In The Nick of Time

Read the series so far.

God first commanded circumcision of Abraham in Genesis 17. The rite was to be a token of the covenant that God had made with Abraham (17:11). It was to be applied not only to Abraham and his descendants, but also to servants who were born in his house and slaves he had purchased from foreigners (17:12-13). Any males who were not circumcised were to be cut off from the people as covenant breakers.

Circumcision modified the body as a physical evidence that God had chosen Abraham and his offspring. It was a mark or token of inclusion in the promised nation. In principle, to be circumcised was to claim a share in the promise and to wear the badge of participation as an heir. But paradoxically, the introduction of circumcision also implied that not everyone who received the sign would actually receive the promise. Why? Because at the very time that Abraham was commanded to institute circumcision, he was clearly told that Ishmael would not receive the promise (17:18-21). Nevertheless, Ishmael received circumcision (17:26).

From the very beginning it should have been clear that circumcision was neither an efficacious means to gaining nor an infallible sign of possessing the promise. All those who were heirs of the promise were obligated to receive circumcision, but not all those who received circumcision became heirs of the promise. Though circumcision was a sign or token of inclusion, it was not an infallible sign. Something more was always required.

Read the series so far.

In the latter half of Romans 2, the apostle Paul discussed the nature of true Jewishness. He stated that people were not to be reckoned as Jews on the basis of outward conditions such as circumcision. Instead, Paul spoke of a circumcision of the heart that made them Jews inwardly. He actually went further and stated that an uncircumcised person who fulfilled the righteousness of the law could be reckoned as circumcised.

In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul also wrote along these lines. Chapter 3 is devoted to a warning against false teachers that Paul labeled as dogs, evil workers, and the “mutilation” (3:2). The last term is a pun: mutilation (katatomē) plays on the word circumcision (peritomē). It is an insulting way of referring to teachers who tried to persuade Christian Gentiles that circumcision was essential to their Christian lives. In order to bring out the force of this pun, the New American Standard Bible translates katatomē as false circumcision. But Paul went even further: with ironic flair, he referred to these Judaistic teachers as dogs, a term that was typically applied to Gentiles by Jews. Clearly, Paul did not think much of these teachers or their Judaizing teachings.

Paul insisted that if anyone could have confidence in the flesh, he could. He even recounted his qualifications: he, too, was circumcised, an Israelite, a Benjamite, a Hebrew, a Pharisee, a persecutor of the church, and a blameless man as far as the law was concerned (3:3-6). These external qualifications, however, were exactly what Paul had to abandon for the sake of Christ.

Read the series so far.

When discussing the relationship between Israel and the church, the word continuity can be pretty slippery. In some discussions, to assert that one sees continuity between the church and Israel is virtually to assert that they are one and the same body. Nevertheless, the term does not have to be employed in this extreme sense. If someone suggests continuity between a Chevy Silverado and a Dodge Ram, the language means that they belong to the same class and are the same kind of thing (in this case, a pickup truck), not that they are numerically identical.

What I have argued is that the continuity between Israel and the church is a continuity that comes from analogy. They belong to the same class of things: peoples of God. Because they are both peoples of God, they exhibit marked similarities. Because they are not one and the same people, however, they also exhibit differences. Israel remains Israel, and the church remains the church.

Of course, the Scriptures can be read in ways that contradict my understanding. After all, there would be no debate among Bible believers if the entire Bible spoke with equal clarity on one side of the question. To this point, I have focused primarily upon Scriptures that appear to distinguish peoples of God. It is worth spending some time on Scriptures that appear to identify Israel and the church, or even to make the church into a new Israel.

At this moment, six states plus the District of Columbia recognize what they call marriages between partners of the same sex. Three more states will be voting on legislation or citizens’ initiatives that will also recognize same-sex marriage. On the other hand, nine states have statues specifically prohibiting same sex marriages, and another thirty prohibit the practice in their constitutions. This Tuesday, the citizens of Minnesota (my state) will vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents of the amendment have tried to challenge it as a civil rights issue. For them, homosexuality should be treated as a minority status. People are born with their “sexual orientation” and it is unreasonable (they say) to discriminate against them. Persons of the same sex don’t harm anybody else if they cohabit or marry, so any law that prevents them from marrying is discriminatory. Their slogan goes, “Everyone should have the right to marry.”

The debate, however, is not about the rights of same-sex couples. It is about power, force, and, ultimately, about the use of violence against citizens who will not cooperate in the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior. If you think this is an overstatement, think again.

We are not really deliberating the definition of marriage. Marriage is simply marriage, and it is always between a man and a woman. This is not opinion; it is fact. You can claim to be married to a car. You can claim to be married to a building. You can claim to be married to a microbe. But you won’t be. Ever.

Regular Baptist Books has released a new volume, Dispensational Understandings of the New Covenant, edited by Mike Stallard of Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Titles need to be manageable in length, and this one labels the book nicely. It would have been more precise, however, if it had specified that the book contains traditional dispensational understandings of the New Covenant, and actually only some of them.

The limitation is deliberate. The book results from collaboration between traditional dispensationalists in the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. This council, which meets annually for the exchange and examination of ideas related to dispensational theology, includes only traditional dispensationalists. From the time that it first met in 2008, one of the goals of the council was to foster the publication of current, traditionally-dispensational thinking. Dispensational Understandings of the New Covenant is its first major release.

The book is necessary because dispensationalists have never agreed about how the church is related to the New Covenant. Some think that the church has no legal relationship to the New Covenant. Others believe that the church is not a party to the covenant, but nevertheless stands in some relationship to it. Still others have believed in the existence of two New Covenants, one for Israel and another, different one for the church. Some have argued that the church is directly related to the New Covenant and has been brought in as a participant alongside Israel.

Read the series so far.

Addressing church saints, the apostle Peter wrote, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into His remarkable light; who once were not a people, but now are a people of God, the ones who had not been shown mercy, but now have been shown mercy” (1 Pet. 2:9-10). Peter is here paraphrasing multiple Old Testament passages, two of which are especially significant. The first is Exodus 19:5-6, where God is speaking to Israel at Sinai. This passage records the very episode in which Israel became a people of God. The second is Hosea 2:23, in which God is promising the restoration of His blessing to Israel after the nation has been judged.

In both of these instances, Peter is clearly citing passages that were directly addressed to national Israel. Rather than applying them to Israel, however, he applies them to the church. Furthermore, he makes this application in a pretty straightforward way, not inserting any explanations or qualifications. We can only conclude that what God said to Israel in the passages from Exodus and Hosea, He now says to the church through Peter.

Read the series so far.

At the Exodus, Jehovah made Israel a nation, i.e., a self-aware social unit, bound by a common language and culture, sharing descent from a common ancestor. More than that, Jehovah made Israel a people of God. He made them a nation devoted to the worship of the one, true, and living God, called by His name and ruled by His precepts.

Even in the Old Testament, God disclosed that His plan included many peoples. Eventually both Egypt and Assyria would become peoples of God (Isa. 19:19-25). Indeed, the poets and prophets regularly called upon all the peoples of the earth to acknowledge Jehovah as the true and living God and to worship Him (Ps. 67; Ps. 148:11). In eternity future, God will be served by many peoples (Rev. 21:3, 24, 26; 22:2).

In the meanwhile, God has created the church and called it to be His people. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, some of the same language is applied to the church that was applied to Israel. For this language to work, the church must somehow be very like Israel. Nevertheless, the church is not only distinct from Israel, it is actually a different kind of people, constituted by the Holy Spirit who, in a unique sense, places saints in Christ by uniting them to His body.

Read the series so far.

God intends to have many peoples, i.e., many nations which are devoted to His worship and who are known by His name. The church is like these in that it is a people of God. It is unlike them, however, in its constitution as a people.

Biblically, a people or nation finds its identity in its solidarity with a common ancestor. Peoples are ethnic units in a very biological sense. Assyrians come from Asshur. Moabites come from Moab. Ammonites come from Benammi. And, of course, Israelites come from Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. While outsiders can be incorporated into the nation, the nation itself remains a fundamentally ethnic unit, an extended family.

The church, however, has its identity in its unique solidarity with Christ. Only church saints enjoy the status of being “in Christ” in the sense that they are baptized into His body in or by the Spirit. He is their head and they are His members. The church’s solidarity as a people is not ancestral, but spiritual. Rather than being genealogically connected with a progenitor, the church is spiritually united to Christ. This relationship to Christ means that the church is not only distinct from all other peoples, but even a people of a different kind.

Read the series so far.

Biblically, a people of God is first of all a people. A people is a nation. A people or nation is (among other things) an ethnic unit, bound together by its solidarity with a common ancestor. These considerations seem beyond serious question.

They also present a problem. In the New Testament, the church is denominated as a people of God. Indeed, the church is often illustrated by referencing Old Testament descriptors that apply to Israel as a people of God (Rom. 9:22-26; Ti. 2:14; 1 Pet.2:9; cf. Ex. 19:5-6; Hos. 2:23). This phenomenon raises two questions. First, how can the church be defined as a people if a people is fundamentally an ethnic unit? Second, how does the church as a people of God stand in relationship to Israel as a people of God, such that descriptions of the one can seemingly be applied directly to the other?

The answer to the first question lies in the church’s unique relationship to Christ. Romans 12:5 declares that church saints are one body “in Christ.” Paul spoke of Andronicus and Junias being “in Christ” before him (Rom. 16:7). He further stated that the Corinthian church was sanctified “in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2). Believers who are not yet spiritual are considered to be “infants in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1). Church saints are new creations “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17). Whether Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, male, or female, all church saints are one “in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). They have now received every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). They are accepted “in the beloved one,” in whom they have redemption, namely the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14). Positionally, they are now seated in the heavenlies “in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6).

Read the series so far.

In the Old Testament, the terms people and nation are used interchangeably. Both terms have a significant ethnic component in their definition. In normal usage, a people or nation is constituted at least partly by its descent from a mutual ancestor. Assyrians descended from Asshur. Moabites were the children of Moab. Ammonites were sired by Benammi. Whatever other factors might enter into the description of a people or nation, its solidarity rests in its union with a common forebear.

Identifiable nations developed as a consequence of the division of languages at the tower of Babel. Prior to Babel, humanity functioned as a single people (Gen. 11:6). God used the division of languages to separate humanity into family groups that were divided, not only linguistically and ethnically, but also geographically (Acts 17:26).

These observations have sometimes been used to support a policy of racial segregation, often expressed in terms of a ban against interracial marriage. If this policy were limited to the Ku Klux Klan or the Posse Comitatus, it would hardly be worth noticing. Significant portions of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, however, have occasionally attempted to use Acts 17:26 and the division of nations at Babel to justify racial separation. For example, early editions of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible included a list of thirty reasons for segregation of the races after Acts 17:26. During the early 1960s, Bob Jones, Sr. preached (and his university subsequently distributed) an entire sermon justifying segregation, with Acts 17:26 as his pivotal proof text. Similar arguments were heard from supporters of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College when, under the presidency of Joseph Rammel, that school enforced a ban against interracial dating.