The Ethnocentrism of Paul

Was Paul a dispensationalist or a covenantalist? Probably neither, strictly speaking. But one thing is clear: his eschatology was Israel-centered. Now, I know that that is a controversial claim, and indeed, in many evangelical circles, fighting words! Of course, his eschatology was theocentric, christocentric and kingdom-centered, but that does not mean that it was not also Israel-centered. In fact, the very language of "kingdom" and "Christ" and even "God" is really incomprehensible apart from Israel - her history, her scriptures, and her destiny.

By "Israel" I mean straightfowardly the nation that descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a word, Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh" (Ro.9:3). This is clearly what the apostle means in using the term "Israel" in his writings (Gal.6:16, with its noteworthy qualifier "of God," is a disputed exception, which in any case proves the rule). This is particularly clear in Ro.9-11, where Paul's whole discussion is predicated on the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, who have been ("contrary to nature") included into the "olive tree" of the Abrahamic covenant. The whole subject of his discussion in these chapters is the remarkable fact that Gentiles (who were "excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world") were receiving the good news, while Israel (the historic people of God) rejected it.

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

Even when we consider the fact that Paul calls Gentiles who believe "sons of Abraham," we also note that he maintains a distinction for those who, in addition to being "of the faith of Abraham," are also "of the Law" (Ro.4:16). For, in addition to the uncircumcised who believe, Abraham "is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised" (4:12). Rather than obliterating the distinction between Jew and Gentile, it would seem that our inclusion as Gentiles into the blessing of Abraham (Gal.3:6-14) with believing Israel (is this the meaning of Gal.6:16?) confirms it, as the fulfillment of the covenant. For in Christ, God has made good on his promise to bless not only Abraham and his physical descendents (confirming the promises to "the circumcision", Ro.15:8), but also, thereby, all the nations! And so, Abraham is not only the father of blessed Israel, but of "many nations" as well (Ro.4:17).

Israel and the nations, then, are distinguished, though no longer divided in Christ (Eph.2:11ff.). There are, after all, both wild olive shoots and the natural branches connected to the nourishing root (Ro.11:17). To obfuscate the distinction is to obviate God's glory and grace in fulfilling his ancient promises through Jesus Christ - the son of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, the Root of Jesse and the Son of David.

This distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, of course, is also maintained in the apostolic mission of preaching the gospel "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek," (Ro.1:16; cf. Ac.3:26; 13:46; etc.). Why? Because, as Paul writes:

Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God
over all, forever praised! Amen.

Even in his ministry to the Gentiles, Paul had a certain Israel-centered motive:

Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

And even though the elect nation, by and large, has rejected the gospel, yet, as Paul is at pains to show in the epistle to the Romans, the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob regarding the people of Israel is not thereby nullified:

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs

But how is this divine love for ethnic Israel consummated? Is it? Is it like "a hope deferred" - indefinitely? Or is that hope realized? Is this love fulfilled? Paul seemed to think that it would be.

But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! ...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

In the corpus of Paul's writings, and within the context of the whole New Testament, what can "life from the dead" possibly mean but resurrection? Likewise, Paul expected that this "fullness" of Israel would be accomplished when "the deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob," and "take away their sins," (Ro.11:26, 27). Clearly, in the context of Paul's whole discussion, this has not happened yet. Israel/Jacob was still plainly in her sin - enemies with respect to the gospel! Paul's hope for Israel then was eschatological. Like Peter and the other apostles (Ac.1:6; 3:19-21), Paul saw the full restoration of Israel to God as the climax of history, in which Christ would return in glory, and renew all things - in fulfillment of all that the prophets had spoken. And to this great end he labored.