The Church: c.AD33 - present?

[Guest]

I think "the Church" has been called different names throughout the OT & NT. I think it has always been those who have faith in God and now Jesus. I term I like the best is "the Remnent".

[Guest]

So, has it always been the case that "Israel (as a nation or ethnic people) is no different to the church than Irish, Italians, Koreans or any other people group."

Does the Olive Branch Theology only apply to Israel or does it also apply to other nations/people groups? Has there always been "a true Israel" and has it always included Gentiles? Or is there such a thing as a "true Ireland" or a "true Italy"?

Hmmm, I think I we should perhaps qualify a few things.

First off, what do you mean when you say “always”? Do you mean from the beginning of time or from the time of Abraham or from the time of the NT church, or …?

Secondly, when you refer to Israel are you referring to those that are physically descended from Abraham and Sarah, or are you referring to the covenant people of God who, biblically and historically, might not include physical descendants and might include non-descendants?

Thirdly, if we’re dealing with what the Bible says, then we have to keep in mind that most of the material is Jewish in origin and is, therefore, Israel-centric. I wouldn't expect to find much about Koreans.

I’ll assume that your first question is referring to attitudes within the First Century church, though this might well be an incorrect assumption on my part. Clearly this is a question that the early church had to work through. They probably didn’t know any Koreans and few, if any, Irishmen, though Italians were in abundance. The answer that the then Jewish church believed God gave them was that He had made no distinction between them and Gentiles (Acts 15:9) and that both Jews and Gentiles must be saved by the grace of Jesus (Acts 15:10). The implication seems quite clear (and is later clarified and strengthened in Paul’s and Peter’s epistles) that any distinction between Jew and Gentile had been erased in Christ.

On the second question, perhaps it would be helpful if we substituted the term “covenant people” for “Israel”. In other words, we understand “Israel” to be a name that refers in scripture to the “covenant people” of God. Of course the name is also used to describe an ethnic people and a nation-state, but as Paul wrote, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.” (Romans 9:6)

On the third question (of whether there has “always been a ‘true Israel’” and whether it “has always included Gentiles”) I would venture to answer that, according to scripture, Abraham was the first “true Israelite”. He entered into, and kept, covenant with God. This covenant was based on faith though was evidenced by the external symbol of circumcision. Besides Abraham and Ishmael (and later Isaac), “… every male in Abraham’s household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.” (Gen 17:23-27) We know that Abraham's household was quite large; for example, Gen 14:14 tells us that there were 318 "trained men" born in his household. If we factor in "untrained men" -- and let's hope we're not talking about potty training here -- plus women and children, the ratio of descendants of Abraham to non-descendants within the initial group of covenant people is hundreds or thousands to two! This also brings up some interesting questions about how many ethnic Jews are actually truly descended from Abraham, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

Regarding the last question, I’m sure many Irishmen would assert that there is indeed a “true Ireland” and likewise for many Italians a “true Italy”, but that really has nothing to do with being God’s covenant people.

[Guest]

This the 3rd time I've tried to reply so I'm gonna keep it brief (my pc keeps freezing up). Mort, thanks for talking through some of these issues with me. Like I said, I'm not looking to debate, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of these concepts. So, a couple of things:

When you say the distinctions between Jew and Gentile were erased, what distinctions are you referring to? And are they actual distinctions or are they percieved distinctions?

Also, do you think that perhaps God has always had a remant in every nation? For example, do you think there is a "true Philistia", "a true Edom", a "true Cush/Ethiopia" etc?

[Guest]

Ely, I'll through in my 2 cents...

do you think that perhaps God has always had a remant in every nation?

Sure, there could be a remnant. There were many Gentiles who responded to God in faith. Has there always been a Gentile remnant? I don't know.

do you think there is a "true Philistia", "a true Edom", a "true Cush/Ethiopia" etc?

In this sence, I don't think so. True Israelite, as I understand it, is only referring to those who exhibit the faith of Abraham and have him as their "spiritual" father....which eventually included people from many nations.

"They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did..."

I'm trying to think this through, just like yourself.

Steve F

[Guest]

Mort, thanks for talking through some of these issues with me.

It’s always a pleasure, Ely.

When you say the distinctions between Jew and Gentile were erased, what distinctions are you referring to? And are they actual distinctions or are they percieved distinctions?

I’m actually quoting from Peter at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where Peter says (in the NIV),

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. he made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Or as Paul wrote,

”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, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:26-29).

And,

“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 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. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.” (Eph. 2:11-22)

And, of course, a major portion of Paul’s letter to the Romans has to do with the distinction between Jews and Gentiles being erased. Although it’s best read as a whole, look at the following verses: 2:6-11, 2:28-29, 3:9, 3:22-23, 3:30, 4:9-16, 9-11

Peter deliberately echoes Exodus 19:5-6, using terms that were previously applied to Israel, when he writes,

”But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

So, back to your question, the distinction between Jew and Gentile that God has erased seems to be the distinction of how He deals with them and how they approach Him. There is no separate plan for Jews, as Dispensationalism teaches. Rather, “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” (Col. 3:11)

Also, do you think that perhaps God has always had a remant in every nation? For example, do you think there is a "true Philistia", "a true Edom", a "true Cush/Ethiopia" etc?

I’m sorry, but the question doesn’t make sense to me because Philistia, Edom and Cush/Ethiopia were not (to my knowledge) identified as the covenant people of God. However, if the question is, “Where there Philistines, Edomites, Cushites and Ethiopians that faithfully followed God in the Old Testament?”, I would say definitely. Look at Uriel, or Naaman, or Ruth, or Jethro, or Rahab, or the widow of Zarephath.

Perhaps Paul was dealing with this question when he wrote,

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

This leads, I suppose, into the bigger question of, “What happens to people who never hear the gospel or receive Christ?”, which is probably a topic for another discussion.

P.S. I'll pray for your PC!

[Guest]

Hey folks, thanks again for the input.

do you think there is a "true Philistia", "a true Edom", a "true Cush/Ethiopia" etc?

In this sence, I don't think so. True Israelite, as I understand it, is only referring to those who exhibit the faith of Abraham and have him as their "spiritual" father....which eventually included people from many nations.

I think that maybe the promise that Abraham would become the father of many nations (which Paul calls the gospel preached beforehand) also applied to those faithful Gentiles who lived before Christ came?

See, I'm thinking that when Paul spoke so much about the mystery of the Gentiles becoming co-heirs with the Jews and sons of Abraham by faith, he wasn't so much indicating that these things had only just occured. Rather, I think he was saying that these things had only just been revealed to men. That's why I asked whether the distinctions between Jew and Gentile whcih were erased were largely perceived rather than real distinctions.

Of course, prior to the first century, Gentiles were in a very real way far from God and only had a limited revelation of Him. However, I am convinced that God accepted those Gentiles who had reached out for Him and that He considered them to be His people. They were ultimately co-heirs in the household of God even though they didn't know it.

One thing that makes me think this way is the heroes of faith passage in Hebrews 11. Here, saints before and after Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are listed. This indicates to emm that not only has there always been one plan of salvaiton (I agree with you Mort), but there has also always been only one people of God. I would venture to say that this people is the church, the body of Christ.

Peter deliberately echoes Exodus 19:5-6, using terms that were previously applied to Israel, when he writes, ”But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

It's interesting that you brought up this passage. I think that maybe the Israelites who were faithful to God did actually become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation within the wider kingdom and nation which was largely not submitted to God. What do you think?

[Guest]

Ely wrote

I think that maybe the promise that Abraham would become the father of many nations (which Paul calls the gospel preached beforehand) also applied to those faithful Gentiles who lived before Christ came?

This seems quite possible. I would simply remove the word "true" from "true Ethiopia" or "true Edom" etc... I only see the word "true" being used in order to make a distinction. Since Abraham was given a direct promise for his seed, the word "true" simply clarifies who qualifies as a recipient of that blessing. There is no need to make a distinction for other nations since there was no direct promise to any of them and thus, no need to clarify who the promise would apply to.

I like how you're trying to think this through. It's great to have a forum to discuss these questions!

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

Ok, I see where you're going with this now!

See, I'm thinking that when Paul spoke so much about the mystery of the Gentiles becoming co-heirs with the Jews and sons of Abraham by faith, he wasn't so much indicating that these things had only just occured. Rather, I think he was saying that these things had only just been revealed to men.

Yes, I would agree. From the Jews perspective this might seem like something new (and difficult to swallow) but from God's perspective it had always been so.

Of course, prior to the first century, Gentiles were in a very real way far from God and only had a limited revelation of Him. However, I am convinced that God accepted those Gentiles who had reached out for Him and that He considered them to be His people. They were ultimately co-heirs in the household of God even though they didn't know it.

Yes, I agree!

I think that maybe the Israelites who were faithful to God did actually become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation within the wider kingdom and nation which was largely not submitted to God. What do you think?

Yes, I think this is exactly what Paul was getting at when he wrote, "... not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."

[Guest]

Indeed, it's such a blessing to have a place like here where you can share ideas with saints in freedom and love. Thanks for all your thoughts brethren. I'm going to go away and study the scriptures and flesh things out more.

Shalom,
Ely