The Church and Israel
Who Are the People of God?

by Rev. Ian Birch

In the tragic split between Judaism and Christianity which developed in the late first and early second century one of the key issues were: who has primary claim to the title Israel? Who are the people of God? Has the Church replaced the Jews in the purposes of God?

Naturally this question sent Christian scholars scurrying back to the letters of Paul to consider what he had written about this subject. But even to the present day there is still some uncertainty about what Paul had decided about the status of Israel in the scheme of salvation. I hope my own reflections will shed some light on this question.

Paul?s thinking about the post-Christ position of Israel is driven by a tension between theology and practice. On the one hand Israel is loved by God because of the Patriarchs, and she is the legitimate heir of the promises to the Fathers (Romans 9:4); but on the other hand Paul?s experience of mission to the Jews made it clear that at the same time Israel was at enmity with the Gospel (cf Acts 13:46). How was this state of affairs to be interpreted? To find an answer Paul undertook to examine the history of Israel according to the Scriptures. This led to a conclusion that some Jews would have found blasphemous, namely that not all Jews who claim descendancy from Abraham are Abraham?s children since they do not own the same kind of faith as their father Abraham.

An Israel within Israel

Paul?s solution of a postulated Israel within Israel was not a de novo creation. He observed that throughout history God had at numerous times exercised his right to select people to carry out his purposes. Ishmael was an offspring of Abraham, but no Jew believed that the Arabs were included in the covenant. According to the Old Testament the children of faith were reckoned through the line of Isaac. This was because the birth of Isaac involved an act of faith on the part of Abraham, as he received from God the promise of a child (Romans 4:18-22). This historical event was Paul?s justification for developing the principle that not all who descended from Abraham are in fact ?Israel?. The historical situation concerning Abraham?s two sons, Isaac and Ishmael supports his theological argument ?true Israel? is not co-extensive with historical Israel. In Romans 2:28-29 Paul states: ?A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly?, which is paralleled in 9:6b. Paul?s line of reasoning is that once the concept of Israel has been freed from its absolute identification with all of Abraham?s descendants it is possible to bring the Gentiles in to the fold of ?eschatological Israel?. In Romans 9:22 Paul argues, using a citation from Hosea 2:23, that this is what God has in fact done. ?I will call them my people who are not my people?, an obvious reference in Paul?s argument to Gentile believers in Christ. Yet Paul never suggests that the inclusion of the Gentiles has the effect of displacing the Jews as God?s people. In fact, the facts of historical Israel is not expounded upon and in the end Paul concludes that the children of God are not merely children of fleshly descent but rather children of promise. Clearly Paul has driven a wedge into historical Israel to distinguish between those who are saved and those who are hardened (11:25), yet the end in sight is the salvation of all Israel (11:26).

Paul?s inclusion of believing Gentiles in Israel shows that he had a fluid concept of the identity of Israel. His own missionary endeavors had exposed him to the rejection of Jesus as Messiah by many individual Jews. Indeed this had been his own reaction to the Gospel for a number of years. Paul could speak from bitter experience about the Jews who were enemies of both himself and the Gospel, they were the ?branches that were broken off? in Romans 11:17-28. The tragedy of this rejection was heightened by the reception of the Gospel among the Gentiles. But though Paul had turned from preaching the Gospel to the Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46) he affirms that the Jews are still God?s covenant people. However, what Paul had learned from his missionary travels was that the order of salvation had changed from ?Jew first and then of the Gentiles? to Gentiles preceding Jews, so that the final salvation of the Jews comes in the wake of the Gentiles (Romans 11:12-25). Just as the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews had led to the evangelization of the Gentiles, so the reception of the Gospel by the Gentiles would be the means of salvation for the Jews.

This line of thought confirms the view that Paul did not see himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles with no reference to Israel. Paul envisaged a clear necessary connection between his own Gentile mission and the restoration of Israel.

Paul?s realization that reversal in the order of salvation had taken place was not only arrived at through historical events but could be justified on the basis of Old Testament scripture. In Deuteronomy 32:21 Paul found the text: ?They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols. I will make them envious by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding?. This ancient saying would cast the Gentiles in the role of the ?no people?, the ?nation without understanding? and they would provoke Israel to jealousy which in turn would secure their ultimate restoration. Here in Deuteronomy 32 Paul found the explanation he sought for both Israel?s lack of faith in the short term and her ultimate salvation, here was Paul?s justification for speaking of God?s judgement and mercy upon Israel.

Paul?s settled conviction appears to be that inspite of Israel?s stubborn refusal to embrace the Gospel the ongoing historical activity of mission to the Gentiles must continue, until such time as the numbers of Gentiles is complete. This is the point at which Israel will see the salvation and glory the Gentiles have in Christ and then both Israel and the Gentiles will share together in God?s salvation.