The Assembly (ekklesia) is Reformed Israel
In a previous post (not in this series) I have listed eight “primary” passages that teach that the Church and Israel are the same entity and eleven other “supporting” passages that strongly imply it (some of which I’ve mentioned in part 2). I’ll go over a few of those passages here with more detail.
Before we look at these verses, it will be helpful to see a major Old Testament requirement for being an Israelite and how that ties into our discussion. For the Dispensationalist, the Abrahamic Covenant is ultimately the ground on which a continuing need for national Israel is based. It is with this covenant that Israel is born–
It should be apparent that up to the time of Abraham God’s administration concerned all nations, whereas with Abraham He began to single out one nation, and in the singling out He made a very distinctive covenant with Abraham. (Ryrie 54)
According to Ryrie, in the Dispensation of Promise, which began with the Abrahamic Covenant, (see Ryrie’s chart p62) “God marked out one family and one nation. . . .” (61) For Dispensationalism, the promises of that covenant have yet to be fulfilled, in particular the land promise, which will be finally fulfilled, along with the promises of the Davidic Covenant, in the Millennium following the return of Christ. (Ryrie 64, Vlach 19-20, 21-22) This is why Israel must continue as a distinct entity; unfulfilled promises to Israel require that God preserve the nation so he may finally keep his promises. Though promises to Israel are seen in more than just the Abrahamic Covenant, “[t]hese promises of a glorious future are guaranteed secure by the Abrahamic promises. . . .” (Ryrie 63). Vlach similarly understands the Abrahamic Covenant this way. The “original authorial intent” of the Old Testament is of “great importance to the eternal and unconditional covenants given to Israel in the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Davidic, New).” (33 emphasis added) These “unconditional covenants with Israel guarantee that the New Testament would not indicate these [covenants] would not be fulfilled with Israel. God cannot contradict himself.” (Vlach 33) Again, with his essential belief number six, Vlach shows the Dispensational weight given to the Abrahamic Covenant; even though that covenant included blessing for the Gentiles, “[i]ts goal was never to make believing Gentiles part of Israel.” (48-49) The Abrahamic Covenant is foundational to the Dispensational understanding of Israel.
So then, what the Abrahamic Covenant has to say is of great importance for defining Israel. In Genesis 17:9-14, God specifies that Abraham’s descendants must be circumcised to be in the covenant and part of the people formed by it.
This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. . . . So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people. . . .
Genesis 17:9-14
God speaks of circumcision as being synonymous with the covenant; circumcision is the covenant in some sense. And therefore, it is proper to speak of circumcision as a condition of the covenant. Not a condition for the covenant corporately in that the covenant will fail if someone does not receive circumcision, but it is a requirement of the covenant individually in the sense that any male who does not receive circumcision is not included in the covenant; he is “cut off” from Israel. Note also that circumcision is just as everlasting as the covenant itself. The grammatical-historical interpretation of this passage is that circumcision is and eternally remains a requirement for inclusion in the Abrahamic Covenant. If the requirement for circumcision, which “is [God’s] covenant” with Abraham and his descendants, can be altered, then the entirety of the Abrahamic Covenant can be altered. The Dispensational view is built on the Abrahamic Covenant being unalterable and still unfulfilled. On this reading then, any male who is not physically circumcised cannot be an Israelite according to the Old Testament.
Romans 2:25-29
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Here, Paul is quite explicit that “Jewishness” has nothing to do with physical circumcision! If we interpret him literally, he tells us that Jewishness is determined by the heart condition; in verse 26 he says that an uncircumcised man who keeps the law is considered to be circumcised. This means that anyone, descended from Abraham or not, who is circumcised in his heart is a Jew. The Dispensationalist has to argue that Paul is referring only to elect and non-elect Jews, but in context he is clearly comparing a circumcised Israelite who breaks the law with an uncircumcised Gentile who keeps the law (v26 & vv14-16; also cf Phil 3:3). If consistently applied to this passage, the Dispensational hermeneutic results in Paul saying that Gentiles who have been circumcised in their hearts (regenerated) are Jews. And that is exactly what he is saying. (Compare this with Romans 9:6-13 where Paul says “not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring. . . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of promise are counted as offspring.”)
Galatians 3:7-29 (esp vv 16 & 29)
As we saw above, a central argument for Dispensationalism is that, in the Abrahamic Covenant, God made eternal, unbreakable promises to national Israel which remain at least partially unfulfilled; and this is why Israel must remain distinct from the Church. But Galatians 3 wreaks havoc on this doctrine. It knows nothing of the promises being made with national Israel but only with true Israel (Israel’s anti-type, to use the typological terminology).
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 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. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Gal 3:15-18
If you consistently apply the Dispensational hermeneutic to this passage, you must conclude that the Abrahamic Covenant has nothing at all to do with the nation of Israel. Paul argues directly from the Old Testament record that the Abrahamic Covenant was made with Abraham and one other person, Christ. This is reinforced by Paul’s statement in v17 that the law (Mosaic Covenant) cannot undo the Abrahamic Covenant; the law or Mosaic Covenant cannot place the nation of Israel into the Abrahamic Covenant. Rather, there is only one seed of the covenant who is Christ. And Christ brings with him into that covenant all who belong to him (v29).
The standard Dispensational interpretation of this passage is that Paul is speaking only in terms of Abraham’s spiritual seed or offspring; that’s a perfectly valid interpretation except that it violates the Dispensational hermeneutic. Nowhere in this passage does Paul limit the discussion to only the spiritual or the promises to only those that are not physical, rather he references the entire Abrahamic Covenant. Ryrie argues that Paul has in mind only the promise of blessing for the nations mentioned in v8 (161) but Paul explicitly refers to “the promises,” in the plural (v16). Further, v17 speaks of the entire covenant; the singular promise Paul speaks of is the covenant itself (“God gave it to Abraham by a promise” v18). Applying Ryrie’s hermeneutic, we must conclude that Paul is not speaking solely of the nations of the world being blessed but of all the promises of the covenant. The primary meaning of Gal. 3:16, if understood according to the grammatical-historical reading with no other passage allowed to have interpretive priority over it, is that the Abrahamic Covenant never included national Israel at all but instead refers only to Christ and his elect.
Galatians 6:15-16
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
In order to understand the issue in this passage, you must grasp the context surrounding it. I do not wish to take the space to directly show the context so I will simply list the relevant specific verses–see Gal 2:3-9, 4:21-31, 5:2-12, & 6:12–and assert what I would otherwise prove: Paul is concluding an extended argument against physical circumcision which he summarizes here in v15. In context, the plain reading of verses 15 & 16 is that Paul blesses a group of people who agree with Paul’s argument, in their understanding and actions, that circumcision is irrelevant. Paul labels this group the Israel of God. The context further tells us this group, known as the Israel of God, is in fact all obedient believers (“all who walk by this rule”). Paul is using the label of “Israel” to refer to the Church (“and upon the Israel of God”). The English and can be a bit difficult for this reading, but the Greek does not present this difficulty. Though the Greek word, kai, usually means in addition or also, it can carry other meanings as well; the context determines its usage. As Ryrie says “[g]rammar in this instance does not decide the matter for us.” (149) Because of the context, a better translation in this passage would be even, more obviously showing “Israel of God” as a synonym for the Church–”peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God.” The English and can be understood in the same way as even (“I like that candybar… and love it!”) so it appears most translations choose the “safe” word and go with and though some do use even (e.g. the CSB) or simply do not translate the kai (“Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.” NIV).
The Dispensationalist cannot allow the above interpretation or his absolute Church/Israel distinction evaporates; instead he argues “the Israel of God” either refers to a second group or singles out a sub-group within the Church; in either case, Paul blesses the Church and he separately blesses believing, ethnic Israelites. Ryrie argues this way on p149; “it would be natural for [Paul] to remember with a special blessing those Jews who had forsaken this legalism [of the Judaizers] and followed Christ and the rule of the new creation.” However, if we allow either Dispensational interpretation then Paul has just contradicted himself. He just wrote that circumcision (the thing that is required to be a physical Israelite) does not count for anything; in fact, large portions of his letter are arguing that circumcision has passed away. If Paul distinguishes believing Jews (who absolutely must be circumcised or they cannot be Jews according to the Old Testament) from believing Gentiles, then he demonstrates that circumcision must count for something. If we say Paul is referring to unsaved Jews or all Jews, that still makes him contradict himself but also adds the problem of Paul blessing some non-elect with the title of “Israel of God.” According to the Dispensational hermeneutic, the primary meaning of this passage must be found right here. The only way a case can be made that there are two groups is to allow a theological system, not the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, to determine the meaning of Paul’s words and even that requires doing violence to Paul’s statements.
There is actually one other option–the Dispensationalist could argue that the New Testament changes the definition of who is an Israelite; that it alters the Abrahamic Covenant by dropping the requirement of circumcision. But this concept of changing (really it is clarifying, not altering) the Abrahamic Covenant is precisely the argument of the Reformed which Vlach and Ryrie are so opposed to and which allows for Gentile inclusion into Israel.
Ephesians 2:11-21
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. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. . . .
I will finish my Scripture evidences with this passage. There are a great many things happening here, but we will focus only on the concept of citizenship. Paul reminds the Ephesian Gentiles that, previously, they were separated from citizenship (the commonwealth) in Israel. The Greek word politeia, here translated “commonwealth,” occurs only one other time in the New Testament in Acts 22:28. There, the Roman tribune states that he purchased his Roman citizenship (politeai) for a large sum of money; there the word clearly means citizenship. Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines politeia as “citizenship; concretely, a community:––commonwealth, freedom.” The statement that Gentiles were formerly “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” means we were previously excluded from membership (citizenship) of the community of Israel. But it also strongly implies that we are no longer alienated from that citizenship or community. Paul continues. He says, now we are brought near by the blood of Christ so that we are no longer foreigners (aliens) but have been made citizens with the saints, members of the household of God. Since Christ’s death, elect Gentiles are made citizens of Israel. Citizenship in Israel is the only citizenship in view. The Dispensational view insists that the thing we are made citizens of is not the Israel from which Paul just said we were previously separated (past tense). But, again, the Dispensational claim is not based on exegesis of this passage alone; it requires the use of “theological interpretation” (Ryrie 95) to show how the obvious, plain meaning of this passage cannot be the correct interpretation. The plain teaching of Paul here as well as the New Testament writers in many other passages is that, with the incarnation, life, and death of Christ, Israel has been reformed from an ethnically centered, geo-political nation into a spiritual, new creation nation more commonly called the Church (1 Pet. 2:9-10) and into which Gentiles have been added.
I will conclude this brief series in the next post with some final critiques and evaluations of the Dispensational hermeneutic.