Israel and the Nations

[Arial]

This is to introduce a new topic and hopefully do a bit of Bible exploration on something often neglected or presented in a one sided manner. So the question is: Was the OT nation of Israel given by God as a walled in, so to speak, national, political, and religious entity, or was it created and given as a missionary entity to the whole world?

 

[Josheb]

Was the OT nation of Israel given by God as a walled in, so to speak, national, political, and religious entity, or was it created and given as a missionary entity to the whole world?

Definitely NOT the first option and definitely the latter.

I will recommend everyone interested in the subject and this discussion take a few minutes (or more than a few) and search the scriptures for the scriptures' use of the term "Israel." Scripture's use of the word is remarkable and the study worth the effort. The word is used diversely, and the prominent definition is not Israel as a geo-political ethnic nation-state. Here are the ways in which scripture, not post-scripture doctrine, defines the word:

1. The word itself means "God perseveres." However else the word is applied it always, everywhere and inherently means "God perseveres."
2. Jacob is the first person called Israel. The name "Jacob," means "heal grabber," which is a euphemism for grifter or con artist. The boy who was born "grifter," was changed into "God perseveres" by God (see Gen. 32:28). Jacob was the son of promise. Normally, his elder, firstborn brother, Esau, would have been the inheritor of the bulk of their father's wealth but that is not what God had planned. It was not what....... God persevered. Before either boy was born, before either boy had willed or worked anything, God loved and chose the grifter to be the one through whom God would persevere, keeping His covenant promises to the grifter boy's grandfather. As Romans 9 puts it, "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." Jacob, the first Israel, was the son of promise. Flesh has nothing to do with being a child of God.
3. The next time we see the word Israel being used in in "the sons of Israel." This begins in Genesis 36, centuries before the sons of Israel ever entered the promised land and established a geo-political ethnic theocratic nation-state. This phrase is used 269 times in the OT and its last mention is Joshua 24:32. Again, the word "Israel" is NOT a reference to a geo-political, ethnic, theocratic nation-state. The word "Israel" means "God perseveres," and the reasons the sons of Jacob, the descendants of Jacob were saved from famine, enslaved and then released from slavery in Egypt it because God perseveres. ALL the references to Israel in the Law of Moses pertain to the "sons of Israel," not geo-political nation-state Israel (Dispensationalism, btw, has never viewed that correctly).
4. The use of "Israel" as a reference to a geo-political, ethnic, theocratic, nation-state does not occur until long after the Hebrews (ethnically speaking, they are Babylonian Hebrews, not Jews) enter the promised land, rid the territory gifted to them by God (God perseveres) and divide up the land into its tribal partitions. We find the word "Israel" used without the prefix "sons of..." throughout the books of Judges and 1 & 2 Samuel. The very first time we read of Israel being called a nation is in Judges 2:20, which is an example of the sons of Israel breaking God's covenant. The Hebrew "goy" is normally translated "people" and it later becomes a reference to Gentile peoples, NOT Israel. In other words, what Judges 2:20 actually states is, "So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he said, 'Because this people have transgressed my covenant that I commanded their fathers and have not obeyed my voice...'" as the KJV, ESV, NLT, and Aramaic translations (correctly) render it. Most of our English translations screw up the translation. Israel was not a nation-state in Judges 2. Anyone doing this study with me will next realize most of the ensuing mentions of Israel as a "nation" are about their chronic disobedience. This is important. This is important because it begs the question, "Are the children of God chronic covenant breakers? Are these the people God chose, and called, into His covenant?" and because faith must always be evidenced by faithfulness, the question is "Are the people of God's covenant nation the disobedient goyim?" An affirmative answer to those questions is very problematic. Why? Because the word means "God perseveres," not "God tolerates constant covenant breaking." God calls the disobedient, covenant breakers, not covenant members. One more aspect of the "nation" as it should be understood from scripture because God did promise to make the sons of God perseveres into a nation BUT that nation was a nation of priests, not a nation of theocratic ethnic bloodline (see Exodus 19:6). Chronically disobedient people are not a nation of priests.
5. The next use of Israel, the next definition of Israel occurs at the intersection of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Hosea 11:1 is prophetic. This is not obvious from the plain reading of the verse because it appears Hosea is simply making an observation of historical fact, but the verse in the hands of the newer revelation apostle Matthew is revealed to be a prophetic reference to the Messiah, Jesus. Jesus is Israel. Jesus is God perseveres. Correlating and corresponding to the history of scripture and all its context, Jesus is also the son of promise, the seed of promise. Abraham has many seeds, but the seed of promise is singular; that seed is Jesus (Galatians 3). It is also worth noting that both Isaac and Jesus are the only two monogenes (single origin) sons and their singular origin is that of promise, not genetics.
6. The next, and last definition of "Israel" provided by scripture is as the people of God who perseveres who are His sons (and daughters) of promise. This is found most prominently in the Romans 9-11 and Galatians 2-3 texts. The most succinct summary of this is stated in the last verse of Galatians 3, "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." We know not all Israel is Israel because Paul explicitly states this in Romans 9:6. If that is true then who are the Israel that are Israel and who are the Israel that are not Israel? Who are the people of God perseveres, and who are not the people of God perseveres? According to the Romans 9-11 text, the people of God perseveres (Israel) are not children of flesh, but children of God and that is further defined as, "the children of the promise are regarded as descendants" of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (God perseveres).

The three common themes running through every single example are 1) the sons of (covenant) promise, 2) God perseveres, and 3) Messianic inheritance. Notice that the word "Israel" (G2474) is used only three times in the book of Revelation and not a single one of those three uses is a reference to a geo-political nation-state . Look them up if that is doubted (Rev. 2:14, 7:4, and 21:12).

Now...... if scripture is always read with the definition "God perseveres" in mind then our entire understanding of scripture changes, and it changes away from any possible doctrinal definition of Israel as a geo-political nation-state. When the word "Israel" is read as the people of God perseveres, who are God's people of promise, then the entire messianic message of scripture is better understood. Dispensationalists fail to do any of the above and because of those failures they conclude God has two peoples, not one.


And for those who would like to investigate comparative views on the identity of Israel can and should read "Three Views on Israel and the Church: Perspectives on Romans 9-11." I just finished reading this book and it's quite remarkable. None of the three theologians in the book cover the bullet points above but what they do assert in their examination of Romans 9-11 is well worth the read because not only do they identify Israel differently, they also exegete the text differently and any reader can - if they are attentive - can see who each contributor errs in different places....... and how their error drives their concluding position. I will also mention only one of the three addresses the "not all Israel is Israel" with any substance, and he is the only one who addressed the "present time" of Romans 11:5. Btw, they are chosen by grace, not ethnicity, bloodline, genetics, or geo-political nation-state status.


Hope that's not tmi

​

 

[Josheb]

As far as Israel being created as a missionary entity to the whole world the Law explicitly reads,

Deuteronomy 4:5-6
See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you are to do these things in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. So, keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."

The were supposed to be an example by which the entire world would they were a nation of wise and understanding people. That kind of nation does not have fixed geographic limits.

 

[Arial]

As far as Israel being created as a missionary entity to the whole world the Law explicitly reads,

Deuteronomy 4:5-6
See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you are to do these things in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. So, keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."

The were supposed to be an example by which the entire world would they were a nation of wise and understanding people. That kind of nation does not have fixed geographic limits.

Israel the people (and there were many non Hebrews in the Exodus and along the way and throughout their history before and after entering that land) was given a specific tract of real estate. The land of Canaan. They were rebellious from the get go by not driving out all their Canaanites until I believe the time of David. But it is no accident that that particular land was given to them. It was mission oriented. To this day that land is the most traveled, disputed, and riddled with wars for possession, even today. "It was a doorway to the world, on the way to everywhere else." ( Quote from Michael D. Williams Far As the Curse is Found)

And you are correct to point out that Israel was not a nation until they appointed a king in 1 Sam. They were a wandering, conquering people. They had a King. God was their King but they wanted to be like all the nations around them. They wanted to be a geo/political state. God granted that desire, but even then, that king was to rule under the Kingship of God. Which, of course, most of them did not. What they were meant to do, even under an earthly king was to reveal the living God to the nations as he acted with them and on their behalf. To be a witness to moral and religious righteousness.

Just as the church is not meant to be isolated from the rest of the world but to interact with it, to be in the world but not of the world. To carry the good news.

How we view Israel's place and purpose in the covenant of redemption makes a world of difference in how we interpret Scripture, both OT and NT. It is not just a people who are being protected in Israel, it is the Seed and the Seed comes through Seth, Noah, Abraham. You are right, and the promise given first in Gen 3, and again to Noah, and then again to Abraham, each time revealing a bit more of the redemptive covenant relationship, reveals in Abraham that it is for the whole world (all of creation and all types of peoples. It bursts forth in all its glory in the Messianic Psalms and prophecies. But if Israel is kept divided from the rest of the world, as it is in dispensationalism, and is the very same thing that was that monarchies downfall and scattering (God will do what God will do, no matter what man thinks or does), it is impossible to see that glory for what it truly is. Impossible. And it becomes impossible to correctly interpret (what God means in his word) almost all of Scripture. That is my opinion. The idea of a geo/political Israel, and the smug separation that nation made between themselves and all others, taking God for granted, and his presence with them as their right rather than grace, is the very reason they rejected their Messiah when he showed up. Why they didn't recognize him. They misunderstood the prophecies. (Nothing new under the sun!) They were looking for an earthly king to deliver them from all their enemies.

 

[Josheb]

Israel the people (and there were many non Hebrews in the Exodus and along the way and throughout their history before and after entering that land) was given a specific tract of real estate. The land of Canaan. They were rebellious from the get go by not driving out all their Canaanites until I believe the time of David. But it is no accident that that particular land was given to them. It was mission oriented. To this day that land is the most traveled, disputed, and riddled with wars for possession, even today. "It was a doorway to the world, on the way to everywhere else." ( Quote from Michael D. Williams Far As the Curse is Found)

One minor amendment to the above. It was"[The sons of] Israel (and there were many non-Hebrews....."

I am a very big fan of Williams' book but this failure to correctly cite the "sons of..." and imply Israel as a nation is so endemic in our literature it's hard to escape. Williams is not tied to the geo-political nation-state definition (which is good) but neither is he explicitly discriminating to exclude the geo-pol national identity. I wished he'd been more overt.

And you are correct to point out that Israel was not a nation until they appointed a king in 1 Sam.

AND......

God NEVER wanted them to have an earthly king like all the other countries AND He took their request for one as a rejection of Him as their king! (1 Sam. 8). Makes one wonder how Dispies can call that a nation or a kingdom and why they would want an earthly kingdom to be so core to their theology.


Oops! Dinner's ready. I'll come back later

 

[Arial]

I am a very big fan of Williams' book but this failure to correctly cite the "sons of..." and imply Israel as a nation is so endemic in our literature it's hard to escape. Williams is not tied to the geo-political nation-state definition (which is good) but neither is he explicitly discriminating to exclude the geo-pol national identity. I wished he'd been more overt.

It is a Geo/political nation. It exists. It has a flag and a government and policy and citizens. And It is just that that was never its purpose.And it is not its biblical identity. And that is not what it is in the covenant of redemption and never was. So I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but the nation does exist, and did exist in that way since Saul became king. I think Williams was focusing from a different angle is all. Different than your first post which shed more light on the situation for me. So thanks.

God NEVER wanted them to have an earthly king like all the other countries AND He took their request for one as a rejection of Him as their king! (1 Sam. 8). Makes one wonder how Dispies can call that a nation or a kingdom and why they would want an earthly kingdom to be so core to their theology.

Though of course he knew they would and probably intended them to, I would say, as David became the king type of the King God would---and did---set on Zion. There needed to be a king so there could be THE king in the line of David. In any case he persevered as you said, never missing a beat.

 

[Josheb]

It is a Geo/political nation. It exists. It has a flag...........

What is "it"?

The Israel of the Bible, or the country currently residing on the east end of the Mediterranean calling itself "Israel"?

....and did exist in that way since Saul became king.

Saul, and every single king after him, was a king God never wanted. His mere existence was an act of disobedience, or faithlessness; the entire monarchy n act of sin and rebellion.

I think Williams was focusing from a different angle is all. Different than your first post which shed more light on the situation for me.

I agree. I suspect Williams would agree with most or all of my op-reply. The facts of scripture contained in that post aren't up for dispute. What we make of those facts might be disputed, but not the facts themselves. I do not know Williams personally, but I do know a couple of his students.

So thanks.

It was my pleasure to add to the thread. The appreciation is appreciated.

Though of course he knew they would...

He is omniscient.

.....and probably intended them to,

Can we say God used what happened for His purposes, and always intended to do so?

I would say, as David became the king type of the King God would---and did---set on Zion. There needed to be a king so there could be THE king in the line of David.

I disagree. None of that reconciles with scripture. God explicitly stated the request for king like the other nations was a rejection of God as their king. God listed many of the attributes and practices of the kings that would come and every single one of them did exactly that. Every single one of them, including David and Solomon, were adulterous and idolatrous. David was a murder at least twice, once directly and once conspiratorially (he killed two men and married their wives). He may have been a man after God's own heart, but he was not and is not like Jesus.

Consider this: Read through 1 Samuel 8:11-18. That is a list of the things God assured the elders of Israel the human king, the sinful human king would do.

1 Samuel 8:11-18
He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. "He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."


Those kings would....

• Take your sons
• Place the taken sons in harm's way in war ahead of himself.
• Appoint them to positions as he sees fit, some of them working for his sustenance, some of them making weapons of war, and some of them is service to the king's wars.
• Take your daughters.
• Place them in positions of service to him, his palace, and his and his palace's sustenance.
• He'll take the best crops (which would otherwise have gone to God and the priests) and give them to his servants.
• Take a tithe for his officers and servants.
• Take the people's servants and make them serve him.
• Take a tenth of the people's flocks.
• Make the people his servants.
• Make you cry out.

Having read the passage, ask, "Are these the things that Jesus does as king?" The implication of the list is that a king like the other nations would be a perverted version of God as king at best, and at worst the antithesis of God as King. God does not take our sons and daughters and make harlots of them, siring illegitimate offspring, and hide His sin.

God did not have to establish a monarchy to make Jesus king. That kind of rationale could be used to justify the pagan monarchies. That God did use the perversions of leadership simply means God is sovereign even over sin. The nation without a king already had a King and that King was always going to come whether a monarchy existed or not. The nation that never had an earthly king would have a King, not a king, and that King was so almighty even death would bow in submission to him. Not even David could defeat death. David (and Solomon, and the monarchy itself) is a foreshadowing of Christ, but David was not "the king type of the king God would be." Not only were those kings the antithesis of Jesus.... typologically and literally, that word "would" betrays the reality: God was already their King! As God, there was never a fraction of a nanosecond when God was not their King, and there never would be a fraction of a nanosecond when God is not their King and everyone else's King. An almighty Creator God is always and everywhere the Capital "K" King, and all others are only kings for a brief moment. That the sons of Israel rejected God as their king did not stop Him from being their King. The LORD King ruled over every king Israel ever had. Every single king that ever lived died already dead in sin. They were not even kings over themselves, and in the end only the few who placed their faith in Christ, the King of all kings, ever stood before the LORD King justified.

When Christ the king takes our sons and daughters, he gives them eternal life. He takes nothing from us that he did not already give, and he multiplies it abundantly beyond our ability to contain. When those in his service cry out.... the LORD King answers.

Once these aspects are contemplated, I am sure you will agree.

In any case he persevered as you said, never missing a beat.

I'm not sure I understood that correctly but if that is meant to say God persevered in David, then I wholeheartedly agree. The remarkable thing about those in whom God Perseveres is that God is persevering in sinners..... We are all His sinners, the sinners He has chosen, the sinners He has called unto Himself, those of a nation without borders He has built, not a nation, kingdom, city, or building built by human hands.

A geo-political nation-state did exist, but covenant Israel is not synonymous with nation-state Israel. Not all Israel is Israel.

 

[Arial]

What is "it"?

The Israel of the Bible, or the country currently residing on the east end of the Mediterranean calling itself "Israel"?

Explained by the rest of the sentence and statement below.

It has a flag and a government and policy and citizens. And It is just that that was never its purpose.And it is not its biblical identity. And that is not what it is in the covenant of redemption and never was. So I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but the nation does exist, and did exist in that way since Saul became king.

Saul, and every single king after him, was a king God never wanted. His mere existence was an act of disobedience, or faithlessness; the entire monarchy n act of sin and rebellion.

I fail to see how if God did not want something to come to pass, it would come to pass. To be technically accurate, it was their reason for wanting a king that God despised. It would have been fine if the king served as vassal king, to speak in human terms, under God. That was the position God put Adam in and by extension, all mankind, in Eden. You seem to slightly sidestep your own position here by suggesting inadvertently, at least to my mind, that the people of God were redeemed from slavery in Egypt. They were not being redeemed to eternal life. The gathering of the people of Israel (Jacob)in Canaan was not to destroy sin and death then, but was a step towards that goal in Christ. Their mission was to reveal the one true and living God to those around them. A mission they forgot, breaking the covenant over and over again, until God did what they had refused to do by scattering them over the face of the earth. It was the reverse of Babble but it was done for the same reason. Man attempting to find safety and fulfillment by his own efforts, apart from God.

We see the true purpose of that scattering when we reach Pentecost and Jews that had been converted in Jerusalem returned to their homes carrying the good news with them.

I will have to address the rest later.

 

[Josheb]

I fail to see how if God did not want something to come to pass, it would come to pass

How does God say He does not want something and then want it while not wanting it? How does He intend that which is blatantly contradictory to what He has already stated He wants?

1 Samuel 8:7-8
The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. "Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.

This aspect of their request for a king being a rejection of God is important. The premise God wanted them to want a king like all the other nations necessarily means God wanted an allegiance to Him but also wanted a rejection of Him. His intent to have them want and have pagan-like king means He intended them to want and have the opposite of what He had dictated.

The answer lies in what He doesn't want still serves His want. What He intends is that which He does not want still serving His purpose. God is sovereign over everything, even sin, and sin - even though He does not want sin to ever occur - still serves His purpose. Let them have their king. It is NOT what I want for them, but it will, nonetheless, serve MY purpose(s).


And we're getting a little far afield of the op. Israel was not the "nation" God intended at the point of 1 Samuel 8, and the geo-political nation-state was always intended as an evangelical tool.

 

[Arial]

How does God say He does not want something and then want it while not wanting it? How does He intend that which is blatantly contradictory to what He has already stated He wants?

1 Samuel 8:7-8
The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. "Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.

This aspect of their request for a king being a rejection of God is important. The premise God wanted them to want a king like all the other nations necessarily means God wanted an allegiance to Him but also wanted a rejection of Him. His intent to have them want and have pagan-like king means He intended them to want and have the opposite of what He had dictated.

The answer lies in what He doesn't want still serves His want. What He intends is that which He does not want still serving His purpose. God is sovereign over everything, even sin, and sin - even though He does not want sin to ever occur - still serves His purpose. Let them have their king. It is NOT what I want for them, but it will, nonetheless, serve MY purpose(s).


And we're getting a little far afield of the op. Israel was not the "nation" God intended at the point of 1 Samuel 8, and the geo-political nation-state was always intended as an evangelical tool.

Ever hear of God's revealed will and his secret will? Ever hear of anthropomorphic language? You have twisted my words. I did not say God wanted them to want a king. I asked how God could not want something to come to pass it would come to pass?

 

[Josheb]

What, if anything, is the intersection between Genesis 12:2-3 and Genesis 17:3-7?

Genesis 12:2-3
And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Genesis 17:3-7
Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

What is the intersection, if anything, between Genesis 12:2-3 and Exodus 19:5-6?

Genesis 12:2-3
And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

Exodus 19:5-6
Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

What, if anything, is the intersection between all of the above and 1 Peter 2:9

1 Peter 2:4-12 ESV
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.


According to Peter, it is those "...who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood," that are the holy nation of God.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. None of that reconciles with scripture. God explicitly stated the request for king like the other nations was a rejection of God as their king. God listed many of the attributes and practices of the kings that would come and every single one of them did exactly that. Every single one of them, including David and Solomon, were adulterous and idolatrous. David was a murder at least twice, once directly and once conspiratorially (he killed two men and married their wives). He may have been a man after God's own heart, but he was not and is not like Jesus.

So God was working out his plan of redemption according to contingencies? The covenant with Israel as a people was never intended to conquer sin in and of itself. I never implied that any earthly king could do that or was supposed to do that. The king of Israel was the preservation of the Seed, the promise made to David that his throne would endure forever. He was the Seed bearer. The Seed to come would be the one to conquer sin and death. That is the goal of redemption. Of course David sinned. He was a sinner. The difference between him and the majority of the other kings is that David never worshiped other gods. Those in Christ, redeemed by his blood, still sin. It has been conquered at the cross as to its power to condemn the believer or take them out of Christ. Death has been conquered for them at the cross because they too will be bodily raised and made perfect.

And that too is far afield but it became necessary. Just please, don't put a twist on what I say and then post as though I do not know the things you point out.

I'm not sure I understood that correctly but if that is meant to say God persevered in David, then I wholeheartedly agree. The remarkable thing about those in whom God Perseveres is that God is persevering in sinners..... We are all His sinners, the sinners He has chosen, the sinners He has called unto Himself, those of a nation without borders He has built, not a nation, kingdom, city, or building built by human hands.

I actually meant to say preserved. But it is also true that he moved steadily forward towards his goal and the missionary purpose he had for that people. He scattered them into Gentile lands. And there they were when it came time for them to make the yearly trek to Jerusalem for sacrifice and worship. The rest we have the history of in Acts and the epistles.

A geo-political nation-state did exist, but covenant Israel is not synonymous with nation-state Israel. Not all Israel is Israel.

Yes. I know.

 

[makesends]

God NEVER wanted them to have an earthly king like all the other countries AND He took their request for one as a rejection of Him as their king! (1 Sam. 8). Makes one wonder how Dispies can call that a nation or a kingdom and why they would want an earthly kingdom to be so core to their theology.

To be fair, "wanted", and "intended", are not the same thing, but then, me saying so in response to your comment kind of puts the Dispies into the Calvinist camp!

 

[Josheb]

To be fair, "wanted", and "intended", are not the same thing,

I was just covering several bases as once in an attempt to preclude protests like, "There's a difference between 'want' and 'intent'!"

Yep. And everyone already knows that.

.....but then, me saying so in response to your comment kind of puts the Dispies into the Calvinist camp!

Only if want and intent are incorrectly divided.

We should all be able to agree that whatever exists..... exists because that is exactly what God wants, intends, and purposes to exist, but that is not the same as saying God wants and intends sin. The Law Maker cannot want lawlessness without compromising Himself as Law Maker. For those of the Reformed pov, this is articulated in various places in the WCF like Article 3.1. God ordained all things, but He is not the author of sin. He's not the author of Sin in general, and He is not the Author of any individual's individual sin, either. He did not author the elders of Israel asking Him for a king like all the other (pagan) nations had.

BUT......


We are again digressing far afield of the op.


The op relevant point in 1 Samuel 8 is that Israel was not a geo-political nation-state at that point. Not only are the events surrounding that event occurring to their establishment as a nation-state but when they got to be a nation-state with a king the king, the monarchy aspect of their nation-state status was an act of rebellion, of sin, of faithlessness, of rejection of God.

Yet this condition is what certain theologies, like that of Dispensationalism and its modern futurist kin, assert as what we should all think, how we should all read ALL mentions of the word "Israel" in the Bible. They are wrong.

When all the precedes 1 Sam. 8 and all that follows 1 Sam. 8 is gathered and considered together then 1 Samuel 8's information is defined by the whole of scripture and the result is a much different conclusion that the word "Israel" always referring to ethnic nation-state Israel. This has enormous implications, many of which are logical necessities, for a variety of Christian doctrines. It informs our doctrines of Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology. It also speaks in lesser degrees to our Theology (the ontology of God) and hamartiology. How one reads the word "Israel," can have enormous influence for how all of scripture is read and understood.

 

[Arial]

In order to keep the Bible properly interpreted and consistent with its revealed intent----that of covenantal redemption-----if we begin with Gen 1-3:15 and keeping that in mind, work our way through the narratives keeping our eye on the promised Seed. we will put Israel in its proper place with its proper purpose intact. We are very blessed to have the whole story in front of us. The beginning, the middle, and the end.

To know the meaning of the name Israel is helpful. Names meant something in that era and most certainly they did when God changes a name. But it is not necessary. It adds another dimension to our understanding of God and to Israel's placement in redemptive history. However we must be careful to not focus on only that but to keep the forward movement of redemption that is given to us. The people God chose to reveal himself to in a covenant relationship did become a nation and they had a king. It was in fact part of the covenant declaration by God to Abraham. Gen 17:6-8.

But Israel becoming a nation/state was not the mission or the goal. The fact that Israel, if they ever understood what their mission was, soon forgot it, even became superstitious about it (see 1 Sam 4 where they had the same view of the Ark of the Covenant as being their talisman as the many god worshiping Philistines did)changes nothing. It was still their mission to reveal the one true God as a personal covenant God to the nations around them by living in obedience to the covenant. God remained faithful to his promises and purpose in the midst of their unfaithfulness. It is the faithful who are the people of God, the children of Abraham, the offspring of the Seed; they are true Israel. There are no borders to the land of true Israel, and the mission of God's people did not change with the destruction of natural Israel or with the coming of Christ and his death and resurrection. It expanded. The church, those gathered to Christ as representatives and emissaries, has the same mission as did Israel. We would do well take note of their mistakes and shortcomings so as to not repeat them.

 

[EarlyActs]

I would check two things closely about all this:
1, the status of the nation until Paul as found in his summary teaching in a synagogue in Acts 13.
2, the impact of G Eliot on the Christian world and her role in inspiring the modern Israel state.