Commonwealth of Israel – FAQ

Please follow and like us:

In examining some Messianic Jewish teaching materials, they explained to me that the Commonwealth of Israel is made up of both the Jewish people and the Church, sort of like the British Commonwealth. They have actually said that as a non-Jewish Believer, I am really not a part of Israel, only the Commonwealth. Does this viewpoint have any legitimacy?

adapted from Are Non-Jewish Believers Really a Part of Israel?

“[R]emember that you were at that time separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12, NASU).

Ephesians 2:12 is one of the most important verses for people in today’s broad Messianic movement, and no one from any side denies how it definitely plays a role in understanding ecclesiology. There are some notable interpretations present in contemporary Messianic Judaism as they concern what “the Commonwealth of Israel” actually is (Ephesians 2:12), and what it means for non-Jewish people to be fellow heirs along with the Jewish people (Ephesians 3:6). There are methods of interpretation and application which tend to be inclusive, welcoming of non-Jewish Believers into Messianic congregations and assemblies as fellow brothers and sisters—and then others which are more exclusive. How are these verses to be approached?

While I believe that the concept of “the Commonwealth of Israel” speaks to an enlarged Kingdom realm of Israel (cf. Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:15-18), there are others who will disagree with this.

Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11 were directed to non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor, by him saying, “remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh” (NASU). What this specifically means has been disputed among many non-Jewish people in today’s independent Hebrew/Hebraic Roots movement, who often make a strong point to claim that they are “former Gentiles.” The clause under close scrutiny is pote humeis ta ethnē en sarki, “once you the nations in [the] flesh” (my translation), and specifically what pote relates to. Pote has a variety of lexical definitions, including “once, formerly, at one time; ever, at any time” (CGEDNT).[1]

Some would actually conclude that pote relates to these people no longer being “the nations in the flesh,” meaning that their ethnicity or race has somehow changed after receiving salvation. This would be a problem, because one’s ethnicity in the flesh certainly does not change because of a proclamation of faith in Yeshua; Paul’s principal audience still remained “Gentiles by birth” (NIV), and they could certainly not change who their immediate parents were. One’s status in regard to the corporate people of God, however, does change because of a proclamation of faith in Yeshua, as those without the God of Israel and Yeshua the Messiah, do experience a different spiritual status and quality (cf. Ephesians 2:12; Galatians 6:16).

Recognizing the impossibily of no longer being “nations in [the] flesh,” the only other option is to connect pote with the following words in Ephesians 2:12: hoti ēte tō kairō ekeinō, “once…that you were [at] that season” (my translation).[2] Any issue of these people regarding “formerly you,” relates to their separation from Israel from the time of birth now having been rectified via salvation, not their DNA being rewritten once they received Yeshua. One’s race, ethnicity, or gene pool should never, ever be grounds for inclusion or non-inclusion within the Kingdom of God! And, if non-Jewish Believers are indeed a part of the Messianic Kingdom of Israel via their faith in Yeshua, it should be noted how this does not automatically make them culturally Jewish.

Paul’s principal point in Ephesians 2:11-12 was to focus on the condition of his largely non-Jewish audience prior to knowing Yeshua, and their condition after knowing Yeshua. A status of being removed from Israel’s Messiah, Israel’s polity, Israel’s covenants, and being without the hope and knowledge of the Creator God—was what was really considered to be the former status for the non-Jewish Believers addressed in Ephesians. This was a status which had been fully reversed. The non-Jewish Believers in Asia Minor now knew Israel’s Messiah, they were a part of Israel’s polity, they benefitted from Israel’s covenants, and they were truly known by the Creator God. This was a condition connected to the concept of the Commonwealth of Israel.

Paul’s own Jewish kinfolk often had some negative things to say about those of the nations. He indicated how the nations were “called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision’” (NASU). One status was akrobustia or “foreskin” (LS),[3] when compared to peritomē or “circumcision.” “Foreskin” was used as a derogatory term, when compared to “circumcision” as a self-inflated covenantal term. That Paul had “circumcision” as a reference to status in mind, as opposed to a physical procedure, is easily seen by his description of it as en sarki cheiropoiētou. F.F. Bruce renders this clause as “the so-called man-made external circumcision” (NICNT),[4] and Ben Witherington III has “the circumcision handwrought in the flesh.”[5] This is to be understood in light of Paul’s parallel remarks in Colossians 2:11, where “in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Messiah” (NASU). The circumcision requirement for inclusion among the people of God in Paul’s teachings was emphasized to be the circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 30:6; cf. Romans 2:29; Philippians 3:3),[6] something enacted by one’s faith or trust in Yeshua via the good news.

The adjective cheiropoiētos, “made by human hands” (BDAG),[7] is used most frequently throughout the Greek Septuagint in relation to idol-making.[8] The styled label of “circumcision,” described by Paul in Ephesians 2:11, regarded what his own Jewish kinfolk often called themselves when compared/contrasted against the nations. Paul in no uncertain terms considered this “Circumcision in the flesh made by hands” (KJV) to be akin to those in rebellion to God making idols. Did this ritual procedure as offered by the religious authorities enhance or retard Israel from being a light to the nations?

This was not a remark made against the value of circumcision as a physical procedure, or even as the memorial sign of the Abrahamic Covenant—but would have had more to do with circumcision as the ritual of a proselyte being the only entryway for those of the nations to have membership among God’s people, perhaps made more important to faith or belief in God. And as it can be validly pointed out, if circumcision and removal of foreskin is really the only way to enter among God’s people, what then did the women have to distinguish them?[9] Such a circumcision had become a symbol of significant pride and thus also of problems.

Being circumcised was the pinnacle of a great deal of Jewish identity in the First Century. T.R. Schreiner indicates, “in the intertestimental period circumcision was typically required for one to become a proselyte to Judaism…any diminution of the rite would naturally inflame both the cultural and religious passions of the Jews” (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters).[10] In Romans 4:9-10, the Apostle Paul made it clear how the Patriarch Abraham was in righteous covenant status with God while in uncircumcision, in that it was his faith in God which accorded him such righteousness (Genesis 15:6), something which many Jewish people of his time had forgotten. He received circumcision at a later time at the age of ninety-nine (Genesis 17:23-24) as a seal or physical reminder of his faith (Romans 4:11). Much of the First Century Jewish handling of “circumcision” was certainly to be expected given the onslaught of Hellenism and of uncircumcision imposed by the tyrannical reign of Antiochus Ephinanes during the Maccabean crisis (1 Maccabees 1:15), as it became more of a national sign of identity, than a simple affirmation of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 17:4-5).

Circumcision construed as a strong national sign for the Jews of the First Century is seen in both Jewish and classical sources. The Jewish historian Josephus expressed the opinion that the reason God gave Abraham circumcision was “in order to keep his posterity unmixed with others” (Antiquities of the Jews 1.192).[11] The Roman historian Tacitus said, “They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others,” specifically as something “Proselytes to Jewry adopt” (The Histories 5.5).[12] This was a circumcision which kept, perhaps a majority of the Jewish people separate from the nations—often impeding Israel from being a light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6)—and was something which Paul himself likely advocated prior to encountering Yeshua (cf. Galatians 5:11). The proselyte conversion “circumcision” caused a great number of problems, putting the proverbial cart before the horse in many cases, as a ritual procedure for membership in Israel could widely have been given precedence over one’s trust in the God of Israel. Such a practice was not that unlike fashioning a god of human hands, and Paul implied that this kind of circumcision drove a wedge between the Jewish people and the nations which needed to be removed.

The former status which Paul directed his audience to remember, was specified: “remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12, NIV). These “nations in the flesh” (Ephesians 2:11, YLT) were once “alienated” (RSV) or “estranged” (CJSB) from the Messiah in their previous condition. The verb apallotrioō is only used one other time in the Apostolic Scriptures, in Colossians 1:21 where fallen humanity is “alienated [apallotrioō] and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds” (NASU). Paul would later say in Ephesians 4:18 that the world was “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart” (NASU).

Because of not knowing Yeshua as Savior, the nations were “excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (NASU). As previously stated, Jews in the First Century did admit non-Jewish proselytes via ritual circumcision, but it was not an easy process by any means. Those undergoing this ritual procedure were often made to take vows “to keep the whole Law” (Galatians 5:3; cf. Nehemiah 10:28-29),[13] being subject to extreme scrutiny by the community they were entering into. This was not the Lord’s original intention when He told Abraham “in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3, NASU; cf. Galatians 3:8). He desired a community which would fulfill a mandate of being a blessing, not being grossly suspicious of its members!

Without Israel, salvation cannot be brought to the nations. Yeshua Himself was undeniably clear that in His day, “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22, NASU). People who are outside of this Israel have no Messianic expectation, they do not know of the blessings of being Israel and of the promises made to Israel (i.e., Genesis 15:18; 17; Exodus 19:5-6), and most significantly they do not know the One True God.[14] From the status of being atheos or “godless” (Lattimore), one from the nations was separated from the promises of Israel’s God and the promises of a Redeemer to come. These people were truly “alienated” from the blessings available in Israel.

So what has the nations’ acceptance of Yeshua brought to them? Previously, the non-Jewish Believers had a status which was tantamount to being “dead” (Ephesians 2:1-2)—yet an issue to which the good news or gospel so profoundly provided an answer for. Witherington’s opinion is to the point: “in light of v. 13 it is reasonably clear that Paul is saying that Gentiles have become a part of the community of God’s people through Christ.”[15] But what is this community? A valid question should be asked when interpreters such as Ralph P. Martin conclude, “Paul sees these covenant promises fulfilled in Christ in the church.”[16]

Paul used ancient political terms to describe what his largely non-Jewish audience had been separated from. Prior to their faith in the Messiah, they were removed from tēs politeias tou Israēl. The key term here is politeia, “the right to be a member of a sociopolitical entity, citizenship” (BDAG).[17] Yet, now having access to this citizenship, they would have to start considering another part of politeia: “behavior in accordance with standards expected of a respectable citizen, way of life, conduct” (BDAG),[18] something which surely dominates Ephesians chs. 4-6.

Many of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders and teachers do not at all deny how non-Jewish Believers in Israel’s Messiah are indeed a part of “the Commonwealth of Israel.” But how they have approached and defined such a Commonwealth of Israel, can be a bit varied.

A rather general definition for “commonwealth” is encountered in the 2011 Tree of Life—New Covenant glossary:

“a community founded for the common good of its members. Israel enjoys the privileges of being God’s nation, called to covenant relationship at Sinai. In Ephesians 2:11-14, Paul tells his Gentile readers that they have joined the commonwealth of Israel as fellow citizens through the reconciling work of Yeshua. (Ephesians 2:12)”[19]

In his Jewish New Testament Commentary, David H. Stern remarks how non-Jewish Believers being part of the Commonwealth of Israel, “implies an obligation to observe a godly life that has its origin in God’s relationship with the Jewish people. More than that, it implies an obligation to relate as family to the Jewish community to whom their faith has joined them…”[20] He considers Ephesians 2:12 to relate to the inclusion of individuals like Ruth (Ruth 1:16) among Israel, and that it requires non-Jewish Believers “being involved with the Jewish people, both Messianic and non-Messianic.”[21] It would imply that non-Jewish Believers should have a relationship not only with their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters who have acknowledged the Messiah, but that they should take a keen interest in the well being of those Jews who have not yet acknowledged Yeshua.

Stern is absolutely right to say that non-Jewish Believers “who regard Jewish Christians as the strangers and themselves as the rightful possessors and those who accept Jewish believers but reject nonbelieving Jews, are not submitting to the message of these verses.”[22] Non-Jewish Believers, as made clear by Paul’s words, had no hope and were without God in the world without Israel. As the origin of their salvation is Israel, when bad things happen to the Jewish people, bad things happen to all of those who believe in Israel’s Messiah. When good things happen to the Jewish people, non-Jewish Believers should rejoice with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Non-Jewish Believers are called to befriend the Jewish people and be grateful to them, not only because of the spiritual heritage they have in the Synagogue, but also for the great contributions the Jewish people have made to the world.

Stern is proper to emphasize that non-Jewish Believers should not regard the Jewish people as alien or strange. But what might happen when Jewish Believers treat non-Jewish Believers, who desire to grasp hold of their place as members of Israel’s Commonwealth and join with them, as strange or second class? This is a great dilemma, and one which is certainly present in various parts of today’s Messianic Jewish movement. Taking hold of their faith heritage in Israel’s Scriptures, many non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement have not always been treated with respect, as the equals of Messianic Jews. Is this appropriate? While non-Jewish Believers are to surely respect and support the Jewish people, what if Jewish people who claim to know Messiah Yeshua, and presumably have been transformed by His love, do not treat them with such respect in return? Why at times do some Messianic Jews not recognize them as a part of or even related to the “community of Israel” (NEB)?

While the spiritual roots of why some Messianic Jews might not always recognize non-Jewish Believers in their midst as their equals is a complicated, and rather difficult subject to diagnose—the theological roots can actually be quite easy to diagnose. There is often a large misunderstanding and application of the term politeia, as employed in Ephesians 2:12. Throughout various Messianic Jewish theological materials, it is taught that the Commonwealth of Israel is actually to be viewed as something similar to the post-World War II, Twentieth Century and post-Imperial, British Commonwealth of Nations—a Commonwealth of Israel made up of two sub-groups: the ethnic Jewish people and the Church.[23]

Whether or not the Commonwealth of Israel can actually be likened to the British Commonwealth of Nations—where those who recognize the British monarch are still relatively independent states which share a common head of state (i.e., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bermuda, the Bahamas)—would principally regard uses of the Greek term politeia and its cognates, as seen in Scripture and ancient Jewish and classical literature. Messianic Jewish scholar David Rudolph is one who has claimed that politeia “in the first-century Greco-Roman context could mean a community of nations or ethnic groups sharing a common allegiance to a monarch.” He considers the Commonwealth of Israel to be a broad federation or confederation made up of two groups: Israel and “the Church,” and that “commonwealth” is an ideal rendering of politeia, being “a relatively simple way of describing the relationship between the Church and Israel.”[24] This is representative of the bilateral ecclesiology approach toward Commonwealth of Israel from Ephesians 2:12.

While the English term “commonwealth” may allow at times for one thinking of the people of God as akin to a British Commonwealth of Nations,[25] with multiple independent states, the Greek term politeia in its classical usage does not easily allow for this. The Liddell-Scott lexicon, chiefly interested in classical Greek, defines politeia with:

• the condition and rights of a citizen, citizenship
• the life of a citizen, civic life
• as a concrete, the body of citizens
• the life and business of a statesman, government, administration
• civil polity, the condition or constitution of a state
• a republic, commonwealth[26]

While these definitions surely do allow for an internally diverse community of people who should contribute to the well being of all, they do not lend support for a collection of multiple, largely autonomous and independent communities which make up a broad “commonwealth.” Consider the following examples from ancient classical and Jewish sources, which employ the term politeia. You will not see a single monarch ruling over a collection of separated, largely independent states implied:

The classical Greek meaning of politeia (which I was certainly taught at the University of Oklahoma as a political science undergraduate), also witnessed in ancient Jewish works, does not imply a kind of citizenship where a single monarch rules over a collection of separate states—but rather speaks of either a single government or a way of conduct within a society (sometimes within the context of a city). Of critical importance should be those notable places where politeia, and a related term like politeuma,[32] appear in the Apostolic Scriptures, designating citizenship:

“The commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship [politeia] with a large sum of money.’ And Paul said, ‘But I was actually born a citizen’” (Acts 22:28, NASU).

“For our citizenship [politeuma; ‘commonwealth,’ RSV] is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Messiah” (Philippians 3:20, NASU).

Anyone who would try to equate the Greek term politeia with a kind of multiple nation-state commonwealth in mind, does not have that strong support either from classical usage or Biblical usage of the term.

What Paul described as Believers possessing politeuma in Heaven, should not escape Bible readers’ notice. No one would honestly argue, for example, that born again Believers have different kinds of “citizenship” within the Kingdom of Heaven; it is all the same citizenship. Some might represent themselves as citizens of God’s Kingdom better than others, and some Believers do not always take advantage of all the spiritual benefits of being citizens of God’s Kingdom—but all who profess Yeshua are still citizens of the same Divine state. The difficult concept which many Believers have to recognize, is that God’s Kingdom happens to be Israel.

Today’s Messianic Jews need to understand that while they are honored and respected members of this Israel to be sure (cf. John 4:22; Romans 3:1-2; 11:29), they are not at all the only members. The Commonwealth of Israel is to be viewed as a single state ruled by the King Messiah, but one which is internally diverse in terms of its ethnic makeup. The non-Jewish Believers were at one time “strangers to the covenants of promise” plural, tōn diathēkōn tēs epangelias, and having been integrated into the Commonwealth of Israel, are to look at Israel’s story as their own spiritual story (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1). According to Paul, those from the nations “are no longer strangers and aliens, but…fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household” (Ephesians 2:19, NASU).

For a number of people within today’s Messianic Judaism, claiming that non-Jewish Believers are a part of “the Commonwealth of Israel”—meaning that they possess citizenship in Israel’s Kingdom realm, and that non-Jewish Believers are thus a part of Israel alongside of them—is a somewhat provocative claim. Yet, non-Jewish Believers from the nations have no claim to tribal territory in the Promised Land only reserved for the physical descendants of the Patriarchs. What has been seen, is that many non-Jewish Believers have been supernaturally led by the Lord, in these Last Days, to embrace many outward matters of Torah like the seventh-day Sabbath or appointed times. This is not always liked by various Messianic Jewish people, but then many other Messianic Jewish Believers recognize it as a legitimate move of the Holy Spirit.

There is a significant phenomenon of non-Jewish Believers entering into things Messianic—with a great deal going against them—and no one should surely want to be in a position of going against salvation history, and the nations coming to Zion to be taught God’s Law (Micah 4:1-3; Isaiah 2:2-4) and joining with the Jewish people (Zechariah 8:23). These are all people in the Diaspora, who attend Messianic congregations and synagogues every week on Shabbat, similar to how things in the First Century Body of Messiah often were. It is appropriate, though, as stressed by many of today’s Messianic Jewish leaders, that non-Jewish Believers need to be specially called by the Lord into the Messianic movement, certainly at its present phase of development. If non-Jewish Believers in the Messianic movement are to be as though they are proverbial Ruths, then they need to be strongly committed to matters such as Jewish outreach, evangelism, standing with Israel, and standing against anti-Semitism. At the very least, a stress on being specially called, appropriately keeps away Christian people who are just trying out the Messianic movement, as they similarly might have tried various other churches or denominational experiences.

NOTES

[1] Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Revised Edition (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies/Deutche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 148.

[2] Take important note that pote is used once again in Ephesians 2:13, again describing the previous status of “the nations in the flesh”: humeis hoi pote ontes makran, “you who once being far away” (my translation).

[3] H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 30.

[4] F.F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 291.

[5] Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 251.

[6] This does not make physical circumcision unimportant in the post-resurrection era, just that neither it—and especially not ritual proselyte circumcision—should ever be considered the grounds for inclusion among God’s people, as that is reserved only for belief in God and the Messiah He has sent.

Consult the author’s article “Is Circumcision for Everyone?” (appearing in Torah In the Balance, Volumes I&II) for a further review of this topic.

[7] Frederick William Danker, ed., et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1083.

[8] Leviticus 26:1, 30; Isaiah 2:18; 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 46:6; Daniel 5:4, 23; 6:28 (all LXX).

[9] Bruce, pp 292-293.

[10] T.R. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 138.

[11] Flavius Josephus: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 40.

[12] Cornelius Tacitus: The Histories, trans. Kenneth Wellesley (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 273.

[13] Consult the Messianic Apologetics FAQ, “Galatians 5:2-3.”

[14] Ralph P. Martin, “Ephesians,” in D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1111.

[15] Witherington, Philemon-Colossians-Ephesians, 258.

[16] Martin, in NBCR, 1111.

[17] BDAG, 845.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Tree of Life Messianic Family Bible—New Covenant (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2011), 492.

[20] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 2023), 582.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] This view is broadly detailed in Daniel C. Juster, Growing to Maturity (Denver: The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations Press, 1987), pp 221-222, 223; cf. David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1991), 57; Daniel C. Juster, Jewish Roots (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 1995), 35.

[24] David Rudolph, “Mashiach” Verge Vol. 2, Iss. 2, February 2010:2.

[25] The first definition of “commonwealth” in Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (Cleveland: Wiley Publishing, Inc, 2002), 123 is, however, “the people of a nation or state,” implying a single body politic.

[26] LS, 654.

[27] The Greek source text for these works has been accessed via the Perseus Collection <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/&gt;.

[28] Plato: The Republic, trans. Desmond Lee (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 366.

[29] Aristotle: Politics, trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 97.

[30] Ibid., 100.

[31] Flavius Josephus: The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 315.

[32] Meaning, “the business of government, an act of administration” (LS, 654).