, the salvation that James had in view is clearly that which is the result of being justified, and involves receiving eonian life. James is saying that one who has faith but no works is not justified, and will thus not be saved.

“Thus also, is faith, if it should not have works: it is dead by itself.”

According to James, it is not faith alone that saves. Faith without works is a “dead” faith; faith must be “perfected” by works in order to be a “living” faith that saves. This is evident from the next three quotations:

“Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar? You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected. And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now ‘Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness,’ and he was called ‘the friend of God.’”

“You see that by works a man is being justified, and not by faith only.”

“For even as the body apart from spirit is dead, thus also faith apart from works is dead.”

As should be clear to the reader, the sort of justification that James had in mind was based on faith and works. According to James, works were just as essential to the justification of the Israelites to whom he wrote as was faith; faith was understood as “working together” with a person’s works, and as thus “perfecting” one’s faith. This is in accord with what Christ taught during his earthly ministry. According to Christ, both faith and obedient, precept-keeping conduct were necessary in order for an Israelite to be saved and to enter the kingdom of God. Thus, a reasonable conclusion at which to arrive would be that Paul and James wrote to two different kinds of believers/companies of saints.

“Knoch and Zender love to talk about how Hebrews is written to physical Jews and Israelites. The problem with that is the word “Hebrew”. Abraham was neither a “Jew” or “Israelite”, but he was a Hebrew and he is the father of “many nations”.”

Actually, the term “Hebrew” is never used in Scripture to refer to Gentiles (nor was it used, as far as I know, in any ancient, extra-biblical writings to refer to Gentiles). Instead, “Hebrews” is the original name of Judeans. Concerning this fact, ancient Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews” (Josephus' Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Chapter 6, Paragraph 4). It was after the Hebrews came back to Judea from Babylon that they became known as “Judeans” (or “Jews”). When referring to his ethnicity/genealogy/bloodline, Paul referred to himself as “a Hebrew or Hebrews” in Phil. 3:5 (“...in circumcision the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews...”). In contrast, those in the body of Christ are “of Abraham’s seed” (and Abraham is our “father”) in a figurative sense (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_24.html). However, members of the body of Christ do not become “Hebrews” (not even in a figurative sense), and there is no verse in Scripture that suggests otherwise.

The objector went on to assert that the letter to the Hebrews ”…was written to any believer in Christ who was either being pressured (as a Gentile) to keep the law and Temple ordinance, or Jewish believers who wanted to go back to that.”

This is simply not true (and I believe a careful consideration of some of the “warning” passages from Hebrews will bear this out). While the letter to the Hebrews was written to believers, it was not written to those believers who, in Paul’s day, comprised the body of Christ. Instead, it was written to the believing members among God’s covenant people, Israel (i.e., those who were part of the “remnant” referred to by Paul in Romans 11, and who Paul understood as proof that God had not “thrust away his people”). And for those who belong to this category of saints, the procuring of eonian salvation (i.e., becoming enjoyers of the eonian allotment that pertains to Israel’s covenant-based expectation) is conditioned on a faith that necessarily expresses itself in obedience to Christ in order for it to qualify as “saving faith.”

In contrast with what Paul wrote concerning those in the body of Christ (whose eonian salvation cannot be lost or forfeited by anything we do or fail to do), the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote the following to the believing Jewish recipients of his letter:

“Therefore we must more exceedingly be heeding what is being heard, lest at some time we may be drifting by. For if the word spoken through messengers came to be confirmed, and every transgression and disobedience obtained a fair reward, how shall we be escaping when neglecting a salvation of such proportions which, obtaining a beginning through the speaking of the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who hear Him, God corroborating, both by signs and miracles and by various powerful deeds and partings of holy spirit, according to His will?” Hebrews 2:1-4

To what was the author referring when he said, “how shall we be escaping when neglecting a salvation of such proportions?” Answer: that from which those to whom he wrote were in need of escaping was the “much worse punishment” referred to later in Hebrews 10:26-31 (and which we’re told will involve “vengeance” from the Lord upon “His people,” and “a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy, about to be eating the hostile”). And the “salvation of such proportions” is the “allotment of salvation” referred to in Heb. 1:2 (which will be enjoyed on “the impending inhabited earth,” Heb. 2:5), and the “eonian salvation” that we’re told will be received by “all who are obeying [Christ]” (Heb. 5:9).

Echoing his warning from chapter 2, the author later warned the recipients of his letter as follows:

“Beware! You should not be refusing Him Who is speaking! For if those escaped not, refusing the One apprizing on earth, much rather we, who are turning from the One from the heavens, Whose voice then shakes the earth. Yet now He has promised, saying, Still once more shall I be quaking, not only the earth, but heaven also. Now the ‘Still once more’ is making evident the transference of that which is being shaken, as of that having been made, that what is not being shaken should be remaining. Wherefore, accepting an unshakable kingdom, we may have grace through which we may be offering divine service in a way well pleasing to God, with piety and dread, for our God is also a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:25-29

In this passage (as in Heb. 2:1-4), that from which those being addressed were in need of escaping was the indignation of God that is going to prepare the earth and its inhabitants for the “unshakable kingdom” that is in view in v. 28. And the salvation that will be given to those who heed the warnings found throughout the letter to the Hebrews will involve the enjoyment of an allotment in this future kingdom. In contrast with those who are members of the body of Christ (and whose justification and eonian salvation is not based on anything we do or don’t do), those to whom the author of Hebrews wrote were told that they comprised the “house” of Christ “IF [they] should be retaining the boldness and the glorying of the expectation confirmed unto the consummation” (Heb. 3:6). Note the conditional “if” of this verse. 

The author went on to warn the believing Israelites to whom he wrote as follows:

“Beware, brethren, lest at some time there shall be in any one of you a wicked heart of unbelief, in withdrawing from the living God. But entreat yourselves each day, until what is called ‘today,’ lest anyone of you may be hardened by the seduction of sin. For we have become partners of Christ, that is, if we should be retaining the beginning of the assumption confirmed unto the consummation, while it is being said, ‘Today, if ever His voice you should be hearing, You should not be hardening your hearts as in the embitterment.’”

Notice that developing a “wicked heart of unbelief” and “withdrawing from the living God” was understood by the author as the result of being “hardened by the seduction of sin” (which is the opposite condition referred to by the words, “retaining the beginning of the assumption confirmed unto the consummation”). Concerning what was in store for those believers who became “hardened by the seduction of sin” and consequently withdrew from the living God, the author went on to write the following in Heb. 6:4-8:

“For it is impossible for those once enlightened, besides tasting the celestial gratuity and becoming partakers of holy spirit, and tasting the ideal declaration of God, besides the powerful deeds of the impending eon, and falling aside, to be renewing them again to repentance while crucifying for themselves the Son of God again and holding Him up to infamy. For land which is drinking the shower coming often on it, and bringing forth herbage fit for those because of whom it is being farmed also, is partaking of blessing from God; yet, bringing forth thorns and star thistles, it is disqualified and near a curse, whose consummation is burning.”

The author was not warning unbelievers against “falling aside” and the fearful consequences that would follow from this. Rather, he was warning believers – i.e., those who, we’re told, had been “enlightened” (cf. Heb. 10:32). Moreover, even the more encouraging and optimistic remarks that follow these words of warning presuppose that the future salvation of those to whom this letter was written depended on their “work and the love which [they] display for His name when [they] serve the saints, and are serving” (which is precisely the kind of faith-perfecting works of love that James had in mind in chapter 2 of his letter). As if this doesn’t make it clear enough that their future salvation was based on works done in faith and not “faith only,” we find that their “assurance of the expectation” (i.e., enjoying the allotment of the promises) required “displaying the same diligence toward the assurance of the expectation until the consummation” (v. 11). And, from the context, it’s evident that this “diligence” involved doing the things which the author described in v. 10 (which, of course, involved works of love and not “faith only”).

In other words, those to whom the author wrote could have assurance that they would be saved at the consummation (i.e., at the return of Christ) if they faithfully continued doing what they had been doing – which meant being “imitators of those who through faith and patience are enjoying the allotment of the promises” (v. 12). But what was the author referring to by the word “patience” here (or, we might ask, patience doing what?)? Again, the context makes it clear what this “patience” referred to: “…displaying the same diligence toward the assurance of the expectation until the consummation.” If they were to be saved at the consummation, their faith required works just as their works required faith. Otherwise, they would find themselves facing the fearful fate described later in Heb. 10:24-31 (and which I quoted in part one).

“Knoch and Zender day that these “Hebrews” have no heavenly/celestial inheritance, yet you’ll find “celestial” used 6 times in the book of Hebrews to describe their expectation.”

This assertion misrepresents what both A.E. Knoch believed and what Martin Zender believes. Consider, for example, the following remarks on Hebrews 3:1 from A.E. Knoch’s commentary (where he makes it clear what he believes concerning the use of the term “celestial” in Hebrews): 

“It is not easy, in English, to distinguish between the celestial calling, here referred to, and the “calling above” (Phil. 3:14) of Paul’s latest revelation. That which is celestial as to location is often spoken of in Ephesians as our blessing among the celestials (1:3), His seat (1:20), our seat (2:6), the sovereignties and authorities (3:16), our conflict (6:12). This is in the dative case, which gives us the place in which anything is found. It occurs once in Hebrews (12:22). The genitive denotes source or character…the celestial calling [of Hebrews 3:1] is from the ascended Christ, not to heaven, but from heaven. We [those in the body of Christ] are called to heaven, the Hebrews are addressed from heaven.”

The number of times that the term “celestial” is used in the letter to the Hebrews (or in Paul’s letters to the body of Christ, for that matter) is really irrelevant. What is relevant is how the term was used by a certain writer, and what truth its use was intended to communicate to the reader. And in the letter to the Hebrews, the use of the term doesn’t communicate the idea that those to whom the letter was written will be enjoying their eonian life in the heavenly realm in which Christ is currently located. However, in Paul’s letters, this idea is being communicated. In Ephesians 1:20 Christ’s heavenly location is described by Paul as being “among the celestials” (cf. Heb. 8:1; 9:24). This heavenly realm “among the celestials” is also where the wicked spiritual beings with whom we “wrestle” are said to belong as well (Eph. 6:12). And it is also “among the celestials” that those in the body of Christ will be seated together with Christ “in the oncoming eons” (Eph. 2:6-8; cf. 1:3). Moreover, since it was in the heavens that Christ was located when Paul wrote to the saints in Corinth, we can conclude that it is also in the heavens – and not on the earth – that those to whom Paul wrote will be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6-9), and where each member of the body of Christ will be “manifested in front of the dais of Christ” (v. 10).

It is because the location of the kingdom for which those in the body of Christ are destined is celestial in location that we (who are presently “soilish” in nature) must come to wear “the image…of the Celestial,” and thereby become “celestials” (1 Cor. 15:48-49). Our mortal, “terrestrial” body must be transformed into a body that is fit for the realm where Christ, the Celestial One, resides and inherently belongs – i.e., the heavens (1 Cor. 15:47). In 2 Cor. 5:2, our glorified body is described as “our habitation which is out of heaven.” As in 1 Cor. 15:47 (where Christ is referred to as “the Lord out of heaven”), the term translated “out of” in this verse (ek) expresses the idea that, after we’ve come to wear Christ’s celestial image, the heavenly realm will be the place to which our glorified body will inherently belong. Hence, the future, vivified body that we in the body of Christ will possess after “the mortal may be swallowed up by life” is described as being “eonian, in the heavens.” (2 Cor. 5:1). In accord with this fact, we’re told by Paul that “our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Savior also” (Phil. 3:20), and that we have an “expectation reserved for [us] in the heavens” (Col. 1:5). 

The believer who shared the above objection concerning the use of the word “celestial” in Hebrews would actually agree with me that the expectation of those to whom this letter was written will involve enjoying eonian life on the earth. However, the earthly location of the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel is the only aspect of Israel’s prophesied, covenant-based expectation that this believer (and those who share his view) wants to preserve. Nearly every other prophesied aspect of the earthly kingdom that’s going to be established after Christ’s return to earth (such as, for example, everything we find described in Ezekiel 36-48) is conveniently explained away as allegorical. The reason that this believer is forced to allegorize much of unfulfilled Hebrew prophecy is simple, and could be explained as follows: much of what’s prophesied concerning the kingdom of God on earth is completely incompatible with “body of Christ truth,” and those believers who expect to be on earth during the eon to come are (understandably) uncomfortable with the idea of having to enjoy their eonian allotment in a kingdom that is distinctively and characteristically Jewish (and in which most members of the body of Christ would feel very out of place). Thus, rather than considering the possibility that they’re simply wrong about where they’re going to be enjoying their eonian allotment, they simply allegorize entire chapters of Hebrew prophecy so that they can continue to believe that the earth – and not the heavens – will be their eonian home.

“Finally, Zender makes a big deal about the difference in audiences between Paul’s and Peter’s letter. He says that Paul only wrote to the Body of Christ bit Peter only wrote to Jews, right? Well, if that’s the case; who was Peter writing to having to explain that Paul wrote some things that were hard to understand, and why would Paul have written to them?”

I can't speak for Martin Zender, of course, but the possibility that Paul wrote at least one letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote is perfectly consistent with the view that the Israelites to whom Peter wrote were not in the body of Christ. Peter’s words in 2 Pet. 3:14-16 (to which the objector was referring, above) do not require us to believe that Peter wrote to the same company of believers to whom Paul wrote his thirteen letters, or that everything written by Paul is just as applicable and relevant to those to whom Peter wrote as it was to the original recipients of Paul’s thirteen signed letters. The most that can be inferred from 1 Pet. 3:14-16 is that (1) Peter recognized that the wisdom given to Paul was manifested in all of his epistles, (2) Paul had, at some point, written a letter to the same company of believers to whom Peter wrote, and (3) the subject of this letter involved the apparent “delay” in God's ushering in “the day of the Lord,” and helped them better appreciate the interval of time in which they were living (which is, of course, the subject being considered in 2 Pet. 3:1-13). That’s it.

Some have speculated concerning which of Paul’s letters Peter might have been referring to (with some – such as MZ himself – believing that Paul was the anonymous author of the letter to the Hebrews, and that this was the letter to which Peter was referring). However, for all we know, it wasn’t God’s will for the letter to which Peter was referring to be included in the “canon of scripture” (which may not be the only case in which a letter referred to in scripture didn’t make it into our Bibles; some believe that, in 1 Cor. 5:9, Paul was referring to an earlier letter he wrote to the saints in Corinth). In any case, it’s illogical to believe that, because Paul wrote at least one letter to the believing Jews to whom Peter wrote, it necessarily follows that EVERY letter written by Peter and Paul was equally applicable and relevant to all saints everywhere, and that there are no essential doctrinal differences between their letters. In fact, the idea that all of Paul’s letters were written to and for those to whom Peter wrote is ruled out by the fact that Peter distinguished between what Paul had written to them and the rest of his letters (notice the words “also in all the epistles” in v. 16).

---

[1] As argued in part five of my study on Matthew 25:31-46 (click here), I believe the first generation of these righteous Gentiles (i.e., those who will be alive on the earth when Christ returns to earth) will constitute the “sheep” to whom Christ will be declaring, “Hither, blessed of My Father! Enjoy the allotment of the kingdom made ready for you from the disruption of the world” (Matt. 25:34).