# Some Thoughts -- Any Response?



## Kaalvenist (Aug 14, 2010)

I posted this recently on a blog, and have yet to get a response. Any takers?

1. The principle of God establishing covenants with "covenanters and their seed" is not a type or shadow of the Old Testament. This is manifest because the principle existed previously under the Covenant of Works (Adam and his seed) and the Covenant of Redemption (Christ and His seed, the elect). These covenants existed prior to the fall into sin and the subsequent redemption promised in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore before all types and shadows (since types and shadows are, in fact, types and shadows of redemption in the OT dispensation of the Covenant of Grace); and therefore the principle cannot be a type or shadow. -- The argument is similar to that which we usually set forth in defense of the perpetuity of the Sabbath: since the Sabbath was given in Gen. 2:2, 3, before the fall, it was before all types of redemption (because before redemption itself), and therefore cannot itself be a type.

2. Circumcision could not have been a seal of the land promise, or a way of identifying the people through whom Messiah would come, because of the proselytes who were also circumcised, along with their children (Exod. 12:48). The proselytes never received the land with the citizens of the nation of Israel, and Messiah did not come through their line (with the exception of certain women mentioned, such as Rahab and Ruth). Circumcision was therefore not a national seal, but an ecclesiastical one, receiving individuals into the church of God under the Old Testament.

3. The circumcision of the infant children of proselytes tends to argue for the rite of circumcision not being administered merely because of remote descent from Abraham, but for the personal faith/piety of the immediate parent(s). The Reformed Baptist argument generally sees Abraham as the one with whom the covenant was made, with succeeding generations simply falling under his covenant. But whereas one could argue that Israelites "to a thousand generations" would still be the physical seed of Abraham, and that proselytes were the spiritual seed of Abraham, the infant seed of proselytes were neither the physical nor the spiritual seed of Abraham, and yet were still circumcised -- not in virtue of their remote descent from Abraham, but in virtue of their immediate descent from believing parents. Since this was manifestly the ground on which they were circumcised, I argue that this must have been the universal ground on which circumcision was to be administered, since the same law in this regard applied to the native Israelite as to the strangers or proselytes (Exod. 12:49).

4. All of this points to the fact that faith, repentance, and a life led in obedience to the commandments of God, was required of all "communicant members" of the church under the Old Testament. The idea that adult membership in the Old Testament was based solely upon physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is both incredible (as that God would make provision for such wickedness in his church under any dispensation), and directly contrary to many statements in Holy Scripture, particularly in the Psalms. When I wrote a defense of paedobaptism from the Psalter upon the baptism of my daughter, I gave special attention to this point, which may be read here: Login | Facebook. (If you can't read it without adding me as a friend, I would be happy to add you.) As I said in the conclusion, this argues both for the strong continuity in the church of God through both Testaments, as making the same requirements of adult members, as well as against the idea that declarations in the New Testament of church members being believers, saints, regenerate, etc. argues against the church membership of their infant children in this dispensation (since the same requirements under the previous dispensation certainly did not rule out the church membership of believers' children).

5. I question the interpretation usually offered by Reformed Baptists of Jeremiah 31:31-34/Hebrews 8:6-13, on the basis of Jeremiah 24:7: "And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." The fulfillment of this prophecy occurred after the seventy years' captivity (verse 6), and therefore is not being spoken of the time of the New Testament, but of the Old. It therefore cannot be understood as excluding the infant children of believers from membership in the church, since this was still a standing ordinance of God at that time; so neither can Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 be understood in such a regard.


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 14, 2010)

Some interesting thoughts, but I'm still inclined to think that circumcision was intended to point to the Messiah, contra your point #2. You seem to be separating proselytes into a class of their own, where I tend to see them more in terms of national (and therefore religious) inclusion. I wonder if thinking of proselytes as new "believers" might be a little anachronistic? In those days, Israel were the circumcised and the Gentiles, the uncircumcised. it was more this type of ethnic distinction, wasn't it?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 14, 2010)

The fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 happened after the 70 years' captivity? Kaput.....that's it and nothing more..like a greater fulfilllment?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 14, 2010)

Nova said:


> Some interesting thoughts, but I'm still inclined to think that circumcision was intended to point to the Messiah, contra your point #2. You seem to be separating proselytes into a class of their own, where I tend to see them more in terms of national (and therefore religious) inclusion. I wonder if thinking of proselytes as new "believers" might be a little anachronistic? In those days, Israel were the circumcised and the Gentiles, the uncircumcised. it was more this type of ethnic distinction, wasn't it?


In Suk,

1. How could circumcision be "intended to point to the Messiah," i.e. identifying the biological/genetic line through which Messiah would come, since it was commanded to be administered to people outisde of the lineal descent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

2. How could they be a part of the nation of Israel, since they never had the rights of full citizens? They never received a portion of the Promised Land (which was divided out by tribes and families lineally descended from Jacob).

3. They are distinguished throughout the Law of Moses, whenever Exodus 12:49 is repeated for substance, that there would be one law to the stranger (LXX: proselutos) as to the homeborn. They continued to be distinguished into the New Testament, when those present on the day of Pentecost are described as both "Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10).

4. If you investigate the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, you will see the way "strangers" or proselytes are described. Just noting the verse I cited, Exodus 12:48, we see that the proselytes desired to eat the Passover "to the LORD," indicating that they believed in Jehovah as God. The fact that they were throughout the Law commanded eat the Passover, and offer sacrifices (all which foresignified Christ to come), indicated their belief in salvation through the Messiah, as was the case for all Old Testament saints.

5. In which days? I am arguing that the original intent behind the institution of circumcision was for this purpose, to serve as the initiatory rite for reception into the visible church; and to signify spiritual (rather than national or typical) blessings. The fact that it was administered to people of other nations, not for their citizenship in the nation of Israel (for they never were citizens), but for their faith in God in Christ, argues against it being a sign of ethnic distinction.

---------- Post added at 03:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> The fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 happened after the 70 years' captivity? Kaput.....that's it and nothing more..like a greater fulfilllment?


Not what I said, Pergamum. Jeremiah 24 was fulfilled after the seventy years' captivity. It is therefore using language identical to that found in Jeremiah 31:31-34, to describe a time period still under the Old Testament. Obviously, children were not excluded from the church of God after the seventy years' captivity, regardless of how regenerate it makes everybody sound. Why would children be excluded from the church of God at the advent of the new covenant, on the basis of identical language?


----------



## steadfast7 (Aug 14, 2010)

> 1. How could circumcision be "intended to point to the Messiah," i.e. identifying the biological/genetic line through which Messiah would come, since it was commanded to be administered to people outisde of the lineal descent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?


 Gal 3:16, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ."


> 2. How could they be a part of the nation of Israel, since they never had the rights of full citizens? They never received a portion of the Promised Land (which was divided out by tribes and families lineally descended from Jacob).


 Levi was never apportioned land, and were not listed in the ancentral tribal list of Numbers chapter 1, but were they not citizens of Israel?


> 3. They are distinguished throughout the Law of Moses, whenever Exodus 12:49 is repeated for substance, that there would be one law to the stranger (LXX: proselutos) as to the homeborn. They continued to be distinguished into the New Testament, when those present on the day of Pentecost are described as both "Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10).


 We distinguish similarly in Christianity, for example 'MBBs' - Muslim background believers. It doesn't make them any less a part of us (in the NT economy, that is). Perhaps the distinction was there as ethnicity was paramount in the OT economy, however considering that they were commanded to eat the passover demonstrates their inclusion.


> 4. If you investigate the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, you will see the way "strangers" or proselytes are described. Just noting the verse I cited, Exodus 12:48, we see that the proselytes desired to eat the Passover "to the LORD," indicating that they believed in Jehovah as God. The fact that they were throughout the Law commanded eat the Passover, and offer sacrifices (all which foresignified Christ to come), indicated their belief in salvation through the Messiah, as was the case for all Old Testament saints.





> 5. In which days? I am arguing that the original intent behind the institution of circumcision was for this purpose, to serve as the initiatory rite for reception into the visible church; and to signify spiritual (rather than national or typical) blessings. The fact that it was administered to people of other nations, not for their citizenship in the nation of Israel (for they never were citizens), but for their faith in God in Christ, argues against it being a sign of ethnic distinction.


 Ishmael and his descendants were circumcized, even to this day. Does this mean their inclusion into the church? No. They were circumcized because of their association with Abraham, who would bear True Israel, the Messiah.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 14, 2010)

> *Kaalvenist*
> 1. The principle of God establishing covenants with "covenanters and their seed" is not a type or shadow of the Old Testament. This is manifest because the principle existed previously under the Covenant of Works (Adam and his seed) and the Covenant of Redemption (Christ and His seed, the elect). These covenants existed prior to the fall into sin and the subsequent redemption promised in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore before all types and shadows (since types and shadows are, in fact, types and shadows of redemption in the OT dispensation of the Covenant of Grace); and therefore the principle cannot be a type or shadow. -- The argument is similar to that which we usually set forth in defense of the perpetuity of the Sabbath: since the Sabbath was given in Gen. 2:2, 3, before the fall, it was before all types of redemption (because before redemption itself), and therefore cannot itself be a type.


 
I'm not sure.

If we are referring to the Covenant of Redemption being made in eternity past among the members of the Godhead, and saying that principles coming that invalidate "types and shadows" following that, we may be ruling out almost everything connected with the Christian faith.

If we are looking at "types and shadows" as being more of the implicit being made explicit, or the implicit being particularized, then it would seem it would seem that covenanters and their seed promises were made more explicit in the New Testament, based on the Old Testament.

The difficulty in understanding this is that I think there likely is something like an ordinance of creation, "Covenant," at least after hearing some good teaching on this recently. So, in that sense, the idea of God making and keeping covenant with his creatures, and by derivation, their seed, existed even before the Old Testament.


----------



## Austin (Aug 14, 2010)

Y'all correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't converts in the OT incorporated into the tribes into which they married or immigrated? I would see the gentile believers in Christ's geneology as pointing to this. After all, Zipporah & her family were incorporated into Moses' tribe (Levi), Naomi & Ruth were incorporated into Boaz's line (Judah), etc. Also, as you look at the Jewish diaspora you find that converts were incorporated into the tribes (usually Judah) that they were converted by (e.g. the Phoenicians of Iberia who converted & became Sephardic Jews, or the Khazars who became a part of the Ahkenazis, or, perhaps most signifiacntly, the Ethiopians who are descended from Sheba & thus are considered sons of Judah by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel). 

Of course, the extra-biblical evidence is trumped by Biblical evidence, but surely there's enough evidence in Scripture (in the OT & in the geneologies of Matthew & Luke) to show that converts in the OT dispensation were incorporated into covenantal Israel on the same basis as those descended from Abraham. After all, if Paul's comments in Galatians mean nothing else, it seems patently obvious that he sees the "remnant of Israel" as referring to all those who shared in Abraham's faith. Besides, it is my understanding of Covenant theology that this continuity of sharing Abraham's faith is one of the pillars of our NT understanding of the Covenant (and it's sign & seal, baptism) being applied to the NT Israel (the Church) in the same manner as circumcision was in the OT dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 20, 2010)

Nova said:


> > 1. How could circumcision be "intended to point to the Messiah," i.e. identifying the biological/genetic line through which Messiah would come, since it was commanded to be administered to people outisde of the lineal descent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
> 
> 
> Gal 3:16, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ."


But how does this relate to my question? What bearing does that have on what I actually asked? Perhaps if I ask a little differently: Why were people outside of the Israelitish line circumcised, if its purpose was to mark out that lineage?


Nova said:


> > 2. How could they be a part of the nation of Israel, since they never had the rights of full citizens? They never received a portion of the Promised Land (which was divided out by tribes and families lineally descended from Jacob).
> 
> 
> Levi was never apportioned land, and were not listed in the ancentral tribal list of Numbers chapter 1, but were they not citizens of Israel?


The Levites were granted 48 cities (with surrounding pasture lands) as their own, from out of the territory of the other tribes (Num. 35:1-7). The numbering of the tribes was primarily for the purpose of determining how many soldiers could be mustered from each tribe -- "Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies" (Num. 1:2, 3). The Levites were not thus numbered because they were designated not for war, but for the ministry -- "But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them. For the LORD had spoken unto Moses, saying, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel: but thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle, and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle," etc. (Num. 1:47-50). That does not mean that they were not regarded as Israelites, or as members of the nation of Israel, only that they had a special purpose designated by God Himself.


Nova said:


> > 3. They are distinguished throughout the Law of Moses, whenever Exodus 12:49 is repeated for substance, that there would be one law to the stranger (LXX: proselutos) as to the homeborn. They continued to be distinguished into the New Testament, when those present on the day of Pentecost are described as both "Jews and proselytes" (Acts 2:10).
> 
> 
> We distinguish similarly in Christianity, for example 'MBBs' - Muslim background believers. It doesn't make them any less a part of us (in the NT economy, that is). Perhaps the distinction was there as ethnicity was paramount in the OT economy, however considering that they were commanded to eat the passover demonstrates their inclusion.


Inclusion in what? I argue that participation in the Passover demonstrates their inclusion in the church of Israel, not the nation of Israel.


Nova said:


> > 4. If you investigate the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy, you will see the way "strangers" or proselytes are described. Just noting the verse I cited, Exodus 12:48, we see that the proselytes desired to eat the Passover "to the LORD," indicating that they believed in Jehovah as God. The fact that they were throughout the Law commanded eat the Passover, and offer sacrifices (all which foresignified Christ to come), indicated their belief in salvation through the Messiah, as was the case for all Old Testament saints.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not find any Scripture testimony to the children of Ishmael being circumcised, or for what reason they were circumcised, if at all.


----------



## Austin (Aug 21, 2010)

"I argue that participation in the Passover demonstrates their inclusion in the church of Israel, not the nation of Israel."

Is there a distinction? After all, once the converts were incorporated into Israel, they were treated in all respects as Israelites. It seems to me to be creeping Dispensationalism to make this dichotomy. Isn't it the case that OT Israel was the Church, just as the NT Church is "Israel"?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 21, 2010)

Austin said:


> "I argue that participation in the Passover demonstrates their inclusion in the church of Israel, not the nation of Israel."
> 
> Is there a distinction? After all, once the converts were incorporated into Israel, they were treated in all respects as Israelites. It seems to me to be creeping Dispensationalism to make this dichotomy. Isn't it the case that OT Israel was the Church, just as the NT Church is "Israel"?


Not at all. The historic Reformed churches have always recognized the distinction between church and state, under both Old and New Testaments. This illustrates one of the most essential elements of continuity between Old and New Testaments... not that Old Testament Israel was a "type" of the New Testament Church, but that the Old Testament Church _*is*_ the New Testament Church.

Girardeau's summary of Gillespie's argument is very helpful:


> *From John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, pp. 34-37.*
> But to return to the general position, that the instances mentioned in the objection were those not of ecclesiastical worship, but of national rejoicing. Against this general view it is urged, in reply, that an unwarrantable distinction is made between the Jewish church and the Jewish nation. This raises the question whether such a distinction is valid. Were state and church identical? Did the members of the state act as members of the church? Did the members of the church act as members of the state? It may be admitted that, in the main—that is, with certain exceptions, such as the proselytes of righteousness, for example—the nation and the church were numerically coincident. Ordinarily—that is, with certain exceptions—the rite of circumcision designated one alike a member of the state and of the church. But that these two institutes were identical; that the functions of the one were the functions of the other, considered as organisms, is to my mind not susceptible of proof. It would be unsuitable here to enter at large into this question, but it lies across the track of the argument in hand, and a brief consideration of it, as it is not illogically interjected, will not be regarded as impertinent. The question is acutely and ably discussed by that great man, George Gillespie, in his _Aaron’s Rod Blossoming._ I shall give a mere outline, the bare heads, of a part of his argument to prove that the Jewish state and church, although in the main the same materially, that is, as to personal constituents, were organically and formally distinct institutes; and I do this the more readily because Gillespie’s valuable work is now rare and difficult of access. They are distinct:
> 
> (1.) In respect of laws. The judicial law was given to the state; the ceremonial law to the church.
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2010)

The Exodus proves the incorporation of outsiders into the *tribes* of Israel. Ergo, what was done at the first continued to be done. And even if it wasn't (a premise I'm not willing to grant), then in a single generation, marriage would eliminate a "prostelyte" family, unless one also proposes that prostelytes were forbidden in marriage to a native Israelite. In any case, this function would reduce if not eventually eliminate the question of landed inheritance. If a convert came to Israel, the cities provided places for them to move in, purchase permanent property, etc.

In the Exodus, on the most far-fetched birth-death cycle, there is NO POSSIBILITY (and I don't care what commentator you can unearth to say so) of 600,000 adult males, beside (!) women and children leaving Egypt counted as "purebred" Israelites of the Twelve sons. Even if you enhance the households with many servants, supposing there was two-millions or more strict descendants of Jacob's house (70 souls) come out of Egypt, there is NOT ENOUGH TIME to produce the total number. Even at 430 years in Goshen (which Paul and Stephen would dispute--the period in Goshen was 215 yrs) there is still not enough time.

Thankfully, the text itself provides us with all the explanation necessary. There was a mixed multitude that accompanied the Israelites out of the "land of death." Around the core of the Israelite (former) slaves, was a host of Egyptians and others who forsook their gods to flee for refuge to the God of Israel. ALL who left Egypt were incorporated into the nation/church. The numbering of the nation (2X) is sufficient proof that there were none "left out" of a tribe.

Nor does this deny that there was both a civil (nation) and cultic (church) aspect or separate function within that people. This is not an issue of church/state separation. Although, one needs to allow the uniqueness of that situation to stand. There were distinctive roles; however, there was not nor could have been separate identity between a nation-member and a church-member.

To be incorporated into Israel was to become a member of the nation, the tribe, and the church. Not two levels of membership. If someone wasn't circumcised yet, they weren't fully ingrafted. They were excluded from participation in the religious life of the people. But religious incorporation was the only route to national citizenship.

Bottom line, converts formed a huge portion of Israelite identity, STARTING at the BEGINNING of the nation's corporate existence--the Exodus, and Sinai Covenant. Converts characterized Abraham's house, beginning with his departure from Ur (since he had hardly any family). And to suppose that there was a time when these people started to have a second-class existence within the nation is simply wrong.

P.S. Circumcision was a sign--that the Messiah was going to be an Israelite (eventually a Jewish) male. Making it any kind of genetic marker, however, flies in the face of the "convert" identity of a huge portion of the nation. It was not a genetic marker, but a religious marker. God takes ordinary things, and invests them with spiritual meaning. So that when believers look at them, see them in context, their faith is strengthened.


----------



## Austin (Aug 21, 2010)

Sean, do I then take it that when you say "the nation of Israel" you are referring to the "state" of Israel (and later of Israel & Judah) and are making a distinction between the state and the Church in the OT era? If so, I would make that clearer, as "nation" (ethnos in the Greek) in the OT is a rather loose term, as Bruce notes. It is an interesting thing (in my mind, if in no one else's) that while the other "nations" in the OT period are true ethnic groups, "Israel" was never a purely ethnic entity. Rather, the "nation" of Israel seems always to have been an ecclesiological entity as the Church is in the NT era. The doors of Israel were always open (according to Scripture), as converts became Israel, on the same level as 100% 'pure' descendants of Abraham. 

I may have noted this before, but I am always intrigued at the fact that "Jews" are for the most part a mixed multitude to this day. A huge percentage of the Sepharadim are of Phoenician stock (largely the fruit of converts from the Carthaginian empire & colonies, particularly in Hispania), and a huge percentage of the Ashkenazim are of Slavic, Turkic, or Germanic stock (especially those from Russia, who are large measure descendants of the Khazars, a Caucasian nation-state which converted to Judaism in the Medieval period). (After all, how else do we account for the large number of blond Jews from Central Europe?) 

This is what I am referring to when I say that the dichotomy made in the modern era between "Jews" or "Israel" one the one hand and "Gentiles" on the other seems to me to be creeping Dispensationalism. After all, if "Israel" is an ecclesiological denominator, then on what basis can we ascribe the promises to Abraham as being the inheritance of the "Jews," rather than to the Church? Similarly, in what manner can we identify the Jewish people of today as any different from any other group of people who have apostasized from the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob? (e.g., the Mormons, the JWs, the Arians, the Mohammedans, etc.) From this perspective, are not the Jews merely one of the "nations" (ethnoi in Gk, "gentilia" in Latin) today? 

Of course, there does seem to be some sort of remaining promise that the "Jews" have a place in Scripture that is distinct in some measure from the other ethnoi, as many expect a great conversion from among them before the Return of the King (e.g., Luther). 

It is, to be sure, an interesting missiological and intellectual topic.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Aug 28, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The Exodus proves the incorporation of outsiders into the *tribes* of Israel. Ergo, what was done at the first continued to be done. And even if it wasn't (a premise I'm not willing to grant), then in a single generation, marriage would eliminate a "prostelyte" family, unless one also proposes that prostelytes were forbidden in marriage to a native Israelite. In any case, this function would reduce if not eventually eliminate the question of landed inheritance. If a convert came to Israel, the cities provided places for them to move in, purchase permanent property, etc.
> 
> In the Exodus, on the most far-fetched birth-death cycle, there is NO POSSIBILITY (and I don't care what commentator you can unearth to say so) of 600,000 adult males, beside (!) women and children leaving Egypt counted as "purebred" Israelites of the Twelve sons. Even if you enhance the households with many servants, supposing there was two-millions or more strict descendants of Jacob's house (70 souls) come out of Egypt, there is NOT ENOUGH TIME to produce the total number. Even at 430 years in Goshen (which Paul and Stephen would dispute--the period in Goshen was 215 yrs) there is still not enough time.
> 
> ...


Bruce,

I'm not denying that proselytes could "marry in," I'm denying that individuals who did NOT "marry in" received of the "inheritance" of the Israelites (which was divided out specifically and solely by tribe and family, as seen throughout the latter part of the book of Joshua). Nor am I denying that proselytes could own land; I'm simply denying that their ownership of land was part of the "inheritance" bequeathed to the Israelites. (Besides, Leviticus 25 states that all sold land went back to the original families in the year of jubilee.)



> And to suppose that there was a time when these people started to have a second-class existence within the nation is simply wrong.



Leviticus 25:45, 46: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

There is not one place in the entire Scripture where proselytes were regarded as citizens of the nation of Israel or Judah, or (apart from marriage) included in the tribes of Israel. I would recommend attempting to deal with Gillespie's arguments, which form a substantial section of the first part of _Aaron's Rod Blossoming,_ in order to vindicate your contention that "there was both a civil (nation) and cultic (church) aspect or separate function within that people," instead of church and state being distinct institutions under the Old Testament.

Additionally, I would argue from texts such as Matthew 21:43 and Romans 11:16-24 that the church was always considered a distinct institution within that people, since the church (not the nation) of Israel has continued on, even though they are no longer in possession of it; and the church (not the nation) has passed largely to the Gentiles.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 30, 2010)

Sean,
Yes, the land was parceled out to the original families. And, while reckoning with the real vicissitudes of war and depletion, an ever-enlarging population was promised to Israel. The inheritance of any single individual would, after (say) ten centuries, be rather small, based on laws of scarcity and a fixed size of the original inheritance.

Yes, there might be a strong, male line following someone (for instance Ittai, the Gittite) which bore children, some of whom never thought to be themselves "landed" in Israel. Although, they might actually have become farmers by land-lease or other mechanisms. The economic realities of the Promised Land would have been as unique as the people. There were ways for individuals and families to lose their inheritance-rights to land.

Since marriage is both the norm, and free-flowing within the covenant community, it would be most natural for complete absorption to take place within a handful of generations for _any _convert or convert-family. Indeed, it would be unnatural if it did not happen.


As for the sojourning stranger: I deny that he was an Israelite under any species. He was a *stranger* from the Promises, though he lived in the land (for whatever reason or advantage). If a stranger became a convert, was he not then one of the "brethren, the children of Israel"? Conversion to Christ was a way out of intergenerational servitude.

Gillespie was a great man, but perhaps we cannot agree on every particular in this case. I don't know what his precise contention is. Were there persons or families (constantly, throughout history) who were following a process of full-integration into the People of God? Of course. But to make of a circumcised convert a man-without-a-country, or a voice among the people?

It seem undeniable to me that an Israelite (born or made) was an Israelite, plain and simple. Whether he had rights that the most privileged of the nation had, is more questionable. But then, there were many rights possessed by only some of the nation, and not by all.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 14, 2010)

The Church is also an international Nation in the New Covenant, and that nation is Israel (the Israel of God).

The concept of "Israel" isn't dropped or sidelined in the New Covenant but expanded, to include all Gentiles who believe in the God of Israel, and who accept Jesus Christ as King of Israel, in the same spiritual equality with "ethnic" Jews who do. Since this is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant, the children as well as credible professors of faith are included in the covenant administration. 

_And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16, ESV)_

_Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2: 11-12)_

The New Covenant is just the third great phase of the flowering of the Abrahamic Covenant or Olive Tree, the first phase being from Abraham to Moses and the second phase from Moses to Christ. Since this is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant, and one which involves expansion rather than contraction, the children as well as credible and/or accredited professors of faith are included in the Covenant administration of the New Covenant. 

The position of the Baptists is incipiently Dispensational. 

God's field of conquest has expanded too, from the River to the Wadi of Egypt, and from the East Bank of the Jordan to the Great Sea, to encompass the whole Earth including Israel-Palestine. 

The Father has given the whole Earth to His Son and the Son is taking possession of the whole Earth through the Holy War of evangelism.
_Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm2:8)_


----------



## eqdj (Oct 8, 2010)

Sean,

Would you mind posting the link to the blog you mentioned in your OP?

Thanks!


----------

