According to the arrangement about which we read in Gal. 2:9, the apostle Paul and his co-laborer, Barnabas, were to be “for the nations” while James, Peter and John were to be “for the Circumcision.” “The nations” refers to people who belong to a nation besides the nation of Israel. In contrast, “the Circumcision” refers to the people of Israel (whose covenantal relationship with God is signified by circumcision). In accord with the arrangement referred to in Gal. 2:9, the apostle Paul is the only inspired writer who wrote to believers who could be referred to collectively as “the nations” (Rom. 1:13; 11:13, 25; 15:16, 18), and who comprised what Paul referred to in Rom. 16:4 as ”all the ecclesias of the nations.” Moreover, the believers who comprised these various “ecclesias of the nations” are the believers who, in Paul’s day, constituted that company of saints that Paul (and Paul alone) referred to as “the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 27; Rom. 12:4-5; cf. 1 Cor. 6:15-19; 10:16-17; 12:12-27) and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body” (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4, 12-16; 5:23-24, 30; Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15).
Now, in accord with the fact that there was, in fact, a separation between the ministry of Peter, James and John (who were “for the Circumcision”) and that of Paul and Barnabas (who were “for the nations”), we find that the letters of Peter, James and John were written exclusively to believers among “the Circumcision” (i.e., God’s covenant people, Israel). For example, we read that James wrote his letter “to the twelve tribes in the dispersion” (James 1:1). Similarly, Peter wrote “to the chosen expatriates of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia…” (1 Pet. 1:1). And in v. 7 of his third letter, the apostle John referred to “the nations” as a company of believers who were distinct from the saints on whose behalf he ministered. Although some have suggested that “the nations” to whom John made reference here were unbelievers, there’s no good reason to think that John – or any of the Jewish believers to whom he wrote – would’ve expected unbelieving Gentiles to provide financial assistance to any of the Jewish ecclesias. On the other hand, we know for a fact that, in accord with the agreement referred to by Paul in Gal. 2:10, the “ecclesias of the nations” to which Paul wrote had been doing just this (Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9:15).
But what about the letter to the Hebrews? Well, the very fact that the letter was written to people who identified as “Hebrews” can be understood as clear evidence that the author wrote to the same kind of believers to whom Peter, James and John wrote. We never once find the term “Hebrew” used in Scripture to refer to Gentiles (nor was it used, as far as I know, in this way in any ancient, extra-biblical writings). 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”). In accord with this fact, Paul – when referring to his Jewish ethnicity – referred to himself as being ”of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews...” (Phil. 3:5). Although there is a figurative sense in which all who are in the body of Christ can be considered “of Abraham’s seed” (and a sense in which Abraham can be considered our “father”), Paul never once referred to members of the body of Christ as “Hebrews” (even in a figurative sense).[1]
The ethnic identity of the recipients of the letter to the Hebrews is further confirmed from the fact that the recipients of the letter are implied to be those who were descendants of “the fathers” to whom God spoke “in the prophets” (Heb. 1:1). We further read that the recipients of this letter belonged to “the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). What we read in Hebrews 10:28-30 and 11:25 makes it clear that this is a reference to God’s covenant people, Israel (and not to believers among the nations). In these verses we read the following:
Anyone repudiating Moses’ law is dying without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, are you supposing, will he be counted worthy who tramples on the Son of God, and deems the blood of the covenant by which he is hallowed contaminating, and outrages the spirit of grace? For we are acquainted with Him Who is saying, Mine is vengeance! I will repay! the Lord is saying, and again, “The Lord will be judging His people.”
By faith Moses, becoming great, disowns the term “son of Pharaoh’s daughter,” preferring rather to be maltreated with the people of God than to have a temporary enjoyment of sin…
In the first passage, the author considered the recipients of his letter as belonging to the same group of people who are in view in the verse from which he was quoting (Deut. 32:36) – i.e., God’s covenant people, Israel. And in the second verse, “the people of God” with whom Moses preferred to be maltreated is another clear reference to Israel. Thus, when the author of the letter to the Hebrews referred to the recipients of his letter as belonging to “the people of God,” he was referring to the people to whom God was referring when he identified himself as “Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews” (Ex. 3:18; 5:1; 7:16).
Now, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, the eonian expectation of the company of saints to whom Peter, James, Jude, John and the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote is in accord with Israel’s covenant-based expectation, and will involve eonian life – i.e., life during the eons of Christ’s reign – in the kingdom that is going to be restored to Israel. In the fourth chapter of the letter to the Hebrews we read that a “stopping” (or “rest”) and “sabbatism” remains for Israel (“the people of God”) to enter into. In Hebrews 4:8-11 we read the following:
For, if Joshua causes them to stop, He would not have spoken concerning another day after these things. Consequently a sabbatism is left for the people of God. For he who is entering into His stopping, he also stops from his works even as God from His own. We should be endeavoring, then, to be entering into that stopping, lest anyone should be falling into the same example of stubbornness.
To what does this “stopping” and “sabbatism” refer? The term translated “sabbatism” in v. 9 is the noun “sabbatismos,” and is derived from the cognate verb “sabbatizo.” This latter term is found in the Septuagint translation of several verses (e.g., Ex. 16:30; Lev. 23:32; 26:34; 2 Chron. 36:21), and means “to observe/keep the Sabbath.” Insofar as this is the case, the noun sabbatismos can be understood to mean, “a Sabbath-observance” or “a Sabbath-keeping period.”
We know that this “stopping” and “sabbatism” was not a present, fulfilled reality for those to whom the letter to the Hebrews was written. Rather, it was something into which the recipients of this letter expected to enter at a future time. Based on what we read elsewhere in this letter, the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 should be understood as the period of time following Christ’s return to earth (Heb. 9:28; 10:25, 35-39), when – in accord with Daniel 7:18 and Acts 1:6 – the kingdom is restored to Israel (Heb. 12:28; cf. Luke 21:27-31). It is at this time that the new covenant will be concluded “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:1-13), and those constituting what Paul referred to as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) and “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26-27) will be receiving “eonian salvation” (Heb. 5:8-10), and “obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” (Heb. 9:15-17; cf. 11-12).
Until this time of eonian salvation arrives, the believing Jewish brethren to whom the author wrote had reason to “Beware, 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…” (Heb. 3:12-15). However, after Christ returns and the saints receive the kingdom, the exhortations and warnings with which the letter to the Hebrews abounds (e.g., Heb. 2:1-3; 3:7-4:1; 5:11-6:20; 10:26-39; 12:14-29) will no longer be needed. Their eonian salvation will, at this time, be an experienced reality rather than an expectation that requires obedience, diligence, patience and endurance “unto the consummation.” No longer will such diligence and patience in avoiding and “contending against sin” (12:4) be necessary, since they will have been saved and will be enjoying their deserved “stopping.”
Moreover, since all Sabbaths are preceded by six equal periods of time (Ex. 20:8-11; 23:10-11; Lev. 25:4), it’s reasonable to believe that the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 is a future period of time that will also be preceded by six equal periods of time. But how long is the “sabbatism” referred to in Heb. 4:9 going to last? Answer: In Daniel 7:27 we read that, after Christ returns to earth and establishes the kingdom of God on the earth, the kingdom “shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” And in Revelation 5:10 and 20:4-6, it’s revealed that those who are going to be reigning on the earth with Christ will be reigning as kings and priests for “a thousand years.” Thus, the “sabbatism” in view in Heb. 4:9 is going to be a thousand years in duration, and will be preceded by six equal periods of time (i.e., 6,000 years).
Now, among the features of Israel’s expectation during the coming “sabbatism” will be living in the land that God has promised them (the boundaries of which are specified in Numbers 34:1-15; cf. Ezekiel 47:13-48:29), a magnificent temple/sanctuary (which we find described in great detail in Ezekiel 40-43), and a capital city (which is referred to by John as “the beloved city” in Rev. 20:9, and as “Jerusalem” elsewhere in prophecy; see Isaiah 2:1-4; 30:19; 33:20; 52:1-2; Jer. 3:17; 30:18-20; Zech. 8:22; 14:4-21). Concerning the city of Jerusalem during the eon to come, we’re told in Ez. 48:30-35 that the gates of this city will be “named after the tribes of Israel,” and that its circumference “shall be 18,000 cubits.”
As impressive as the future capital of Israel during the eon to come is undoubtedly going to be, however, this city is not going to be the final eonian home of the saints among God’s covenant people. Instead, the city in which the saints are going to be enjoying their eonian life during the final and greatest eon of Christ’s reign is that which Christ referred to as “the city of My God, new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God” (Rev. 3:12). And unlike the “beloved city” referred to by John in Rev. 20:9 (which, along with Israel’s final temple, will apparently be designed and constructed by the people of Israel at some point after Christ has returned to earth), God himself is said to be the Artificer and Architect of New Jerusalem. In Hebrews 11:8-10 we read the following:
“By faith Abraham, being called, obeys, coming out into the place which he was about to obtain to enjoy as an allotment, and came out, not versed in where he is coming. By faith he sojourns in the land of promise as in an alien land, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise. For he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God.”
Although Abraham – by virtue of the faith that he had in God while still “in uncircumcision” – can be considered “the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision” (Rom. 4:1-12, 16-17), it’s equally true that Abraham is the one to whom God gave “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8). Contrary to the belief of most Christians (and even some believers), this covenant has not been abrogated by God. And by virtue of this covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants (i.e., Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel), Abraham’s expectation is inseparable from that which belongs to God’s covenant people, Israel. Thus, the city that we’re told God “makes ready” for those referred to as “joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise” (Heb. 11:9) is a city for those whose identity and relationship with God is inseparable from the covenants that belong distinctly to Israel (as opposed to “the nations”).
Now, in accord with the words of Christ in Rev. 3:12, we read that John – after having perceived “a new heaven and a new earth” – perceived “the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:1-2). John went on to describe the beautiful and awe-inspiring appearance and dimensions of this magnificent city in detail. We also read that God is going to sit enthroned within this city during the final eon, and will thus be illuminating it by his glory (Rev. 21:22-23; 22:1-5). Most relevant to the subject of this study is what we’re told concerning the gates of this city. In Rev. 21:12-13 we read the following:
“It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed–on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.”
Just as will be the case with the gates of Israel’s capital during the next eon (Ez. 48:30-35), the gates of New Jerusalem will also be named after the twelve tribes of Israel (meaning that no one will be able to enter the city except through a gate that has one of the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed on it). This fact tells us who the people are for whom the city has been designed. Just like the “beloved city” that will exist on earth during the next eon, New Jerusalem is a city that will be distinctly for the saints who belong to God’s covenant people, Israel. In fact, the clear implication of what we read in Rev. 21:23-26 is that, in contrast with the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel, “the nations” who will be blessed to dwell on the new earth during the final eon will not be dwelling within New Jerusalem:
“And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon, that they should be appearing in it, for the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lambkin. And the nations shall be walking by means of its light, and the kings of the earth are carrying their glory into it. And its portals should under no circumstances be locked by day; for there shall be no night there. And they shall be carrying the glory and the honor of the nations into it, and under no circumstances may anything contaminating, or one who is making an abomination and a lie be entering into it, except those written in the Lambkin's scroll of life.”
According to what we read above, the nations will, during this time, be paying tribute to those within the city. And the fact that the “glory and honor of the nations” is something that “the kings of the earth” will be bringing “into” New Jerusalem indicates that the nations themselves will not be dwelling within the city (and that the words “walking by means of its light” refers to the nations’ activity and experience outside of the city). Thus, although the nations will, during this time, enjoy the blessing that’s expressed in the words, “walking by means of its light,” the city of New Jerusalem will not be “for” them in the same sense that it will be for those who are of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
It’s also worth noting what names will appear on the twelve foundations of the city. In Rev. 21:14 we read, “And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin.” If the apostle Paul were part of the same company of saints to which the twelve apostles belonged (and had the same calling and expectation as they have), the omission of Paul’s name from the foundations of New Jerusalem would be inexplicable. But just like there will be no need for a thirteenth apostle to judge the twelve tribes of Israel during the eon to come (Matt. 19:28), so New Jerusalem has no need for a thirteenth foundation with Paul’s name on it. Paul – who repudiated his past covenant standing after becoming a member of the body of Christ (Phil. 3:4-8) – simply does not belong there, and we should not try to force him (or the rest of the saints in the body of Christ) into this expectation.
Thus, New Jerusalem (and the blessing and privilege of getting to dwell in this city during the final eon of Christ’s reign) is clearly a continuation of Israel’s covenant-based expectation. But if the expectation revealed in the letter to the Hebrews is one that will involve living and reigning on what the author referred to as “the impending earth” (Heb. 2:5), then how are we to understand the author’s words in Heb. 3:1, 6:4, 11:13-16 and 12:22? In these verses, we read that the recipients of this letter were “partners of a celestial calling,” that they tasted “the celestial gratuity,” and that they were looking forward to a “celestial country” that is later referred to as “the city of the living God, celestial Jerusalem.”
Concerning the use of the term “celestial” in Hebrews 3:1, A.E. Knoch provided the following remarks on page 383 of his Concordant Commentary of the New Testament:
“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.”
As is implied by Knoch’s remarks, every occurrence of the term “celestial” in the letter to the Hebrews – with the sole exception of its use in Heb. 12:22 – is in the genitive case (which, as Knoch notes, “denotes source or character”). And not all that is celestial in character (or source) need be understood as celestial in location (although anything celestial in location is also celestial in character – and can thus be referred to as such). Thus, those who we’re told tasted “the celestial gratuity” (Heb. 6:4) didn’t taste a gift that was up in heaven (for they were on the earth when they “tasted” it). Rather, they tasted a gift that was celestial in its source and character.
With regard to the expression “celestial Jerusalem” in Heb. 12:22, this is, of course, a reference to New Jerusalem. Since this city is now located in heaven, it is referred to as “celestial” in a locational sense (in accord with the use of the dative case). But we know that heaven is not going to be the location of New Jerusalem during the final eon of Christ’s reign. After the creation of the new heaven and new earth, this city is going to be ”descending out of heaven from God.” And after it has descended from heaven (and thereby becomes the home of those who will be dwelling there during the last eon of Christ's reign), it will cease to be celestial in a locational sense; any sense in which it could be considered “celestial” after it has descended out of heaven will be with regard to its character and/or source.
For part two of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/02/why-new-jerusalem-is-not-our-future_11.html
[1] For the meaning of the figurative sense in which members of the body of Christ are “of Abraham’s seed,” see the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_24.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment