There Is No Distinction BY: D. THOMAS LANCASTER
How misunderstanding one simple New Testament idea derailed the whole church.
I consider myself a Christian, but I have a completely different understanding of the New Testament from the one taught by Christianity. It might seem like a small thing, but it’s really not a small thing at all. Whereas the overwhelming majority of Christendom espouses that in Christ, there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, I believe that Jewish disciples of Jesus and Gentile disciples of Jesus are not the same at all.
I call this minority viewpoint “distinction theology.” Most of the church teaches that if a Jew becomes a Christian, his or her Jewish identity is absorbed into a new identity that supersedes and replaces the old Jewish identity. For lack of a better term, we could call this idea no-distinction theology, but there is a better term: replacement theology.
It turns out that replacement theology is an enormous problem. It’s not a small speck in the eye of the church, as if I am saying to my brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye” (Matthew 7:4). It’s more like a virtual reality headset covering both eyes so that the viewer sees an entirely different reality from the one I am looking at.
The whole church teaches some form of replacement theology and supersessionism. Every denomination. All of Christianity. The Roman Confession, the Eastern Orthodox Confession, and all 36,000 Protestant denominations. It’s not a recent innovation, either. It’s been around since the early second century. It was already spreading before the last of the apostles died, and it came on the scene fully expressed by the time that Ignatius of Antioch was writing.
This means that all of Christianity has taught replacement theology for all the time that Christianity has existed, which should not surprise us because if not for replacement theology, there would not really be a separate and independent religion called “Christianity” that stands in antithesis to Judaism.
Supersessionism is the paradigm of interpretation in which the church supersedes Israel, and Christianity supersedes Judaism. According to this theology, God has abandoned his ancient people, Israel, because they rejected Christ. Supersessionism results in replacement theology, which is the substitution of Jewish religious institutions and elements of faith with Christian ones. Essentially, it’s the belief that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament, that Christians replace the Jewish people as the people of God, baptism replaces circumcision, the Christian clergy replaces the Levitical priesthood, Christ replaces the high priest and the Levitical sacrifices, the church replaces the Temple, going to heaven replaces the national redemption of Israel and the coming kingdom, heaven replaces the Holy Land, and so forth.
As long as we interpret the Bible from the paradigm of supersessionism, we remain locked into the perspective of replacement theology, and that’s what creates the disjuncture between the Old Testament and the New Testament, between the old religion (Judaism) and the new religion (Christianity), between Jews and Christians.
It turns out that replacement theology is an enormous problem.
In the New Testament Era, Christianity did not yet exist as a religion distinct from Judaism. Instead, it existed as a Jewish sect within Judaism, a part of the Jewish people practicing the Jewish religion.
The Greek word ekklesia, which our English Bibles translate as “church,” literally means “assembly” or “community.” In the New Testament, it refers to the community of Yeshua’s disciples, which was a community within Judaism—not outside of it.
Of course, that’s no longer the case. Things have changed. But my question has always been since I was a teenager, “Why did things change?” How did we get from the community of Yeshua’s disciples at the end of the book of Acts to where we are today?
You can find the long answer to that question in our commentary on Acts and the history of the Apostolic Era titled Chronicles of the Apostles, which explores in depth the sociological, political, and theological roots of the divorce between Christianity and Judaism. It had a lot to do with Roman persecutions and the Jewish revolts against Rome and their associated traumas. Today, however, I want to summarize all of that with a much shorter answer by pointing out a few things in the text of the New Testament itself that paved the road to replacement theology.
PAUL WITHIN JUDAISM
The problem starts with a misunderstanding of Paul’s message. Paul’s teachings were already being misunderstood within his lifetime. We have the evidence for that in the New Testament. James, the brother of the Master, and the other elders over the assembly in Jerusalem warn him:
You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. (Acts 21:20–21)
This means that even in his own day and time, people thought Paul was teaching some type of supersessionism by discouraging Jews from circumcising their children and from keeping Jewish law (halachah), that is, “the customs.” These are false charges, and, in the story, Paul refutes them. We learn that “there is nothing in what they have been told about you [i.e., Paul], but that you yourself also live in observance of the law” (Acts 21:24). Paul was a Torah-observant Jew within Judaism even after becoming a disciple of Yeshua.
If so, what was he teaching that led to such a profound misunderstanding?
We already know what he was teaching on this subject because he never tires of telling us. We know the contents of his misunderstood message from Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, etc. Paul was teaching Gentile disciples that they did not need to become Jewish and that they should not become Jewish (in order to be ‘saved’). He referred to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles. He directed his message—whether he was talking about circumcision or halachic concerns or Jewish status—to Gentiles. He taught Gentile disciples not to get circumcised and adopt the stringencies of Jewish law because they were not Jewish.
However, that was not his message to Jewish people. He circumcised Timothy because Timothy had a Jewish mother, and Paul himself was Torah-observant and referred to himself as a Jew, a Hebrew of Hebrews, and a Pharisee. Decades after his Damascus Road experience, he still proudly declared, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6).
The misconception about Paul’s teachings occurred because he made a distinction between Jews on the one hand and Gentile disciples on the other. He distinguished between their respective obligations to the Torah. Paul engaged in an argument against other Jewish disciples, leaders, influencers, and apostles in the Messianic Jewish community of the first century. His opponents held that Gentile disciples should all become Jewish. Paul argued against the majority consensus that they should not become Jewish. He argued that they should remain in the state in which they were called.
DISTINCTION THEOLOGY
I refer to Paul’s argument as distinction theology. It’s the theological perspective that teaches a legal distinction between Jewish disciples and Gentile disciples. This is what we believe at First Fruits of Zion. This is what we teach.
Distinction theology says that within the ekklesia (that is, within the church, the community of Messiah), Gentile identity does not replace Jewish identity, and Jewish identity does not replace Gentile identity. Both Israel and the nations will be part of the future Messianic Era; therefore, both Jews and Gentiles have unique roles to play within the communities of Yeshua’s disciples.
Distinction Theology: The theological perspective that teaches a legal distinction between Jewish disciples and Gentile disciples.
Distinction theology was endorsed and spelled out by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, but it’s also the operating assumption behind almost all of Paul’s words. Consider his rule for all the churches, which I have paraphrased here for the sake of clarity:
According to whatever God allotted to every person when the Master called each one, so let him walk. This is my rule in all the communities. Was any man Jewish when the Master called him? Let him not become Gentile. Was any man Gentile? Let him not become Jewish. Being Jewish is irrelevant, and being Gentile is irrelevant. The important thing is to keep the commandments of God. Therefore, let every person remain in the same state as he was when he was called. (1 Corinthians 7:17–20, my translation)
Of course, there are valid exceptions to this rule against conversions to become Jewish— intermarriage, for example, or mixed Jewish ancestry. Nevertheless, the Pauline principle is still valid. There’s a difference and a distinction between Jewish and Gentile disciples. Not everyone is alike. The important thing, Paul says, is not whether you are Jewish or Gentile; the important thing is keeping the commandments of God that apply to you.
Paul’s distinction theology maintains the unique roles of both Jews and Gentiles within the communities of Yeshua: “So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God” (1 Corinthians 7:24). This means that Gentiles should not feel they need to become Jewish or adopt Jewish identity, and likewise, Jews should not feel compelled to adopt Gentile culture and Gentile identity.
I have covered this material at length in my books on Galatians and
Ephesians, but in this article, I want you to imagine how Paul’s argument for distinction theology might have sounded in the ears of the next generation of Yeshua followers when the other side of the argument had long ago gone silent. Imagine how his copious arguments for Gentile inclusion, his mandates for Gentile disciples, and his rhetoric against conversion to Judaism were understood by a predominantly Gentile church no longer involved in that argument. Paul’s writings, preserved by the church, are still arguing loudly, but the other side of the argument is completely gone.
How did those new Gentile-majority communities (which were no longer part of the synagogue, no longer within Jewish communities, and no longer part of the argument) understand Paul’s rhetoric against those who compelled disciples to undergo conversion to become Jewish? What did they think he meant by terms like circumcision, the works of the law, under the law, and simply, “the law”? One thing is clear: They did not understand Paul’s distinction theology at all—primarily because Paul’s epistles explicitly state that there is no distinction:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in [the Messiah Yeshua]. (Galatians 3:28)
This is the one critical misinterpretation that leads to all the other misinterpretations that lead to replacement theology. It’s the premise that ultimately concludes with supersessionism.
There Is No Distinction
Understood in context, Paul argued that Gentile disciples don’t need to become Jewish to be included in the ecclesia of Yeshua, to enter the kingdom, and to inherit a portion of the World to Come, because in the Messiah, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in [the Messiah Yeshua]” (Galatians 3:28). Since this is the primary thrust of his message to the Gentiles, speaking as the apostle to the Gentiles, he repeats this message over and over again. For example:
So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God. (1 Corinthians 7:24)
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law … through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction. (Romans 3:21–22)
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)
Even Peter says there is no distinction.
After the revelation of the vision of the sheet, he goes to Caesarea and meets Cornelius and his household. He reports to the other apostles: “The Spirit told me to go with [the Gentiles from Cornelius], making no distinction.” (Acts 11:12)
He also testifies before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. He said God gave “them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8–9).
Read outside the context of the first-century argument, when Paul says, “There is no distinction” a half-dozen times, one might get the impression that he means there is no distinction. And you might rightly ask, as our critics do, and many of our friends as well, “Why does First Fruits of Zion teach something called “distinction theology” when the New Testament says there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles?” It’s a good question.
Why do we teach distinction theology if the New Testament specifically says there is no distinction? Because Paul and Peter repeatedly emphasized “there is no distinction” in regard to entrance into the community of Messiah, into the kingdom, and into the World to Come, precisely because there is a distinction in all other regards.
All those passages argue that it’s not necessary for Gentiles to become Jewish and put themselves “under the Law” in order to enter the community of Yeshua, to qualify for the kingdom, or to receive a share in the World to Come because in Messiah “There is no distinction in regard to these things.” We are one body with many different parts, each part with a unique purpose and function, but all parts of the same body.
Paul and Peter repeatedly emphasized “there is no distinction” in regard to entrance into the community of Messiah, into the kingdom, and into the World to Come, precisely because there is a distinction in all other regards.
Outside the context of this argument over whether a Gentile disciple qualifies for participation in the community and the hope of the kingdom, these passages are almost universally misunderstood. The next generation of disciples after the apostles were already misunderstanding them. They took the no-distinction passages to mean that there was no distinction at all between Jews and Gentiles. They understood Paul’s epistles to require a neutralization and homogenization of both respective identities. Early Christians thought the New Testament was calling for a new single identity that homogenized everyone. That identity came to be called Christian.
Consequently, if there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (none at all), whatever applies to one must also apply equally to the other. Since Paul told Gentile Christians not to be Jewish, not to undergo circumcision, and not to put themselves “under the law,” consequently, the same mandates must also equally apply to Jewish Christians because “there is no distinction.” That simple logical inference was the birth of replacement theology.
Misunderstanding Paul
The mistake is obvious when you see it. It’s like one small coding error in a piece of computer programming that alters the output of the whole system. Subsequent generations of disciples did not understand what Paul meant when he said, “There is no distinction.” If you don’t understand the difference between Jews and Gentiles, it is impossible to untangle Paul’s writings.
For example, when Paul says we are saved by grace, not by works, and he warns about the so-called “works of the Law,” he’s not talking about God’s commandments in general. He means that no one is going to inherit the World to Come simply by becoming Jewish. Read his words outside of their context, and it sounds as though he is against observing the Torah.
Another example. When Paul contrasts those who are “under the law” with those who are free from the law and “not under the law,” he is distinguishing the Jewish people who fall under the authority of the 613 commandments of the Torah and the Gentile disciples who do not fall under the authority of all 613 commandments of the Torah. In Paul’s writings, to be “under the Law” means to be either born Jewish (like Yeshua, of whom he says, “Born of a woman under the law” [Galatians 4:4]) or to become a proselyte who undergoes a legal conversion “under the law” to become Jewish. What’s more, Paul abbreviates the terminology “under the law” down to just “the Law.”
When subsequent generations of disciples read the epistles to the Galatians and Romans, removed from a Jewish context, they took the term “under the Law” to mean observing the commandments of the Law. They took it to mean that you could not simultaneously observe the Torah as a Jew and also be a follower of Yeshua. They concluded that faith replaced works, grace replaced law, and Christian identity replaced Jewish identity. I could give you many more examples of how, without distinction theology, second-century Christians inevitably read Paul’s writings backward.
Misunderstanding Jesus
The problem started with a misunderstanding of Paul, but it did not end there. Once we have already misunderstood Paul, it is impossible not to read that same misunderstanding back into the Gospels. The Gospels provide several opportunities to do so.
For example, the Gospels focus on Yeshua’s conflicts with religious authorities, particularly around the question of healing on Shabbat. Yeshua argues that it’s permissible to violate Shabbat to heal a person’s body on the basis of a principle derived from Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy more than sacrifice.” His opponents agree that it’s permissible to violate the Shabbat to save a life on the basis of a principle derived from Leviticus 18:5: “If a person does the commandments, he shall live by them”—not die by them. But they argue that aside from an immediate threat to life, all other remedies, cures, and healing applications can wait until after the Shabbat. The head of one synagogue puts the objection succinctly: “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day” (Luke 13:14). It’s the type of question the rabbis and the sages in those days commonly debated. Rabbinic literature preserves almost identical dialogues and arguments.
When the Gentile Christians (already assuming they understood Paul’s epistles to mean there is no distinction) read about Yeshua’s conflict with religious authorities, they assumed that the Sabbath was the type of thing Paul meant by the works of the law and not being under the law. They superimposed their misunderstanding of Paul onto Yeshua’s arguments with the religious leadership. They concluded that Yeshua campaigned against Sabbath prohibitions as part of the broader campaign against being “under the law.” The church’s misreading of Paul informed the way that it read the Gospels, and that misreading goes back to a misunderstanding about distinction.
Consider the argument over handwashing. In Mark 7, Yeshua argues against using customs and legal innovations to circumvent the commandments of the Torah. He states that eating bread with unwashed hands does not defile a person. Rather, what comes out of the heart does morally defile a person. He transforms a legal dispute into an opportunity to make a moral point.
The early church didn’t understand the legal discussion or the moral point. They read it in light of Paul’s supposed teachings against the “works of the law.” They assumed Yeshua was merely demonstrating that we are not “under the law” by simultaneously throwing out Jewish tradition and the dietary laws. They could cross reference that assumption with Peter’s vision of the sheet in Acts 10 for further confirmation that the Law was no longer in effect. Do you begin to see how failure to understand distinction theology colored the interpretation of the whole New Testament?
The church’s misreading of Paul informed the way that it read the Gospels, and that misreading goes back to a misunderstanding about distinction.
Then there’s the problem that Yeshua’s opponents in the Gospels were all Jews. The bad guys in the story are all Jews. (Except for the Romans. They are also bad guys. But he doesn’t talk with them very much.) It was easy for the second-century Gentile Christian reader, who has already misunderstood Paul to be saying that Jewish status is no longer a thing, to forget that Jesus and the disciples were also Jews. If “there is no difference” between Jew and Gentile in Messiah, Jesus and his followers should be understood not as Jews but as Christians. That reading transforms the Gospel’s intra-Jewish conflicts into conflicts between Christians and Jews.
The language of the Gospel of John, the latest of the four canonical gospels, contributes to that reading. John was written during the late first century, a period of intense persecution around the time that the synagogues were expelling Yeshua’s disciples to escape Roman persecution of the Yeshua sect. That’s why the Gospel of John carries an acrimonious tone toward the mainstream Jewish establishment. What’s more, the terminology in John lumps together the Jewish leadership in Judea under the term “the Judeans” or “the Jews.” John, a Galilean Jew, is talking about “the Judeans in Judea,” such as the Sadducees and Pharisees in control of the Sanhedrin. However, a generation removed, when we have misunderstood Paul to be saying that there is no distinction between Jewish believers and Gentile believers, it’s impossible to read it that way any longer. Instead, the Jews are typecast into the role of “the other,” while the readers must identify Yeshua, the disciples, and themselves as “the Not-Jews.”
Replacement theology comes from a misapprehension of Paul’s statements about distinction. You could call replacement theology “no-distinction theology.” The no-distinction interpretation then colors every saying and parable of the Master. It misinterprets almost every teaching of Yeshua to support the idea of the church replacing Israel or something similar.
The church’s failure to understand distinction theology transformed the Gospels from Jewish stories about the Jewish Messiah interacting with the Jewish people into Christian stories about the Christian Messiah fighting against the Jewish people. It was no longer Yeshua the religious reformer teaching the message, “Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It became Jesus the religious revolutionary teaching the message, “Leave the old religion behind and join the new religion, the church.” That’s how you would understand the Gospels if you were going to reconcile them with the idea that “there is no distinction.”
Misunderstanding Hebrews
Consider how that misreading of Paul informs our reading of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The Epistle to the Hebrews exhorted Jewish believers to remain steadfast in their allegiance to Yeshua as the Messiah at a time when they were tempted to abandon their allegiance to him under threat of banishment from the Temple and access to the priesthood. The author of Hebrews says, “Don’t let that shake your faith. We have a high priest atoning for us in the heavenly Sanctuary.” The epistle provides a long, in-depth piece of Jewish exegesis to prove that the Levitical priesthood, the sacrifices, and the Temple on earth pertain only to this present age, which the writer says “is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). The old covenant, the covenant at Sinai, is going to endure until heaven and earth disappear, but heaven and earth are growing old, ready to disappear. The priesthood of the Messiah, atoning in the heavenly Temple, operates under the new covenant issued in Jeremiah 31, which pertains to the age to come and eternal life. The author of Hebrews argues, “Don’t throw away the World to Come for the sake of this world. Don’t throw out the heavenly high priest for the sake of being approved by the earthly priesthood.”
While developing this argument, the epistle carefully distinguishes between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Messiah, between the Temple on earth and the heavenly Temple, between the Sinai covenant and the new covenant, and between this current age and the World to Come. At no point does it replace one with the other, as replacement theology teaches. Instead, it makes a distinction between the two.
The old covenant, the covenant at Sinai, is going to endure until heaven and earth disappear.
But if the Epistle to the Hebrews is read through the lens of a misreading of Paul’s epistles, it sounds as if it must be arguing for replacing the Levitical priesthood, the sacrificial services, the Temple on earth, and the Sinai covenant. Those things are “becoming obsolete and growing old [and] is ready to vanish away” because they are being replaced by a new religion that is not under the law. This misinterpretation of the book of Hebrews fits hand-in-glove with the misinterpretation of Paul, and it all goes back to one core problem: the failure to understand distinction theology.
That’s what replacement theology is. It’s the failure to understand distinction theology.
The Same Mistake
According to Yeshua, the Torah has not been abolished. He says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17–18). He claims that the Torah has not been abolished and will not be abolished so long as this world endures—not until heaven and earth pass away.
That statement, although true, leads quickly to another fallacy when combined with the “there-is-no-distinction” misunderstanding of Paul. If we combine the church’s failure to understand the distinction between Jewish and Gentile disciples with Yeshua’s statement, “I didn’t come to abolish the Torah,” we quickly arrive at a theological position referred to as one law theology. It’s the same formula as replacement theology with the addition of Torah observance. That’s the simple theological equation behind most of the Hebrew Roots movement. (Never mind that it uses Paul’s words to contradict Paul’s words.)
Replacement theology + Torah is not abolished = one law theology
Fixing the Mistake
To sort all of this out, we must realize that Paul was not at all erasing the legal distinctions when he said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in [the Messiah Yeshua]” (Galatians 3:28). Each of these are legal categories in the Torah. Paul was merely saying that despite our distinct legal categories, we are all one in Messiah Yeshua, in the community of faith, sharing the same hope for eternal life through Yeshua. He did not mean to erase the distinction between Jewish and Gentile disciples, as is typically supposed. Just the opposite. He made a distinction between them in every area except for salvation and eligibility for the World to Come through Messiah.
This means that Jewish disciples of Yeshua should remain firm in their Jewish identity, observing the commandments that apply to them as Jews, as Paul says, the important thing is “keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:19–20).
Despite our distinct legal categories, we are all one in Messiah Yeshua, in the community of faith, sharing the same hope for eternal life through Yeshua.
This means that Gentile disciples of Yeshua should remain firm in their national identity, observing the commandments that apply to them as non-Jewish disciples of Yeshua as taught by the apostles.
If we understand this simple distinction, all the pieces click together, and we can step out of the trap of replacement theology, remove the virtual reality headset from our eyes, and take a look at the real world of the New Testament and the teaching of Yeshua and the apostles. That’s the most exciting part. Because at that point, with the headset off, what do we see? The whole New Testament snaps into focus in uninterrupted continuity with the Hebrew Scriptures.
We see that Israel remains at the center of God’s concern; replacement theology vanishes. God remains faithful to his covenants. Supersessionism falls apart. We see what many eyes longed to see but did not see: the good news of the kingdom of heaven. That simple correction changes 1,900 years of misinterpretation of the New Testament, and it restores a clear view of the redemption and the coming kingdom.
May it come speedily, soon, and in our lifetimes through the hand of our Master Yeshua.