Daniel Fleming of NYU (in an lecture on iTunes titled “Ancient Israel”) defines “Israel” a few different ways:
Religious: “The name of the people who worship the god named YHWH in much of Bible writing.” This is a definition of Israel based on the Bible. Israel is the “people of the god YHWH”.
Political-Historical: “The name of the people who act as a group between at least the year 1200-720 BCE.” He marks 1200 as the beginning because that is where out external, Egyptian evidence is dated and he marks 720 as the end because of the Assyrian invasion. He notes that Israel is not Judah, Judah is not Israel, but that these names become convoluted later.
For readers of this blog this may be a helpful distinction. I have noticed that at time there is some debate over how to define “Israel”, especially as it relates to Jewishness. Usually, I am using the term from a Political-Historical perspective, which acknowledges that Second Temple Jews often discuss “Israel”–whether it be the Qumran sect, the Gospels, the Book of Acts, or the writings of Paul–even if this label is problematic. Other are discussing Israel “theologically”, i.e., true Israel is this or that. Paul argues that true Israel is the Israel who acknowledges Jesus as the Christ. Qumran (at least documents like 1QS) presents true Israel at those who submit to becoming part of the “Unity”. I understand that there are passionate views of what defines Israel theologically, some that date back to antiquity, but I am not trying to make a statement about this definition of Israel, usually.
February 18, 2013 at 9:05 pm
There is a difference between Christians arguing ‘Paul argues that true Israel is the Israel who acknowledges Jesus as the Christ’ and indeed Paul actually making that argument.
Beneath this difference is a legitimate theological question, that requires we be open about whether or not we are committed to honest exegesis (meaning it is more important for us to obtain from the words in the text, the meaning the author intended than for us to maintain a theology we prefer – the later is simply not honest exegesis). So in addressing the question ‘What is Israel’ there is this issue of the reader wanting to impose meaning where none exists, but there is more …
God is not mixed up about what Isreael means, only we are. We ignore that the historical name Israel has been diluted by history. Why the name in the first place – anyway? If we’re not even asking that question we can’t be seen to be seriously struggling with the issue. At the heart of that answer is a riddle: How can a God who shares his Glory with no other ([Isa 42:8]) promise to bestow a great name on a man and his descendants forever? ([Gen 12:2])
Don’t dismiss this question as he product of an over imagination. Consider it carefully for just a second. [Isa 42:8] speaks to God’s character – Glory belongs to Him alone. Anyone who’se read Isaiah knows that over and over again in the Major Prophets God observes his name is profaned among the heathen because of Israel. He promises that He would protect His name, except he is not talking the name ‘YHWH’, rather he is talking about the one he promised Abraham as part of the Abrahamic promise. Except that a God who does not share His glory cannot logically magnify the name of a man (to give Abraham a ‘great’ name is to share Glory) without making Himself a liar … or can He?
The name Israel means to ‘rule (or contend) with (meaning along with rather than against) God’ in the sense of being a captain to the King, to do His bidding [Gen 32:28-29][Gen 35:10] Because this story in genesis has Jacob wrestling an angel (actually Christ), and because the English is ambigous people assume incorrectly Jacob contends against God, but in fact the Hebrew is clear, Jacob contends as a representative along with or for God. Of course people will see the obvious Messianic element there but as the Messiah is the head of the Assembly, he is representative too.
Part of the Abrahamic covenant involved use of a name, so back to the riddle – How can a God who is sole owner of all glory bestow upon a man a name that brings him glory (while being logically and theologically consistent). The only way to solve this riddle is to give the man a name that point back to God Himself (so to glorify the man is really to glorify God). Logically, a God who allows a man to wear the mantle of His glory is not sharing His glory since all honour is pointing back to Himself.
The bestowal of the name ‘Israel’ IS a direct consequence of the Abrahamic covenant, just as the bestowal of the name ‘Christian’ is, both being fulfillment of this promise to adorn great names (both names being the mantle of God’s glory). This is also why God inspired Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel to express great jealously for that name that was being profaned.
Now for Christians to turn around and spiritualize this element of the Abrahamic covenant, for Christians to cheapen it by missing its intent, or missing its significance is yet more evidence of dimmed eyes, and stopped ears.
Paul understood and applied correctly the name Israel, just as he saw how Israel would be called by a new name. It is Christians who do not understand this (and I haven’t even gotten into how goats have adorned themselves with a stolen name the shepherd intended for His sheep) [Isa 44:5; 65:15]
February 18, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Ever notice that ‘Christian’ points to Christ (meaning ‘anointed’) .. just as Israel points to El? Both are in fulfillment of the Abrahamic because in both cases mere humans are wearing glorious names that point to God.
February 18, 2013 at 9:17 pm
This is also why it is important to identify clear Paul’s audience. If my contention is correct that Paul was addressing Israelites rather than heathens, it is false to claim Paul was giving Israel’s heritage to pagans (making [Rom 9:4] which says to Israel belongs the adoption .. False)
February 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm
Oh .. and biblically there is a difference between being a ‘Jew’ and being an Israelite. It would actually be nice if those claiming they believed the bible would not simply treat those two terms as though they were one and the same.
Just because someone was a Jew didn’t make them automatically an Israelite.
February 19, 2013 at 8:48 am
Matthew 7:21-23
New King James Version (NKJV)
I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
How is it that these people who acknowledges Jesus are not considered Israel by Yahshua.The answer is in Hebrews 4 which is speaking of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that he would inherit all the land shown as a possession which the means of entering it was by The Words of the Covenants which many fell short of because of disobedience or practiced lawlessness .Has the church perverted the truth through their claim of replacement of what Israel was known by.
February 19, 2013 at 10:15 am
How many here understand there will be 2 resurrections , one by the Covenants and one by Grace. Under Grace those still living at the end of 1000 year Sabbath Rest of the Elohim will be raptured after all the dead with Yahshua as our mediator to be judged by the Elohim by matters of the heart. Those found worthy will receive eternal life in the presence of the Elohim in the New Heaven and renewed Earth. Those not worthy will be cast back to the Earth while it is being regenerated and will be consumed by fire
February 19, 2013 at 4:42 pm
The idea that God is fickle with his election might appeal to many, but there is no biblical proof God has chosen some other bride other than the one he chose at first. Unfortunately ‘replacement’ heresy dominates modern theological thinking.
God (who is without shade or variation) speaking through the mouth of all of his prophets said that the branch of David would establish the new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah, it makes more sense to believe the bible that God did just this, and that the kinsmen redeemer has redeemed His flock, than to be making up false theology that suggests God is faithless to his word (and fickle) and esteems the faithless sea more than His Holy mountain.
February 21, 2013 at 4:31 am
Sacrifice requires that the flesh is wholly expended, the life blood poured out. Currently we have a pause to share the good news while our God calls those who will be saved until the completion of the time of the Gentiles, then the enlightenment of Jerusalem.
Messiah stated His kingdom is not of this world.
What is the purpose for Israel to be chosen? Certainly, they were not selected because they were numerous, a force in the world to be feared. They are stiffnecked and exhibit detrimental human behaviors. More specifically, what is the significance of one of twelve tribes, Judah? The behavior of Judah corporate did not evoke a special honor. The honor to produce the flesh for the perfect sacrifice was not earned it was announced, and then effected. The lineage of the flesh is not the agent responsible for the redemption and salvation. Not Israel, Judah or Christians can claim that they earned salvation. Jesus will return to Israel when they acknowledge their Messiah because He is faithful.
Jhn 4:20-26