A Defense of the Reality of Christ’s Death

Introduction

In a recent exchange on Facebook between a believer I know and a Christian friend of this believer, the believer’s friend wrote the following concerning what he believed (emphasis mine): 

“Only God is eternal past, present, and in the future. Man (as I understand, is a soul that never dies) is eternal now and in the future.” 

According to the belief affirmed by the believer’s friend (which has been commonly-held among Christians throughout most of “church history”), every human being is an “immortal soul” that, although temporarily residing within a mortal body, never dies. Rather than dying, people are thought to simply leave their lifeless bodies and continue to consciously exist somewhere else.

Of course, if it’s true that every human being is “an eternal soul that never dies,” then this would necessarily include Jesus Christ. And this would mean that Jesus Christ never died. 

Thus, if one believes that every human being is “an eternal soul that never dies,” then one cannot, at the same time, also believe that Christ died (despite what one may profess to believe). At most, anyone who believes that every human is an eternal soul “that never dies” can only affirm that it was Christ’s body (and not Christ himself) that “died for our sins.” But this, of course, flies in the face of the straightforward scriptural fact that Christ died for our sins. And not only this, but it flies in the face of the equally-clear scriptural fact that Christ (and not “merely” his body) was entombed and subsequently roused from the dead. Consider, for example, the following words that a celestial messenger declared to the women who came to the tomb where Christ had been placed after his death:

“Fear you not! For I am aware that you are seeking Jesus, the Crucified. He is not here, for He was roused, according as He said. Hither! Perceive the place where the Lord lay. And, swiftly going, say to His disciples that He was roused from the dead, and lo! He is preceding you into Galilee. There you will see Him. Lo! I told you!” (Matthew 28:5-7)

According to the messenger, it was Christ (“the Lord”) – and not just his body – who lay in the tomb. In other words, the lifeless body that occupied the tomb prior to Christ’s resurrection was, during this time, all that remained of Christ. 

In accord with this fact, when Paul reminded the saints in Corinth of the essential elements of the evangel he’d brought to them, he included the related historical fact that Christ “was entombed” (1 Cor. 15:4; cf. Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; Matt. 26:12; John 12:7). I believe this fact concerning Christ contradicts what most Christians believe concerning Christ’s death and resurrection. Not only does Paul’s inclusion of the fact of Christ’s entombment emphasize the fact that Christ died and remained lifeless for three days, it also serves to shed light on what it means for Christ to have died. The fact that Christ is said to have been entombed means, at the very least, that Christ’s body was an essential part of him.

We know that, when Christ died, his spirit returned to God (Luke 23:46). However, it’s significant that Christ is always said to have been wherever his dead body was between the time of his death and resurrection, and never where his spirit went (Matt. 12:40; John 19:33, 40, 42; Acts 2:39, 13:29; cf. John 11:17, 43-44). Although this doesn’t mean that Christ’s spirit isn’t also essential to his existence (I believe that it is), it does mean that Christ’s body was (and is) no less essential to his existence as a living being than is his spirit.

Now, all Christians will agree that Christ’s body was entombed. However, like the friend of the believer who I quoted above, the vast majority of Christians also believe that all humans – including Christ himself – are immortal souls who continue to exist in a “disembodied state” after their body dies. In fact, most Christians actually hold to two beliefs that are completely incompatible with the truth that Christ died. In addition to believing in the “immortality of the soul,” most Christians also hold to the doctrine of the “deity of Christ.” According to this belief, Jesus Christ is the same eternal being (or is a person who possesses the same eternal essence/nature) as the One whom Christ referred to as “the only true God” in John 17:3 (i.e., the Father), and is thus just as immortal in his “divine essence” as the Father himself.

According to both of these doctrinal positions affirmed by the majority of Christians, Christ himself never really died. Rather, it’s believed that, during the time of his body’s entombment, Christ himself was present somewhere that his dead body was not. In my article “Paul’s Gospel and the Death-Denying Doctrines that Contradict It” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/11/pauls-gospel-and-death-denying.html), I shared some reasons why I believe the mainstream Christian view is wrong, and responded to a few of the verses that are commonly believed to support it. What I want to do in this article is further defend the truth that Christ was, in fact, dead (i.e., lifeless) between the time of his death on the cross and his resurrection on the third day.

“You will not abandon my soul to Hades”

Among the verses that are sometimes appealed to by Christians in support of their belief that Christ existed in a conscious, “disembodied state” during the time of his entombment are those in which we’re told that Christ’s “soul” was in “Hades.” In Acts 2:25-31 (ESV), we read that the apostle Peter – while addressing a large crowd of Israelites on Pentecost – quoted Psalm 16:8-11 as follows:

25 For David says concerning him,

“‘I saw the Lord always before me,

    for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;

²⁶ therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;

    my flesh also will dwell in hope.

²⁷ For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,

    or let your Holy One see corruption.

²⁸ You have made known to me the paths of life;

    you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’

Peter went on to explain that this prophecy was fulfilled through the resurrection of Christ:

28 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, ³¹ he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

The Greek term translated “soul” in v. 23 is “psuche,” and is the inspired Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term “nephesh” (which is the original term that appears in Psalm 16:10). Based on how these two terms are consistently used throughout Scripture, I believe we can understand them to denote the sentience of living beings – that is, their sensation (broadly speaking) or sensory experience (Gen 1:30; 19:17; 35:18; Ex 4:19; 21:23; Lev 17:11-14; 1Sam 22:23; Job 12:10; Esther 7:7; Prov. 12:10; Jonah 4:3), or the seat of the desires and sensations of sentient beings (Ex. 15:9; Deut. 23:24; 2 Kings 4:27; Ps 27:12; Prov. 6:30, 23:2; Eccl 6:7, 9; Jer. 22:27; Micah 7:3; Zech. 11:8; Hab. 2:5). By extension, the terms were also frequently used to denote any being that has (or had) sentience/a capacity for sensory experience (Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25; 2:7; cf. Rev. 16:3). 

Genesis 35:18 is a good example of the first (and most basic) meaning of nephesh (or “soul”): “And as Rachel’s soul [nephesh] was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.” Notice that we’re not told that Rachel was departing at this time (which would’ve been the case if, in accord with what most Christians believe, people are actually “immortal souls” who leave their bodies when their bodies die). Rather, we are told that something (i.e., Rachel’s nephesh) was departing from her. And after it departed, we then read (vv. 19-20), “So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), and Jacob set up a pillar over her tomb.”

It is evident from these verses that Rachel was not thought to be that which was departing from her as she was dying. Rather, Rachel was understood to be wherever her body was, and not where her “soul” went after it departed. This fact tells us that Rachel’s existence was not separable from her body. When Rachel’s body died, Rachel died, and when Rachel’s body was buried, Rachel was buried. So what was the nephesh or “soul” that was said to be departing from Rachel as she was dying? Answer: it was simply Rachel’s sentience (her capacity for sensation/sensory awareness) that was “departing” from her.

According to the second Scriptural usage of the words translated “soul,” the words refer to that which is (or which was, when alive) in possession of sentience – i.e., a physical, embodied being, whether human or animal (see, for example, Acts 2:41-43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; Rom. 2:9; 13:1; 1 Cor. 15:45; James 5:20; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:14; Revelation 18:13). In Lev. 5:1-4, a soul (nephash) can see, hear, touch and speak with lips. In Deut. 14:26, it is said that souls can hunger and thirst. In Jer. 2:34, souls are said to have blood. In Lev. 7:20-27, it is said that souls can eat and be killed. Frequently, the Law of Moses commanded that any soul which disobeyed certain laws should be “cut off” or killed (e.g. Ex 31:14; Lev 17:10; 19:8; 20:6; Num. 15:27-31). Through the prophet Ezekiel, God warned the Israelites that “the soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. James 5:20). We are further told that souls can be strangled or snared (Prov. 18:7; 22:25; Job 7:15), torn to pieces by lions (Psalm 7:2) or utterly destroyed by the sword (Lev. 23:30; Josh. 10:30-39; 11:11; Ezek. 22:27; Prov. 6:32). 

Because the words translated “soul” commonly denote a breathing, sentient creature when human persons are in view, it is frequently used interchangeably with the human “self.” Hence, the term is often employed emphatically to refer to the human persons themselves. For example, in Psalm 89:48 it’s rhetorically asked, “What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of the grave?” The expression “his soul” here means “himself.” Similarly, Job’s statement, “My soul is weary of life” (Job 10:1) was simply an emphatic way of saying “I am weary of life.” When Samson declared, “Let my soul die with the Philistines” (Judges 16:30), it was an emphatic way of saying, “Let me die with the Philistines.” And when the prophet Jeremiah declared, “They have dug a pit for my soul” (Jer. 18:20), this was an emphatic way of saying, “They have dug a pit for me.”

Thus, when we read the expression “my soul” in Psalm 16:10 (“you will not abandon my soul to Hades,”), we can understand it as an emphatic way of saying, “me.” But what, exactly, is “Hades?” The term translated “Hades” in Acts 2:27, 31 (as well as in the LXX translation of Psalm 16:10) is the inspired Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Sheol” (she'ohl'). Based on how this word is consistently used in the Hebrew Scriptures, I believe it can be reasonably inferred that Sheol (and thus Hades, its inspired equivalent) simply denotes “the grave” in a general sense (i.e., the domain of the dead). That is, it refers to wherever the dead reside and return to the dust of the earth (Job 17:16), whether this takes place in a keber (a tomb or place of burial; Gen 23:7-9; Jer. 8:1; 26:23) or elsewhere (Gen. 37:35; Isa 14:9, 11, 15, 19).

That Hades/Sheol refers to wherever the dead reside is especially evident from the fact that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the physical remains and belongings of those who have died are said to be in Sheol. We read, for example, of gray hairs as being in Sheol (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31), gray heads (1 Kings 2:6, 9), bones (Psalm 141:7; Ezekiel 32:27), material possessions (Numbers 16:32-33), and swords and other weapons of war (Ezekiel 32:27). Worms and maggots are also spoken of as if present in Sheol (Job 17:13-14; 24:19-20; Isaiah 14:11; cf. Job 21:23-26). Even sheep are referred to as being “appointed for Sheol” (Psalm 49:14). And it is noteworthy that Korah and his company were said to go down to Sheol “alive.” This would make no sense if Sheol denoted a realm of “disembodied spirits.” However, when Sheol is understood to denote the domain of the dead, what we’re told in Numbers 16:32-33 makes perfect sense. Korah and his company simply went down alive to the place where their corpses ended up residing (and where they ultimately returned to dust). Although their resting place was much deeper in the earth than most other places of burial, they were in Sheol, nonetheless.

Because burial was the typical way in which the Hebrews disposed of their dead, Sheol is appropriately described as being beneath the surface of the earth (Ps. 63:9; 86:13; Prov. 15:24; Isa. 7:11; 57:9; Ezek. 26:20; 31:14; 32:18; Prov. 15:24). The dead descend or are made to go down into Sheol, while the revived are represented as ascending or being brought and lifted up from it (1 Sam. 2:6; Job 7:9; Ps. 30:4; Isa. 14:11, 15). And like the caves and other burial places used by the ancient Hebrews, Sheol is described as a place with gates (Job 17:16, 38:17; Isa. 38.10; Ps. 9:14) and as having a “mouth” or place of entrance: “As when one plows and breaks up the earth, so shall our bones be scattered at the mouth of Sheol” (Ps. 141:7). Sheol is also described as marking the point of greatest possible distance that humans could be from the heavens (Job 11:8; Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8) – hence the expressions “depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; Prov. 9:18) and “depths of the pit” (Ps. 88:6; Lam. 3:55; Ezek. 26:20, 32:24), which denotes the lowest possible places of burial.

Sheol (i.e., the grave in a general sense) is further described as a place of silence (Ps. 3:17, 6:6, 30:10, 88:13, 94:17, 115:17). It is called the “land of forgetfulness” (Ps. 88:12), where all who reside there are without any memory of the past, as well as forgotten by the living (Ps. 31:12). In Job 40:12-13 we read that God declared, “Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below.” Here “the world below” (literally, “the hidden places”) undoubtedly refers to Sheol, and (as elsewhere) is associated with “dust.” Job referred to this silent resting place of the dead as “the land of darkness and the shadow of death: a land of darkness as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death, without any order; and where the light is as darkness” (Job 10:20-22; see also Ps. 88:12; Job 3:5, 16; 12:21-22; 17:13; 1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 44:19, 107:10, 14, where similar statements are made). This is, of course, fitting imagery if Sheol refers to those darkened places concealed from mortal eyes where corpses return to dust. 

In accord with all of the verses referenced and quoted above, Sheol is also described as a state of corruption and destruction (see Job 26:6, 28:22; Ps. 88:11, 16:10; Job 4:18-20; Ps. 49:9-20; Prov. 15:11, 27:20; Acts 13:26) where one’s form is said to be “consumed” (Ps 49:14). As noted earlier, David prophesied that God would not abandon the Messiah’s soul (i.e., the Messiah himself) in Sheol/Hades, or let him see corruption (Psalm 16:10; cf. Acts 2:27). Since David was employing Hebrew parallelism here (i.e., where the writer expresses the same thought in slightly different words), it follows that for God to abandon Christ in Sheol would mean to let him “see corruption” (which is a reference to Christ’s body, which would have begun to decompose had God not preserved it and then roused his Son from among the dead on the third day).

In Ecclesiastes 12:5, Solomon tells us that, at death, “man goes to his age-abiding home.” This is undoubtedly another reference to Sheol. Previously he had declared, “All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again” (Eccles 3:20). And since, as a matter of course, death naturally comes to all, Sheol is appropriately referred to as “the appointed house for all the living” (Job 30:23; 17:13; Eccl. 11:5). It is here that the dead meet (Ezek. 32; Job 30:23) and rest from their earthly toil in silence without distinction of rank or condition – the rich and the poor, the pious and the wicked, the old and the young, the master and the slave (Job 3:11-19; cf. Isa. 57:2). 

In accord with the fact that Sheol is occupied by the physical remains of those who have died (i.e., corpses), it’s affirmed elsewhere that those in Sheol are in a state of utter oblivion:

“Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” (Eccl 9:10).

“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who can give you praise?” (Psalm 6:5)

“For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness” (Isaiah 38:18).

Moreover, keeping in mind that Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, the same inspired truth would be communicated if we replaced the term “Sheol” with “Hades” in these verses:

“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Hades, to which you are going.” 

“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Hades who can give you praise?” 

“For Hades cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.”

Thus, while Christ was in “Hades” (or “Sheol”) during the time between his death on the cross and his resurrection three days later, Christ could not think or know anything. He could neither remember his God and Father nor praise his God and Father. Although Christ undoubtedly trusted in God’s faithfulness before he died, he was unable to do so while he was dead.

Christ was once among “those who are reposing”

In 1 Corinthians 15:20 Paul wrote, “Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing [or “those who sleep”].”

The figurative “sleep” imagery used by Paul in this verse is fairly common among the inspired writers of Scripture (see, for example, Deut. 31:16; 2 Sam 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 15:8; 1Kings 15:24; 2 Chron. 28:27; 2 Chron. 33:20; Job 3:13; 7:21; 14:21; Ps 13:3; 17:15; 76:5; 90:3-6; Jer. 51:39; Isa. 26:14; Dan. 12:2; Matt 9:24-25; Matt. 27:52; John 11:11–14; Acts 7:59–62; Acts 13:36; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 Cor. 15:6, 16-18, 20, 32, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13–16; 5:10; 2 Pet 3:4). To better understand this figurative language, let’s consider Job 14:10-12. In these verses we read the following:

“But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep.”

Notice that it is “man” who, in death, is figuratively spoken of as if he were asleep and in need of being “roused.” Similarly, in Daniel 12:2 we read, “From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion” (CVOT). Here, the “sleep” metaphor obviously applies to that which returns to “the soil of the ground” – i.e., the human body. And since it is human persons who are said to “sleep” after they die, then it can be reasonably inferred that our body is essential to our existence and personal identity. In other words, the lifeless body that returns to the “the soil of the ground” after a human being dies is, in a very real sense, the remains of the individual who died. And this means that those who have died are no more conscious than their lifeless, physical remains.

It’s likely that the dead began to be figuratively described as if they were “asleep” (or “reposing”) because of the close resemblance between the appearance of the recently deceased and those who are asleep. Because those who have died appear, to the living, as if they’re sleeping, it was only natural that sleep-related terms begin to be used in reference to death and those who have died. In any event, it must be kept in mind that this figurative language presupposes that what can be observed after a person dies (i.e., the lifeless body) is the remains of the person who once lived. And this means that the person who died cannot be considered any more alive than the person’s lifeless body.

Among those who believe that the dead are not really dead (and that those who have “died” remain conscious in a “disembodied state”), some have argued that the Greek word translated “reposing” in 1 Cor. 15:23 (koimao) does not necessarily mean that those who have died are unconscious. Rather, it’s argued that the term koimao can simply denote a state of rest from labour and troubles. It’s further suggested that the Greek word “hupnos” would be more appropriate if Paul had wanted to convey the idea that the dead are unconscious. In response to this view, it must be kept in mind that those to whom the term koimao is being figuratively applied by Paul are dead. Thus, however one understands the term koimao when figuratively used in reference to those who have died, the use of the term must be consistent with what Scripture elsewhere reveals concerning the state of the dead. And according to what is revealed elsewhere, those who have died are not engaged in any kind of conscious activity (Eccl. 9:5, 10; Psalm 6:5; 88:11-12; 115:17; 146:4; Isaiah 38:18). 

But what, then, about the word koimao? The fact is that this word can and does apply just as naturally to a state of unconsciousness as the word hupnos. In the LXX, for example, the word koimao was used to convey the same meaning of “sleep” as hupnos (e.g., Judges 16:14, 19, 20; 1 Kings 19:5; Ps 3:5; 4:8; 13:3; Prov. 4:16). Job 14:12 is especially relevant, for in this verse both koimao and hupnos were used in reference to the “sleep” of the dead. In Psalm 13:3 hupnos is used in the expression “sleep of death,” and in Psalm 76:5 the word appears yet again in reference to death. The same goes for Jer. 51:39 (“sleep a perpetual sleep”). Moreover, in the Greek Scriptures, koimao seems to have been used and understood to convey the same general meaning as hupnos. For example, in Matt. 28:13, we read that the unbelieving chief priests said the following to the Roman soldiers who were guarding Jesus’ tomb: “Say that ‘His disciples, coming by night, steal him as we are reposing’” (cf. Luke 22:45 and Acts 12:6). It would be pretty strange if, in this verse, the term koimao (translated “reposing”) didn't denote an unconscious sleep! Consider also John 11:11-12, where we read the following:

After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep [koimaō], but I go to awaken him [exupnizō, “to awake out of sleep”].” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep [koimaō], he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest [koimēsis] in sleep [hupnos].

Notice that when Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus had “fallen asleep” (koimaō) they thought he was talking about literal sleep (hupnos). Jesus then has to tell them plainly that Lazarus was dead (and when he spoke of “Lazarus,” Christ was clearly talking about the dead occupant of the tomb who he was soon to visit, not an “immortal soul” that was relaxing somewhere in a conscious state of existence). So while it’s true that the term hupnos is the more specific word for “sleep,” koimao was often used to communicate the same meaning. And when applied to the dead, it can be understood as carrying the same idea (since those who are dead appear to the living to be “resting” or “reposing” in a state of sleep).

Thus, while the word koimao doesn’t, by itself, necessarily suggest an unconscious state (as does hupnos), it is completely consistent with it. And there is good reason to believe that an unconscious state is implied by this word when used in reference to those who are dead. While in a state of death, the dead are “reposing” in the sense that they are no longer engaged in conscious thought or vital activity, as are the living. Any objection that the scriptural metaphor of sleep refers “only” to our physical bodies presupposes an erroneous (and unscriptural) understanding of human nature.

Christ’s death the ultimate demonstration of faith in God

Faith in the evangel of the grace of God (the elements of which are described by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-4) necessarily involves faith in the fact that Christ “died for our sins” (i.e., that Christ died for the elimination of our sins). And believing this fact necessarily involves believing that Christ died. But why is it so important to believe that Christ actually died (as opposed to believing that Christ continued to exist as an eternal, undying soul while his body was entombed)?

We know that, rather than being something over which he had no control, Christ’s death was a voluntary act of obedience to God (Rom. 5:18-19; Gal. 1:4-5; Eph. 5:1-2, 25; Phil. 2:8; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14). The voluntary nature of Christ’s death is a fact confirmed by Christ himself in John 10:17-18:

Therefore the Father is loving Me, seeing that I am laying down My soul that I may be getting it again. No one is taking it away from Me, but I am laying it down of Myself. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to get it again. This precept I got from My Father.

And Christ’s tearful and heartfelt yielding to God’s will while praying in Gethsemane Matt. 26:36-44) cannot be understood as anything other than a voluntary act of obedience to God, apart from which the prophecies concerning him would not have been fulfilled. In Luke’s account Christ explicitly acknowledged that what he was about to do would fulfill prophecy (Luke 22:37), which means that Christ was very much aware of the fact that his actions were completely necessary for the fulfilling of prophecy (and apart from which prophecy wouldn’t have been fulfilled). We’re also told in this same account that, while praying to God to let the “cup” pass by from him, our Lord came “to be in a struggle,” and that “His sweat became as if clots of blood descending on the earth” (:44). Evidently, Christ’s struggle involved the decision to exercise his God-given right to “lay down His soul” and thus be “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8), rather than avoiding the cross (which, in Matt. 26:52-54, Christ acknowledged he had the authority to do).

Clearly, everything that Christ did and allowed to happen to him during his earthly ministry involved his faith in God and his faithful obedience to God’s will. This necessarily included the time from his betrayal and arrest in Gethsemane to the moment he committed his spirit to God and breathed his last on the cross. Everything that Christ allowed to happen to him during this dark time fulfilled prophecy and was done in conscious and active obedience to God. Christ had to die in the exact way and in the exact circumstances he did in order to remain obedient to God and fulfill all that was written concerning him. 

Moreover, since Christ undoubtedly knew what death was (and what it involved), he would’ve known that dying would result in his entering into a completely unconscious and insensible condition. Christ knew that, after he breathed his last on the cross, he would be completely helpless and powerless, and that only God would be able to save him from the lifeless condition into which he was going to be entering (Heb. 5:7-8). We also know that, apart from faith, it’s impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Since Christ’s obedience unto death was undoubtedly pleasing to God (Phil. 2:8-11; Eph. 5:2), it’s evident that Christ’s death was an expression of (and in fact the supreme demonstration of) his faith in God. That is, Christ’s death on the cross was the visible manifestation of his trust in God, and his conviction that God would rouse him from among the dead (as God, in his word, had promised to do). And according to Paul, it is on the basis of this faith – i.e., the faith that Christ had when he died in obedience to God and in fulfillment of prophecy – that God is able to justify and save sinners (Rom. 3:22-26; 5:9; Gal. 2:16, 20-21).

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” (Heb 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:

¹¹ 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? ¹² for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come, ¹³ for he of whom these things are said in another tribe hath had part, of whom no one gave attendance at the altar, ¹⁴ for [it is] evident that out of Judah hath arisen our Lord, in regard to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. ¹⁵ And it is yet more abundantly most evident, if according to the similitude of Melchizedek there doth arise another priest, ¹⁶ who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life, ¹⁷ for He doth testify -- `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchizedek;' ¹⁸ for a disannulling indeed doth come of the command going before because of its weakness, and unprofitableness, ¹⁹ (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 do I not believe that the body of Christ should “turn back to the Old Covenant,” but I don’t even think we 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.