“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate otherwise.” — D.L. Cooper
This is the rule of biblical interpretation that has been taught to me my entire life, and I try very hard to live by it. However, I’ve been puzzling for quite some time over a particular doctrine, trying to make sense of “the plain sense of Scripture.” When I read my Bible, taking every word at its ordinary, usual, and literal meaning, I came up with a different doctrine than what I have been taught.
This was my question: “Who are the people of God?” Specifically, I could see that the children of Israel were the people of God. I could also see that the Church is the people of God. Are they both the “people of God,” and if so, did God have two people, or only one, or more than two?
Why does this even matter? I promise you, I don’t just have a weird curiosity! LOL! Seriously, I needed to know because there were certain commands and promises for each of these groups, both Israel and the Church, and I wanted to rightly interpret which commands and promises applied to me personally.
Dispensational theologians, such as Scofield and Ryrie, teach that there are two peoples of God, and that these two people are distinct from each other. Covenant theologians, such as John Calvin and R.C. Sproul, teach that there is only one people of God, which was first Israel, but that Israel was replaced by the Church.
My frustration is that I don’t see either of these views in Scripture — not when I read it plainly and literally, using ordinary words in their context.
If Israel and the Church are both the people of God, distinct from each other, then why does the Bible clearly say that there is only one people of God? Why does it say similar things about both Israel and the Church, seeming to lump them into the same group of people? The dispensational view doesn’t seem to take Scripture literally, instead needing to make Israel a physical people and the Church a spritual people.
However, if the Church has replaced Israel, then how could God keep his promises to the literal, physical nation of Israel, specifically regarding the land of Israel? I realize that some prophecies in Scripture are symbolic and allegorical — but the promises to Israel about inheriting the land of Israel look like they are literal, at least when I just open up my Bible and read it in ordinary words. Therefore, the covenant view doesn’t seem to be correct either.
What do I do?! This question has really stumped me, because I had been taught that there were only these two choices. However, if I “take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning,” then I see a third possibility, one that makes sense — but isn’t without its problems. Could it be that the “Church” is simply another word for people from every tribe and nation (ie. includes Gentiles like me) who have been “called out” of darkness by faith in Jesus Christ and “grafted in” to Israel? (The word “church” is from the Greek word ecclesia, which means “called out ones.”) I don’t know what this “theology” would be called, but maybe I could call it “graftology.” In this case, the Bible’s description of only one people of God would still apply. In addition, the literal promises to Israel of a land and future King would still apply.
The only problem with this view is that the commands and promises made to Israel would also then apply to me. Most people already claim the promises made to Israel. However, claiming Israel’s “commands” makes most Christians uncomfortable.
I’ll continue this at a future time, but if you’re intrigued by this topic, download the 29-page study I did of all the Bible says about the people of God. Yikes! 29 pages? Yes, the Bible really has a lot to say about this topic! Read it and “take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning.” See what conclusions you come to!
>> DOWNLOAD “People of God” study here.
Until next time,
This is an interesting question. I haven’t read the 29 pages yet, and I’m not a biblical scholar–just a Christian mom, but I would like to contribute these thoughts: We are all covenant people of God, just functioning under different covenants. We are adopted children of God, but we are not the children of Israel. It’s almost as if God started a second family later in life, and gave them what He wanted to give his first family. Since they rejected it, He gave it away to someone else, but will deal with His first family at the proper time. Think of the two groups as two different children. The first was born and given everything that was good for him. But he rejected it and went his own way. The Father had a great plan for that son, but since it was rejected, he adopted another son and gave the great plan to the adopted son. So both are sons, but one is living the great plan, the other still lives under the original plan that was about to be dramatically improved–if only he would obey.
I like this explanation. As a mother with adopted children and biological children it makes total sense. God loves all His children whether they are adopted or born into the family. My adopted children have been grafted into our family and are every bit as loved as members. They are just as privileged to the inheritance that is given to all the children we have. While they still have a distinction to how they came to our family, the same goes for those who enter God’s family as dearly loved children.
Yes, I’ve always been taught this, that there are two people of God — but, yeah, read the verses. It sounds like a good thought, really! But I just don’t see it in Scripture. If you have verses for it, though, I’d welcome that. 🙂 ~Anne
You’re AWESOME Ann!…so honest and prudent and willing to be a messenger of YAH’s truth!
…Oh, and thanks for all the hard work and generosity re: sharing your studies with us! You really do dig for the treasures and then share them.
I’m looking forward to looking at your 29 page study, Anne. I would just say that if we as believers are not part of the Children of Israel, then what covenant are we functioning under? (c: I think I know the answer…and it WOULD mean we are part of the children of Israel. You may deal with this in your study, so I won’t spoil it by posting a reference. Also, another question…what about Yeshua’s/Jesus’ comment that he was not sent but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Mt. 15:24 And calling the disciples to be fishers of men? Do we realize this is a reference to an “Old Testament” prophecy? Jer. 16:9-16. This “fishers of men” goes along with Yeshua’s “lost sheep of the house of Israel” comment. Now, does this mean only those of Hebrew descent can be saved? No, but they are the ones being searched out because they have been scattered and absorbed into the nations. (I am not referring to the Jews, who are basically of the Tribe of Judah…but that is an involved topic for some, lol)
Oh, Anne! This looks great! Just scanning it, wow! (c: I think you have proved that the miscalled “New Testament” does not teach anything new. I would just add to one of the verses, Jer. 31:33, the previous verses that tell us what is being described in Jer. 31:33: Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
Vs. 33 is describing THE NEW COVENANT…and it is going to be made/made with who? (c:
Oh wow, Anne. I have just started reading through your study on this…what a blessing! Very thought provoking also…I think we can safely say, looking at Scripture, two things: the land prophecies have NOT been fulfilled yet; the whole Bible is about the Father’s relationship with the whole house of Israel.
an addition to the above: the “Old Testament” is the dictionary for the “New Testament”. Who are the sheep in the OT? Israel. Hmmmm….
Cindy, isn’t a relief when God tells us things very clearly in His Word? He says things repeatedly, so we aren’t left to wonder. He is good!
I am so excited to read this study. I really love your site…your writing and thinking are very clear.
I am a newcomer to this blog … would like to share a thought that I have been taught. In the book of Hebrews it calls the “people of God” the ones who were of Abraham – but meaning OF FAITH as their father, Abraham, was of faith. Does this make sense to anyone? I am actually not certain. Thank you! – dianne
Dianne, yes, I think this is the same thing. If we are the people of God, we are people of faith. If we are people of faith, we have been therefore grafted into the people of God.
Ephesians 2:19-22
Romans 11
My dear friend Elsa just wrote a blog post *this week* about the definition of faith and the definition of trust. I thought it was good!
http://www.setapartpeople.com/lack-of-trust-will-lead-to-apostasy