True Israel or Natural Israel?

[John146]

At the risk of opening up a can of worms, can you give clear scriptural precedents for "Israel" in the Bible being a term used to speak of Christians? I would ask that you do so apart from the "Israel of God" reference in Galatians 6:16, as it is disputable that Paul was speaking of Christians in that passage. We can examine and debate that if you would like, but it seems like a difficult passage to establish a precedent for "Israel" to be a NT designation for "Christians".

Thanks!

I hope David doesn't mind, but I'd like to answer this.

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This passage equates "the commonwealth of Israel" with "the household of God". The household of God is clearly a reference to the church, wouldn't you agree? The Gentiles in the flesh who were once "without Christ" and "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" were "made nigh by the blood of Christ" and were then "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God". They were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel but now they were fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Israel. They were now Christians along with the Jewish Christ followers. The commonwealth of Israel refers to the church and only Christians are part of it. So, there is one passage that refers to Christians as being Israel or at least being a part of Israel.

Then there is this passage:

Romans 9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This passage clearly refers to two different Israels. Agree? It is saying that they are not all Israel (what I would call the Israel of God) which are of Israel (the nation of Israel). Now, is this only speaking of a subset of people from the nation of Israel and calling them Israel? What is the criteria for being part of the Israel of which not all natural Israel is part? It says "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed". So, who are the children of promise who descend from Isaac? Israelites or Jews only? Or Christians in general, whether Jew or Gentile?

In Isaac shall thy seed be called

Galatians 4
22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Paul was speaking to Christians in general here and he says that we, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is referring to the spiritual seed of Isaac. That would include you and me. The heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of us all. We are all part of the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly Israel. As Paul said in Romans 9:8, the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Who are the children of the promise? We are. Christians.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Notice in Romans 9:8 that it says they which are the children of the flesh (referring to natural Israelites) are not the children of God. The way that one becomes a part of the Israel which is not of Israel is not by the flesh or by one's nationality. As it says in Galatians 3:26, we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Therefore, it is faith in Christ Jesus, whether one is a natural Jew or natural Gentile, that brings us into the Israel (of God) which is not of Israel (the nation). It is by belonging to Christ that one becomes Abraham's seed, a child of the promise and a member of the Israel of God.

Eric

[the rookie]

I hope David doesn't mind, but I'd like to answer this.

I know that I don't mind.

What I am looking for is whether or not we are saying here that Paul's explanation related to how Gentiles who were estranged, now being able to be a part of the household of God as true "spiritual" seeds of Abraham, means that Israel = Christians.

These are passages that help Jews and Gentiles in the first century understand how a group that was once radically set apart from can now be inclusive of (though it is highly questionable in context that Rom. 9:6-7 has any Gentiles in view). The Gentile "God-fearers" had been a part of but never fully joined; now they were able to be fully joined to a family in a way that was radically different than what they were taught.

Paul brilliantly lays out a scriptural apologetic for "full citizenship" without "full outward participation" (meaning, of course, the circumcision). This is different, however, from saying that "Christian" (as a hermeneutical rule) today equals "Israel", even in Paul's thinking. I would think that Jews and Gentiles are together a part of something that transcends Israel - that being the kingdom of God. As one new man we are a part of the family of God that is broader and higher than the family of Israel, IOW.

[CFJ]

His treatise on Israel in Chapters 9 through 11 of Romans for starters. If you like, I can go point by point and show you how his entire argument breaks down.

BroRog,

Lets start with Romans 9...

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(Rom 9:6-8 KJV)

Surely, there is and must be a diffirence between Israel in the flesh and Israel of the promise...? In Galatians, Paul also says about Christians and this exact same promise...

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
(Gal 4:28-31 KJV)

Can one really negate Israel of the promise, as an everlasting concept before God...?

[BroRog]

I know that I don't mind.

What I am looking for is whether or not we are saying here that Paul's explanation related to how Gentiles who were estranged, now being able to be a part of the household of God as true "spiritual" seeds of Abraham, means that Israel = Christians.

These are passages that help Jews and Gentiles in the first century understand how a group that was once radically set apart from can now be inclusive of (though it is highly questionable in context that Rom. 9:6-7 has any Gentiles in view). The Gentile "God-fearers" had been a part of but never fully joined; now they were able to be fully joined to a family in a way that was radically different than what they were taught.

Paul brilliantly lays out a scriptural apologetic for "full citizenship" without "full outward participation" (meaning, of course, the circumcision). This is different, however, from saying that "Christian" (as a hermeneutical rule) today equals "Israel", even in Paul's thinking. I would think that Jews and Gentiles are together a part of something that transcends Israel - that being the kingdom of God. As one new man we are a part of the family of God that is broader and higher than the family of Israel, IOW.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. And I especially like how you succinctly summarized the issue in terms of '"full citizenship" without "full outward participation".'

[John146]

I know that I don't mind.

What I am looking for is whether or not we are saying here that Paul's explanation related to how Gentiles who were estranged, now being able to be a part of the household of God as true "spiritual" seeds of Abraham, means that Israel = Christians.

Yes, I know, and I believe I showed that in my post. Would it be possible for you to address specific points that I made in my post? When it says "In Isaac shall they seed be called" what do you believe that means? When it says the children of the promise are counted for the seed, what do you believe that means? Remember, those statements are being directly related to the Israel which is not of Israel.

Also, what do you believe is the identity of the Israel which is not of Israel? Who is in that Israel? In the same vein, what is the commonwealth of Israel and who is part of it?

[the rookie]

Yes, I know, and I believe I showed that in my post. Would it be possible for you to address specific points that I made in my post?

I did. Was my analysis unsatisfactory? It would probably be easier if you responded to my response rather than have me "re-respond".

As I noted, in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul was addressing an issue that the Galatians were wrestling with related to a demand that they participate with the Mosiac covenant by appealing to the "transcendent" covenant God made with Abraham. The Gentiles could be fully joined without observing the Torah in the outward sense. This does not mean that "Christian" = "Israel".

Also, what do you believe is the identity of the Israel which is not of Israel? Who is in that Israel? In the same vein, what is the commonwealth of Israel and who is part of it?

You kind of reversed th scriptural order in your question, which makes it awkward for me to respond to related to Paul's grammatical flow. I hope you don't mind me "switching back".

Paul is addressing the Gentile believers in Rome and helping them understand that the word of God had taken root to a measure versus being of "no effect". Within Israel there was a faithful remnant - as had always been from the time of Abraham. In other words, within "Israel" was "faithful Israel" related to the manner in which Paul's ethnic brethren (clearly the subject of the discussion from Rom. 9:3-4) carried the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.

The rhetorical question that Paul is answering is, if he is lamenting the condition of his ethnic brethren to whom pertain the above list (9:4), how could there be any hope for the future related to the above list? Paul states emphatically that the hope of the above list is knit to the manner in which the word of God has taken effect within the ranks of the faithful remnant. He is not talking about Gentiles here - but those among the Jews who have constituted the faithful remnant from the days of Isaac forward.

When it says "In Isaac shall they seed be called" what do you believe that means? When it says the children of the promise are counted for the seed, what do you believe that means? Remember, those statements are being directly related to the Israel which is not of Israel.

Paul continues to highlight his point about faithful Israelites carrying those promises, (and the rest of the list) by highliting God's choice of Jacob after Isaac versus the firstborn, Esau. One was faithful, the other was not - and that faithfulness enabled the promises to go forward. Thus when Paul answers another rhetorical question about the righteousness of God it is related to His "rightness" in choosing from amongst faithful and unfaithful Israelites in moving those promises forward.

This theme continues (choosing faithful versus unfaithful) through history to Paul's day, and a most shocking "choice" - God would now show mercy to the Gentiles, who were "not His people". Thus in Rom. 9:30-33, Paul himself makes a distinction between the "Gentiles" whom God would show mercy towards in the "attaining of righteousness" and "Israel" who would not attain righteousness. Why? "Because they (Israel) did not seek it by faith" and had thus stumbled - yet Paul would still emphatically declare his hearts desire that they would be saved despite their ignorance and their rejection.

Paul's own salvation was proof that God had not "cast away His people", as Paul himself (as the Romans somehow forgot) was an Israelite!

Paul is not using this designation to mean "Christian", and to make it so is to make the whole progression fairly confusing. For Paul would be asking in 11:1 if God had cast away faithful Gentiles! Paul emphatically states again that God has not cast away "His people" whom "He foreknew" would trangress and reject the gospel. Again, this makes no sense if "Israel" = "Christians".

[John146]

I did. Was my analysis unsatisfactory?

Yes, it was completely unsatisfactory. You are, of course, not obligated to answer in any other way than what you want, but I certainly don't feel that you specifically addressed much of anything from my post.

It would probably be easier if you responded to my response rather than have me "re-respond".

Why is that? Is it unreasonable for me to ask for a bit of clarification from you first before I respond?

As I noted, in Galatians 4:21-31 Paul was addressing an issue that the Galatians were wrestling with related to a demand that they participate with the Mosiac covenant by appealing to the "transcendent" covenant God made with Abraham. The Gentiles could be fully joined without observing the Torah in the outward sense. This does not mean that "Christian" = "Israel".

What about Ephesians 2:11-22? Can you tell me your interpretation of that passage? What is the commonwealth of Israel and don't you believe that passage says that Gentile believers are fellowcitizens in the commonwealth of Israel?

You kind of reversed th scriptural order in your question, which makes it awkward for me to respond to related to Paul's grammatical flow. I hope you don't mind me "switching back".

Paul is addressing the Gentile believers in Rome and helping them understand that the word of God had taken root to a measure versus being of "no effect". Within Israel there was a faithful remnant - as had always been from the time of Abraham. In other words, within "Israel" was "faithful Israel" related to the manner in which Paul's ethnic brethren (clearly the subject of the discussion from Rom. 9:3-4) carried the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.

The rhetorical question that Paul is answering is, if he is lamenting the condition of his ethnic brethren to whom pertain the above list (9:4), how could there be any hope for the future related to the above list? Paul states emphatically that the hope of the above list is knit to the manner in which the word of God has taken effect within the ranks of the faithful remnant. He is not talking about Gentiles here - but those among the Jews who have constituted the faithful remnant from the days of Isaac forward.

Do you not believe that Galatians 4 has any relation to Romans 9? Particularly, when it says "we, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Gal 4:28) you don't see that as having any relationship to Romans 9:6-8 which says "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed"?

Paul continues to highlight his point about faithful Israelites carrying those promises, (and the rest of the list) by highliting God's choice of Jacob after Isaac versus the firstborn, Esau. One was faithful, the other was not - and that faithfulness enabled the promises to go forward. Thus when Paul answers another rhetorical question about the righteousness of God it is related to His "rightness" in choosing from amongst faithful and unfaithful Israelites in moving those promises forward.

This theme continues (choosing faithful versus unfaithful) through history to Paul's day, and a most shocking "choice" - God would now show mercy to the Gentiles, who were "not His people". Thus in Rom. 9:30-33, Paul himself makes a distinction between the "Gentiles" whom God would show mercy towards in the "attaining of righteousness" and "Israel" who would not attain righteousness. Why? "Because they (Israel) did not seek it by faith" and had thus stumbled - yet Paul would still emphatically declare his hearts desire that they would be saved despite their ignorance and their rejection.

Paul's own salvation was proof that God had not "cast away His people", as Paul himself (as the Romans somehow forgot) was an Israelite!

Paul is not using this designation to mean "Christian", and to make it so is to make the whole progression fairly confusing. For Paul would be asking in 11:1 if God had cast away faithful Gentiles! Paul emphatically states again that God has not cast away "His people" whom "He foreknew" would trangress and reject the gospel. Again, this makes no sense if "Israel" = "Christians".

What differentiates someone from being in the Israel which is not of Israel as opposed to being part of the nation of Israel? Doesn't one have to be a Christian to be in the Israel which is not of Israel? If not, then what qualifies someone to be in the Israel which is not of Israel? Clearly, being a natural citizen alone doesn't cut it. Agree? So, what is the difference between those who are in true Israel and those who are not? Faith in Christ, isn't it? What are those who have faith in Christ called? Christians.

[the rookie]

Yes, it was completely unsatisfactory. You are, of course, not obligated to answer in any other way than what you want, but I certainly don't feel that you specifically addressed much of anything from my post. Why is that? Is it unreasonable for me to ask for a bit of clarification from you first before I respond?

Well, I apologize. I thought I could take all of those words and craft a more succinct response to save us time. Then I thought I would add a "laughy" icon to lighten up the response. Both were unhelpful, I suppose.

What about Ephesians 2:11-22? Can you tell me your interpretation of that passage? What is the commonwealth of Israel and don't you believe that passage says that Gentile believers are fellowcitizens in the commonwealth of Israel?

Sure, but that doesn't mean that, hemeneutically, "Israel" = "Christians". Paul was not crafting a hermeneutical rule, he was giving a theological explanation of God's plan to unite two previously antagonistic groups into a new entity, or "one new man". Thus the final product is something that transcends Israel - it isn't called Israel.

Do you not believe that Galatians 4 has any relation to Romans 9? Particularly, when it says "we, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Gal 4:28) you don't see that as having any relationship to Romans 9:6-8 which says "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" and "the children of the promise are counted for the seed"?

Hmmm. I thought I addressed that - did I miss something? It seems you think that Paul's two references to Isaac means that "Israel" = "Christian" instead of how I had previously explained (twice now) Gal. 4.

What differentiates someone from being in the Israel which is not of Israel as opposed to being part of the nation of Israel?

Maybe you cold "re-ask" this as you may have unintentionally made this question a bit more complicated than you meant to.

Doesn't one have to be a Christian to be in the Israel which is not of Israel? If not, then what qualifies someone to be in the Israel which is not of Israel? Clearly, being a natural citizen alone doesn't cut it. Agree? So, what is the difference between those who are in true Israel and those who are not? Faith in Christ, isn't it? What are those who have faith in Christ called? Christians.

You seem to be missing Paul's point in Rom. 9 and using the passage to make a different one. In doing so, you are applying your own logic to how one could end with the conclusion that "Israel" = "Christian", but again that is different than saying that: "In the Bible, the word Israel at times means 'Christian'".

I do realize that my question cuts right to the heart of this discussion, but while I believe that I have been grafted into Israelite promises and an Israelite covenant, that does not make me "Israel". It makes me a citizen of a kingdom that is "not of this world" that is soon coming here, by which I am and will be joined to a faithful remnant of Jewish brethren to become something wholly new and glorious, in which time that which is in part will be fully expressed, and that which was divorced will become fully reconciled in Christ. That, to me, is much more than being part of, or identified as, or with, Israel.

[BroRog]

This passage equates "the commonwealth of Israel" with "the household of God". The household of God is clearly a reference to the church, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree. However, this is a good case example of a place in which Paul's argument will break down and become fallacious if the church is equated with the commonwealth of Israel. In other words, if we assume that the Gentiles are being taken into the commonwealth of Israel, we are forcing Paul's argument into the logical fallacy of ambiguity, otherwise known as equivocation.

Equivocation comes about when a word, in this case "Israel" assumes two different meanings in an argument, when it is clear that it should have one or the other.

In this case, Paul identifies his readers as "Gentiles in the flesh", which is a reference to the fact that the Gentiles were not physically circumcised. The significance of this lack of circumcision has its locus in the theocracy of Israel at the time of writing. Contrary to modern democratic societies, Israel of that time period was a theocracy, ruled by a religious elite and governed by judges who enforced the Mosaic Law. To become a citizen in this theocracy, among other things, a non-Israelite was required to accept the rite of circumcision and agree to put themselves under the law of Moses.

When Paul says his readers were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, he speaks in terms of their nationality, not their spirituality. The polity of Israel includes but is not limited to being physically circumcised and keeping Moses. He wants to argue that, in spite of the fact that his readers were non-citizens, which kept them from access to God via the temple, they now have access to God via the spirit. In order to make his case, he acknowledges the supposition that the Gentiles were on the outside looking in, due to the fact that they were non-citizens. Not having the rights of a citizen, they were not allowed to offer sacrifices or enter the temple grounds to make prayers or petitions to God. Given that situation, God provided another way to gain access, i.e. through the cross of Christ, which according to God, transcends national boundaries.

Now, if Paul's use of the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" is not intended to indicate the theocracy of national Israel, then his argument begins to break down because his statement that the Gentiles were not circumcised becomes a trite statement, adding nothing to this argument. His comment that two groups are made into one in Christ makes no sense given that the Jews and the Gentiles are not actually different with respect to their inward spirituality. They only exist as separate groups in need of unification, if the issue is what outwardly makes them unique.

The fact that they are not circumcised, not members of the polity of Israel, not under the Law of Moses, etc. is what makes them unique from the Jews living as citizens of Israel. If Paul's argument does not understand the outward differences between these two groups, then his point concerning the fact that the separation wall kept Gentiles away from the Temple is another trite and meaningless point. The wall of separation never kept anyone from spiritual access to God.

[John146]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that, hemeneutically, "Israel" = "Christians". Paul was not crafting a hermeneutical rule, he was giving a theological explanation of God's plan to unite two previously antagonistic groups into a new entity, or "one new man". Thus the final product is something that transcends Israel - it isn't called Israel.

What is the commonwealth of Israel then?

Hmmm. I thought I addressed that - did I miss something? It seems you think that Paul's two references to Isaac means that "Israel" = "Christian" instead of how I had previously explained (twice now) Gal. 4.

You didn't address it in a way that made any sense to me. Do you see any connection that can be made between Galatians 4:28 and Romans 9:6-8 or not? That's all I'd like to know.

Maybe you cold "re-ask" this as you may have unintentionally made this question a bit more complicated than you meant to.

No, I don't think it was complicated at all but I'll simplify it this way. Assume for the sake of argument that the Israel that is not of Israel = the Israel of God. My question then is: what makes someone a part of the Israel of God and, contrastly, what makes someone a part of the nation of Israel?

You seem to be missing Paul's point in Rom. 9 and using the passage to make a different one. In doing so, you are applying your own logic to how one could end with the conclusion that "Israel" = "Christian", but again that is different than saying that: "In the Bible, the word Israel at times means 'Christian'".

I do realize that my question cuts right to the heart of this discussion, but while I believe that I have been grafted into Israelite promises and an Israelite covenant, that does not make me "Israel".

You don't believe you are a fellowcitizen in the commonwealth of Israel?

[wpm]

Well, I apologize. I thought I could take all of those words and craft a more succinct response to save us time. Then I thought I would add a "laughy" icon to lighten up the response. Both were unhelpful, I suppose.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that, hemeneutically, "Israel" = "Christians". Paul was not crafting a hermeneutical rule, he was giving a theological explanation of God's plan to unite two previously antagonistic groups into a new entity, or "one new man". Thus the final product is something that transcends Israel - it isn't called Israel.

Hmmm. I thought I addressed that - did I miss something? It seems you think that Paul's two references to Isaac means that "Israel" = "Christian" instead of how I had previously explained (twice now) Gal. 4.

Maybe you cold "re-ask" this as you may have unintentionally made this question a bit more complicated than you meant to.

You seem to be missing Paul's point in Rom. 9 and using the passage to make a different one. In doing so, you are applying your own logic to how one could end with the conclusion that "Israel" = "Christian", but again that is different than saying that: "In the Bible, the word Israel at times means 'Christian'".

I do realize that my question cuts right to the heart of this discussion, but while I believe that I have been grafted into Israelite promises and an Israelite covenant, that does not make me "Israel". It makes me a citizen of a kingdom that is "not of this world" that is soon coming here, by which I am and will be joined to a faithful remnant of Jewish brethren to become something wholly new and glorious, in which time that which is in part will be fully expressed, and that which was divorced will become fully reconciled in Christ. That, to me, is much more than being part of, or identified as, or with, Israel.

As you know there are many names for God's elect in the OT and the NT. The term Christian is obviously a new NT term that began at Antioch. It simply refers to a Christ-one or a follower of Christ. As we know, there has never been salvation outside of Christ, whether before or after the cross. So whilst that is a new term in the NT we should for the sake of argument use more commonly used biblical terms like redeemed, believer or saint (that are found in both testaments) to progress this discussion.

[John146]

No, I don't agree. However, this is a good case example of a place in which Paul's argument will break down and become fallacious if the church is equated with the commonwealth of Israel. In other words, if we assume that the Gentiles are being taken into the commonwealth of Israel, we are forcing Paul's argument into the logical fallacy of ambiguity, otherwise known as equivocation.

Equivocation comes about when a word, in this case "Israel" assumes two different meanings in an argument, when it is clear that it should have one or the other.

In this case, Paul identifies his readers as "Gentiles in the flesh", which is a reference to the fact that the Gentiles were not physically circumcised. The significance of this lack of circumcision has its locus in the theocracy of Israel at the time of writing. Contrary to modern democratic societies, Israel of that time period was a theocracy, ruled by a religious elite and governed by judges who enforced the Mosaic Law. To become a citizen in this theocracy, among other things, a non-Israelite was required to accept the rite of circumcision and agree to put themselves under the law of Moses.

When Paul says his readers were aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, he speaks in terms of their nationality, not their spirituality. The polity of Israel includes but is not limited to being physically circumcised and keeping Moses. He wants to argue that, in spite of the fact that his readers were non-citizens, which kept them from access to God via the temple, they now have access to God via the spirit. In order to make his case, he acknowledges the supposition that the Gentiles were on the outside looking in, due to the fact that they were non-citizens. Not having the rights of a citizen, they were not allowed to offer sacrifices or enter the temple grounds to make prayers or petitions to God. Given that situation, God provided another way to gain access, i.e. through the cross of Christ, which according to God, transcends national boundaries.

Now, if Paul's use of the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" is not intended to indicate the theocracy of national Israel, then his argument begins to break down because his statement that the Gentiles were not circumcised becomes a trite statement, adding nothing to this argument. His comment that two groups are made into one in Christ makes no sense given that the Jews and the Gentiles are not actually different with respect to their inward spirituality. They only exist as separate groups in need of unification, if the issue is what outwardly makes them unique.

The fact that they are not circumcised, not members of the polity of Israel, not under the Law of Moses, etc. is what makes them unique from the Jews living as citizens of Israel. If Paul's argument does not understand the outward differences between these two groups, then his point concerning the fact that the separation wall kept Gentiles away from the Temple is another trite and meaningless point. The wall of separation never kept anyone from spiritual access to God.

I believe you are making this too complicated. First, these Gentile believers are said to have been in the past "Gentiles in the flesh" and "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel". Then later it says they are no longer strangers and foreigners. No longer aliens. Then it says they are fellowcitizens of the household of God and it goes on to describe the church. I don't see how you can not equate the commonwealth of Israel, which these Gentile believers were only formerly aliens from, and the household of God, of which these Gentile believers were made fellowcitizens. Paul could just as easily have said these Gentiles were strangers and foreigners to the commonwealth of Israel and then later said they were no more aliens, but fellowcitizens in the household of God. The household of God and the commonwealth of Israel are the same thing. Both refer to the church.

[the rookie]

What is the commonwealth of Israel then?

I think that BroRog just addressed that point well.

You didn't address it in a way that made any sense to me. Do you see any connection that can be made between Galatians 4:28 and Romans 9:6-8 or not? That's all I'd like to know.

Yes and no. Paul is using one biblical example to make two different points, depending on the argument he is refuting (Gentile converts must keep the Mosaic law) or the illustration he is making (about the faithful remnant). Though there is a common thread between the two conversations (faith) these are two different conversations.

No, I don't think it was complicated at all but I'll simplify it this way. Assume for the sake of argument that the Israel that is not of Israel = the Israel of God. My question then is: what makes someone a part of the Israel of God and, contrastly, what makes someone a part of the nation of Israel?

It doesn't really matter what I think if someone doesn't understand something I ask , but thanks for clarifying your question.

As I said earlier, it is debatable that the "Israel of God" term in Gal. 4:16 means what you think it does. Even so, your question still seems to be ignoring context and mixing two conversations together that addressed separate issues.

You don't believe you are a fellowcitizen in the commonwealth of Israel?

Nope.

[the rookie]

As you know there are many names for God's elect in the OT and the NT. The term Christian is obviously a new NT term that began at Antioch. It simply refers to a Christ-one or a follower of Christ. As we know, there has never been salvation outside of Christ, whether before or after the cross. So whilst that is a new term in the NT we should for the sake of arguement use more commonly used biblical terms like redeemed, believer or saint (that are found in both testaments) to progress this discussion.

Point taken. My apologies if I moved the thread off of the OP.

[wpm]

No, I don't agree. However, this is a good case example of a place in which Paul's argument will break down and become fallacious if the church is equated with the commonwealth of Israel. In other words, if we assume that the Gentiles are being taken into the commonwealth of Israel, we are forcing Paul's argument into the logical fallacy of ambiguity, otherwise known as equivocation.

Equivocation comes about when a word, in this case "Israel" assumes two different meanings in an argument, when it is clear that it should have one or the other.

What in your opinion is the good olive tree?