# The True Israel of God - Lee Roy Shelton Jr.



## Nathan A. Hughes (Dec 22, 2018)

This is an informative work on the true Israel of God https://reformed1517.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-true-israel-of-god-lee-roy-shelton.html


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 22, 2018)

I thought the article was thankworthy and a helpful overview of a biblical, non-dispensational view of a consideration of the one, unified people of God denominated as _the Israel of God. _It is important to state my appreciation for the many good points the article makes.

I found the article wanting, however. So, I offer this critique as a Presbyterian (the author was a Baptist brother), and a classical covenant theologian.

What's missing? Primarily what's missing is reference to the One True Israelite, or Israel reduced to a single individual. Israel *embodied *in a Principal. Where a complete covenant or federal theology takes you is to the Representative himself.

The Israel of God is finally just One Person, the true and only-begotten Son, unto whom are all the promises referred, and from whom flows all the blessings of his inheritance to all those who are found IN HIM.

The weakness, in that otherwise commendable essay, is that the phrase "in Christ" (which first appears in the end of the very first paragraph) is never reckoned synonymous with "in Israel;" such an equation would show the fundamental unity of Christ with his elect people, whether oriented backwards or forwards. Here is the end of part2 of the essay:


> This shows us that in Christ Jesus, the true Israel of God, made up of believers, born again by His Spirit, need no future earthy altar, temple, sacrifice or throne because we are forever complete in Christ by His "once for all" salvation which He finished at Calvary.


The "true Israel of God" is there defined distinct from the Christ, who though he fulfills various types from the Old Covenant, is not quite the ideal embodiment of them. He does not "fill them up," in this perspective, but relegates them to an irrelevant past--not historically meaningless, but not existentially meaningful for the present either. Again, in part6, note the same separation:


> The New Testament writers... apply these Scriptures [OT texts pertaining to a kingdom of glory] which describe the true Israel of God, to the church of the living God in Christ, and to every believer who makes up the body of Christ, the kingdom of God.


I'm not exaggerating how this effort to unify the people of God in the OT with the people of God in the NT--which is absolutely true, and vital--bypasses the Nexus of connection, the Person of Christ, The One True Israelite. The author has a last chance to make this clear in part8, when he refers to the Vine (Jn.15; Rom.11); but again Christ/Branch is not identified as "Israel," but only the lesser branches are identified as "Israel."

This quote from just above the former is representative of many:


> The New Testament teaches that the church, the body of born-again believers, the true Israel of God, is the true and only heir to all the Old Testament promises.


What the NT teaches is that *C H R I S T* *ALONE* is HEIR of the promises, 2Cor.1:20. This text is referred to just once in the essay, near the end, but without identifying Christ as the Sole Heir (ala Isaac).

The "promises" are treated in the essay in a largely temporal manner; everything is forward looking. But there is more to the OT than that. Aaron the priest was an earthly _representation _of the active Priest functioning in the heavenly reality at that moment. David the king was an earthly _representation _of the lively Reign of the divine King at that moment. It was a heavenly reality that had yet to break into earthly time and space; which breaking-in would absorb all the types and shadows in its reality and light.

"The true Israel" is constantly predicated of the NT church in the essay; and even the OT prophets (mainly Isaiah) are taught as being oriented wholly to the future in regard to the reality--a position inconsistent with Paul's interpretation at the end of Rom.2. In fact, the author draws a very clear distinction (as he sees it) between Israel and the church:


> You see, only one body of people--either the nation of Israel or the church, but not both--can be the children of promise.


He is not just referring to the NT age or beyond it. He is cutting a divide ACROSS the whole of Scripture. How does this differ from a Presbyterian, classic-covenant theology perspective?

We identify one church throughout time, which (at the time of the OT Exodus) was confined to one nation taking the name of Israel, and in this latter age is not confined to one nation. And in both the former age and the present age, that church (which may still be called by the Name of its Principal, Israel) is marked by a mixed character--those within who are "really" Israel (not merely "of Israel," Rom.9:6) sharing outward, visible unity with others who are inwardly false and mere professors, believers of the lip but not the heart, Is.29:13. But real unity is only possible through the Principal, through shared union with Christ, from whom alone is one truly entitled to call himself one of (or one with) the Israel of God.

This is not something that only started to be a proper description with the first Advent, or Christ's baptism, or his death, or his resurrection, or his ascension; or at Pentecost. It is not merely by the NT a dividing line comes into view, one in which the "spiritual" church appropriates the ongoing "spiritual" dimension of OT promises. The NT doesn't "sit atop" the OT, like spiritual icing on a physical cake. The NT takes the OT as a whole, with physical and spiritual dimensions, and turns it inside out, so that the spiritual realities are prioritized like never before, like they could not be before the Fulfillment. As for the line dividing those of lip-only from those of heart-and-mouth confession, there's one splitting the OT church (national Israel) in two, and it splits the NT church (international Israel) in two as well.

This conviction of the covenant theologian interpreter leads to a final criticism of the article, pertaining to its discussion of the Abrahamic promises (part7). The author treats those promises as if they were exhaustively fulfilled within the context of the OT--which handily negates the interpretations of dispensationalism. My criticism is not with whether or not those fulfillments were _sufficient _to confute dispensationalism (they are). It is the division that is introduced between three aspects or terms of promise that are treated as "worldly," nationhood, posterity, and inheritance; and fourth and finally the promise of a spiritual Messiah. It is denied by the essay that this last was given to Abraham exactly:


> This greatest of all the promises was not expressed to Abraham, or to Isaac or Israel, in those terms.... The apostle Paul was shown by divine revelation the identity of the Seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed.


We cannot be satisfied with the whole treatment here, whether regarding "worldly" fulfillment, or the "spiritual." Clearly (according to Heb.11:13-16, 8), Abraham way-back-when did not conceive that any earthly grant (obtained by himself or his posterity) was exhaustive of the promises made to him. Nor was he ignorant that one Seed of his would be his Savior, and Savior of all those who shared his faith.

In other words, according to covenant theology, the *entirety *of the promise grant to Abraham was spiritual in nature, and it had earthly figures by which it was historically perpetuated and reminded to God's people (Abraham's true posterity) under several worldly aspects. These included God's bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt and constituting them a nation, increasing the numbers of those in association with the tribes, and providing them with land in which to dwell together.

Those things... were NOT fulfillments to which Abraham himself looked, nor believers in all succeeding generations, according to the author of Hebrews. It is not simply that these signs did not exhaust the fulfillment motif; but that they were never _fundamentally _the fulfillment expected, but were only and ever additional signposts and necessary conditions for the Fulfillment's arrival. Moreover, the already/not-yet motif of the promises has yet to finish playing out. So we need to guard against an "overrealized eschatology."

***************************
I have been critical in what I wrote above. But I want to end by saying that the great majority of the essay, in all its parts, is commendable, is worthy of everyone's consideration and appropriation. There are many risks in taking up a subject and writing for public consumption, including criticism for what was said, and for what wasn't said. The author did not write with me in mind, and I realize that.

Especially, I think valuable the texts he collates in order to show that the prophets of the OT evidently saw God as completely faithful to his promises to the fathers (as far as an earthly fulfillment could be honored). For those who have been taught that God didn't satisfy his earlier promises (so something is left to accomplish on earth), this essay makes a convenient place to go for rebuttals.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 22, 2018)

See also:
https://heidelblog.net/2018/05/the-israel-of-god/

Adapted from the original posted here:
https://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/

Reactions: Like 1


----------

