Israel is church 1st, nation 2nd

[nwink]

I recently was reading a book from a Reformed and Presbyterian author, and he said that "Israel" should be looked at as the church first, and as a nation second. (This is in contrast to Dispensationalism which looks at "Israel" as a nation only, but with a few believers in it) I don't have the book containing the quote with me, so I didn't want to name the author in case I'm misquoting him.

Is the statement of this author correct? If so, please explain how/why this is true.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Writers often look for a brief form of words that simplifies a concept.

What happens a lot is that the simplification gets abstracted from the fulsome explanation that accompanied the formula. This isn't a problem that only affects one grouping, but often we (or they) take our own operational assumptions and assume the self-evident quality of our formulae. And then wonder why the other side "doesn't get it."

Probably, the unnamed author's point is that in covenant-theology (and probably most robustly in the form that leads to a Presbyterian understanding, rather than the Baptist) the heart and soul of what "Israel" is and means is spiritual, through-and-through.

Of course, the reality of the church is that it is a "mixed" organization, and always has been, and always will be in this world. So, whether the church is in certain respects co-extensive with a particular nation or not (depending on the age), is not so significant as might seem to some. A nation will be a "mixed" community of faithful and unfaithful, and a church will be a mixed community of faithful and unfaithful.

I pointed out above that a Ref.Bapt will not have quite the same level of rejection of the "dispensational" point (as you expressed it); although I want to fairly represent many of them as being essentially "covenantal" in their thinking (but less rigorous, from my perspective). Many of our Baptist friends here point to the Israelite economy as being fundamentally typological, and therefore a "national community," borne out of simple blood-line connection to Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob), and irrespective of their faith commitment. External conformity was sufficient to engage them and maintain them in the earthbound covenant, which only foreshadowed or hinted at the everlasting covenant of grace. Hence, one could expect a "mixed community" in the former age; but today they insist that we should be more exacting in who we recognize as part of the invisible brotherhood (insisting that all individuals should now exercise an "opt-in" clause, when/if they are capable of such an intelligible statement).


I'm not positive what I've said has offered any clarity on the particular question you have. Israel was "God's covenant man or men," after the Angel gave the name. Hence, it would seem to me indubitable that those who were given or adopted the name were expected to be in the same covenant-of-faith as the father who first owned it. This puts a priority on a spiritual (or perhaps, church) identity in the name. The nation is constituted around and upon those who are or profess this spiritual community.

So, these two are one-and-the-same (in certain respects) for many centuries after, until the purpose for the national-identity had been finalized in the Person and mission of Christ. But, I argue, there is a priority to the spiritual essence, that gives the only useful meaning to the external form. The "nation" (I might say) overlaps the "church" (not the other way around), so the religious is more fundamental than the social (eventually the social evaporates). And both overlap the spiritual, which is fundamental to both; just as we see the church today overlapping the spiritual.

But we might add that the church is still related to "kingdom," meaning the kingdom of Christ and of God, which belongs to the age-to-come. Once that has finally arrived, spirit, church, and society will be one, whole cloth--no mixture, no need for conceptual divisions (other than analytic distinctions).

 

[Iconoclast]

I recently was reading a book from a Reformed and Presbyterian author, and he said that "Israel" should be looked at as the church first, and as a nation second. (This is in contrast to Dispensationalism which looks at "Israel" as a nation only, but with a few believers in it) I don't have the book containing the quote with me, so I didn't want to name the author in case I'm misquoting him.

Is the statement of this author correct? If so, please explain how/why this is true.

Although all Redemptive History focuses on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in redeeming His blood bought Church,the place of Israel as a nation has a distinct purpose in typological form. In discussing the blood bought church the writer to Hebrews includes all saints in Hebrews 11 as part of the one eternal church that will assemble on the last day.
As revelation by design is progressive the choice of the nation added a more significant type that must be considered.

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn

The failure of the nation as a whole is demonstrated by the whole teaching of "the elect remnant"..ie, the godly line being preserved . The Servant of the Lord that Isaiah speaks of is the complete fulfillment of both the HOLY NATION, and the HOLY CHURCH.
By virtue of our adoption and saving UNION being placed IN Christ,as part of His body he CHURCH and a Holy nation.We now may serve Him;

68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Individual sinners being redeemed are built up as living stones;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

We as restored image bearers and part of the Christian Israel are to shine as lights in this world as a holy nation in obeying the law in our hearts by new birth. We in our sanctification are being conformed to the image of the Son. Our calling is a holy calling, both as a holy nation, and holy local assemblies in this world.

1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end

Pastor Bruce....

Many of our Baptist friends here point to the Israelite economy as being fundamentally typological, and therefore a "national community," borne out of simple blood-line connection to Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob), and irrespective of their faith commitment. External conformity was sufficient to engage them and maintain them in the earthbound covenant, which only foreshadowed or hinted at the everlasting covenant of grace. Hence, one could expect a "mixed community" in the former age; but today they insist that we should be more exacting in who we recognize as part of the invisible brotherhood (insisting that all individuals should now exercise an "opt-in" clause, when/if they are capable of such an intelligible statement).

Considering we do read of the elect remnant of Israel, and not all Israel was of Israel....I am not sure why you would say this?
"and irrespective of their faith commitment"?? Are you speaking of dispensational brethren?

In light of adoption being said to be Spirit wrought,it does not seem that external conformity in any way maintains anyone in the covenant....[the terms of the earthbound covenant being changed]the axe is laid to the root of the tree. The failed example of Ot Israel is held out as a stern warning to any who would seek to mix in among the saints ,as I know you would agree.

 

[Peairtach]

The New Testament Church/Israel of God (Gal 6:16)/commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12) is the international people of God and nation into which all other nations are being incorporated.

Christ is both its King (nation/kingdom) and Priest (church) and it has officers called elders as did the nation of Israel, and a priesthood (of all believers) as did Israel.

Certain aspects of the New Testament Kingdom of God were typologically shadowed in the laws and institutions of the Old Testament Israel/the Church, but Israel/the Church/the Kingdom of God is still here in its more mature New Testament form.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pastor Bruce....

Considering we do read of the elect remnant of Israel, and not all Israel was of Israel....I am not sure why you would say this?
"and irrespective of their faith commitment"?? Are you speaking of dispensational brethren?

In light of adoption being said to be Spirit wrought,it does not seem that external conformity in any way maintains anyone in the covenant....[the terms of the earthbound covenant being changed]the axe is laid to the root of the tree. The failed example of Ot Israel is held out as a stern warning to any who would seek to mix in among the saints ,as I know you would agree.

Anthony,
Please regard my comments as fundamentally an attempt to answer the opening post's questions, and to explain why some criticism of dispensationalism can end up sounding something like criticism of (some) baptists.

The fact is that within our forum, I've had several exchanges with Baptist brothers who have defended the proposition that a covenant like Abraham's operated on two distinct levels, and these were as a matter of function two separate covenants. Thus, the nation or national community was borne out of the bloodline of Abraham, and in terms of the "earthbound" covenant, was propagated by circumcision in the first place, and later on (under Moses) by obedience to additional laws and rites; the maintenance of which was key to remaining in the land, in connection with fulfillment of God's grant to Abraham. Especially in terms of circumcision, because faith is "only" predicated of Abraham (so it is said), therefore faith is not intrinsic to that covenant on that view.

Of course, as a traditional covenant theologian, I most vehemently disagree with such a characterization of God's covenant with Abraham. But it has been represented to me as summarizing the "Coxeian" covenantal-view.

The point is, that if there is an "earthbound" covenant, with a "land-focus," then this notion is not far at all (as I see it) from that view in the OP that purports to describe a certain dispensational view that reckons with Israel first of all, or principally, or in the initial encounter on earth as a nation; on the way to reinterpreting or rising to a "higher" antitypical understanding of (true) Israel.

Since this isn't my understanding of how typology operates, or how many covenants there are (at any given time), I don't start by first conceiving of Israel in mundane terms, in order to take it higher from there.

Here, it isn't my concern to explore how other RBs or others in general might dispute with that stance, or tweak it in light of other verses deemed relevant to the question.