Are there still Jews in Christ?

Initially, this may sound like a really stupid question, but I cannot tell you how many people over the years have cited this one particular text from the Apostle Paul. This text relates to the believers in Galatia, who thought that since they now followed the Jewish Christ, it stood to reason that they should not simply be a part of the Jewish coalition (as sojourners with Israel) but that they should also adopt all the ancestral customs of the Jews through proselyte conversion. This is what conversion to “Judaism” meant in that time. That is why the beloved Apostle wrote to them in this nuanced and commonly misunderstood letter that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

We will return to this very important text and, of course, read it in full as we progress, but first, I want to provide a little contextual information to lay the foundation for our later discussion.

Two (Jewish) Types of Conversion

Conversions are well attested to in ancient times. However, conversions, as they were practiced then, have little in common with conversions as we understand them today. Unlike in ancient times, “religion” today is seen as a category of its own – so someone can be Irish and Jewish, American and Jewish, Russian and Jewish, and so on. Ancient peoples, however, did not speak of conversion in terms of simply accepting another religion while remaining culturally unchanged.

To them, conversion to Judaism (proselyte or full conversion) meant joining the people of Israel and adopting all their ancestral customs, which permeated every area of life. In other words, conversion to Judaism was a “package deal”. If one converted, he or she was expected to cut ties with their previous culture in every respect – not just to accept a new divinity, but the entire package (God and people). There were also those who thought that it was better to adopt some, but not all, of the ancestral ways of Israel, which naturally resulted in some behavior modification, but enough so that the Jews would have no difficulty being around them. Yet, despite their love and admiration for the Jews, they, for one reason or another, chose to stay “as is” (not fully converting to become “Jewish”).

Galatian Gentile believers of the Jewish Christ (the recipients of Paul’s letter) were seriously contemplating full conversion to Judaism. They saw nothing wrong with this because of the already widely acclaimed and famous phrase of Ruth the Moabite: “Your God will be my God, your people will be my people.” However, this was only one paradigm of legitimate Gentile dedication to Israel’s God. There was another – which I call the “Naaman” paradigm, to distinguish it from the “Ruth” paradigm.

You might recall the story of Naaman’s healing (2 Kings 5) when a kidnapped Israelite slave girl told Naaman’s wife that her husband’s leprosy could be healed by a prophet who lived in Israel. With the permission of his Aramean king, Naaman went to Samaria in the hope of receiving the blessing of healing. I don’t have the space here to expound this amazing story, but suffice it to say that when Naaman received his healing, washing himself seven times in an Israelite river (in ancient times, rivers were considered by people to be the channels of divine blessings), he proclaimed, “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.”

Notably, he did not say or do as Ruth did. He returned to his country and his people and continued to worship Israel’s God but as an Aramean. In contrast to Ruth the Moabite, Naaman’s approach was more along the lines of: “Your God will be my God, but my people will still be my people”. Interestingly, in the end, he receives the greatest blessing of all – the blessing of Shalom – from the prophet of God (2 Kings 5:18-19). There is no doubt in my mind that the Jewish apostles in Acts 15 (the gathering that is often referred to as the “Jerusalem Council”) thought of Gentiles coming to faith in the Jewish Christ according to the trajectory of Naaman, and not the paradigm of Ruth.

The Council expressly forbade only four categories of behavior to the non-Jewish followers of Christ, reaffirming the same prohibitions enjoined upon the sojourners among Israel described in Leviticus 17-21. Being non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Christ in the Roman Empire was difficult enough (their new life clashed sharply with many Roman religious practices and accepted norms of patriotic behaviour), so the apostles decided not to lay upon them any additional burden. It seems from Acts 15:21 that it was assumed that Gentile believers would attend synagogues wherever they lived, hearing the words of Moses, and presumably also hearing Judaism’s teaching on living a generally righteous life. In practical terms, observing these four laws (affirmed by the Jerusalem Council) would enable Gentile believers and Jews to fellowship without offending the Jews, leading to ostracization, because fellowshipping with the Jews is a very important point.

Both the council’s and Paul’s desire was not to support “Gentile churches” as they are most often referred to, but instead, to organically develop Gentile synagogal sub-groups that the Apostles saw as equal and essential members of the Jewish/Israelite coalition, but who were not to become Jews themselves by conversion.

Acts 16:4-5 tells us that the Apostle Paul fully endorsed the Council’s decision and proclaimed its message with great joy as he traveled from congregation to congregation (both those he planted and those he did not). Full Torah observance (proselyte conversion to Judaism) was unnecessary for any Gentile who joined the Jewish coalition by following the Jewish Christ; they, too, as the Nations, were now first-class citizens in the Kingdom of God. Did certain cultural modifications have to take place? Of course! But the big principle of “no further burden than the great challenge Gentile followers of the Jewish Christ already had” living in the pagan Roman world was upheld.

Jews and Greeks in Christ

Now to return to the text I touched on earlier – Galatians 3:26-29 (especially vs. 28):

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise”.

The Apostle Paul, addressing Gentile followers of the Jewish Christ, tells them that through faith, they are now counted among the children of God by reason of their submission to the Jewish water-washing ceremony (translated as “baptism”) in the name of Christ Jesus. Their identity has now been redefined by the Jewish Christ himself (vs. 26-27). Just a short time earlier, Paul spoke of his own identity in similar terms:

“I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).

His point becomes clear once we realize that Paul speaks about himself to explain to them – when Jews or non-Jews are found in the Christ, something very important happens. They are now defined not so much by their social location as non-Jews but by Christ Himself.

It is about here that the traditional Christian theologian may begin to (finally) feel some comfort in my argument because what seems to be coming next is that Jewish identity is rendered absolute/outdated/irrelevant when “in Christ.” A person was a Jew, but when he is “in Christ,” his social location, in this case as a Jew, becomes of no consequence.

However, I argue the opposite because the Christ in which both Jews and non-Jews now find themselves is, in fact, a Jewish Christ. He is the Messiah, as Paul sees him, long ago predicted by the Israelite prophets and long-awaited by the people of Israel. Whether we refer to him as traditional Christians do today as “Christ” or “Messiah,” as do many others, it makes no difference at all because both mean one and the same thing and represent an exclusively Jewish/Israelite concept. (I use the phrase “Jewish Christ” to help us to get unused to thinking of this false dichotomy – “Christ” gentile, “Messiah/Mashiach” Jewish.)

Distinction vs. Discrimination

When Galatians 3:28 is quoted, it is usual for only the first part to be emphasized – there is neither Jew (Ἰουδαῖος) nor Greek (Ἕλλην) – to the exclusion of the rest of the verse. (The original text does not talk about Gentiles, but Greeks. It is probably legitimate to make a connection; however, as one reads these ancient letters, this important point should be kept in mind. Note that the text does not use the word “Gentile” (as does the NIV and several other translations), but instead, “Greek,” making it parallel to Judean.)

The conclusion often drawn from this phrase is that there is no longer any distinction or difference between a Jew and a Greek. But this does not make sense as we continue to read: “there is neither male nor female” in Christ Jesus. Following this logic, if distinction or difference is in view, we can conclude (as some, in fact, have) that in Christ, same-sex marriages are acceptable. The logic fails, however, when the same people who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that men remain men and women remain women fail to see that they cannot apply double standards. In other words, if men and women still retain gender differences (as I think they do), then so do Jews and Greeks retain their differences, even in Christ. So, what does Paul intend to communicate when he tells the Galatians that both Jews and Greeks, if found in Christ, become children of Abraham? Mark Nanos is, again, very helpful here. Nanos argues that it is better to see what Paul is writing against as not “distinction/difference” but, in fact, as “discrimination.”

Some of you have rightly noticed that I conveniently left out the phrase “neither slave nor free”. However, it, too, must be accounted for and brought into this conversation. Paul does not oppose Roman slavery in his writings as such (Eph.6:5), but his writings could be viewed as a step towards criticizing slavery in the future. To understand this, we must not think of Roman slavery in the same way we think of racially based American or European slavery of recent history. Roman slaves were often rich and had rights in Roman society. In fact, private slaves in Roman cities were often far better off than most of the free men and women in the same city. Although the system of slavery was evil and needed to be abolished, it was not nearly as bad to be a slave in the Roman Empire as it was in colonial times of the recent past.

In one of the letters the Apostle Paul co-authored with Timothy while imprisoned in Rome, Paul strongly and passionately petitioned Philemon to forgive and receive back his runaway slave Onesimus without penalizing him. Instead, Paul asked that Philemon receive Onesimus as if he were receiving Paul, whom he held in great honor (Letter to Philemon). For Paul, the distinction between slave and free was intact even “in Christ”, but both the slave and the free could not treat each other the same way as before. “Discrimination in Christ” in the slave-owner relationship system had to end right then and there. In Christ, Jews and Gentiles become equal partners and members of the same Jewish coalition of the willing, who work tirelessly to uphold the kingdom priorities of Israel’s God through their King and His beloved son – Jesus.