The Two Houses of Saints

Theology
21

commonwealth = politeia = the activity of the city (polis)

The Ephesians description of both Jews and gentiles being joined together in Christ without the law is an accurate description of the gospel of grace for the gentiles. This was so that Jews could still have a path to God even thought the kingdom offer would be withdrawn for a while.

Many who oppose dispensationalism do so because they see God’s hand perfecting humanity and each step coming closer to this perfection. I see it as demonstrating our imperfectability. Even the thousand years reign of Christ on earth will have to be with a rod of iron. Every stage of human history is just another condemnation of humans apart from God.

Granted that there are those who present dispensationalsim poorly (such as declaring seven “dispensations”). However, it is a biblical term and used in the context of Paul is an accurate way to describe our present age.

1 Like
22

This raises the following question: Is the covenant made at Horeb the covenant of grace itself, or is it a national, external, and typical covenant, having as its only promise the inheritance of Canaan, and is thus the point at which the Old Testament commences?

A few questions I think every dispensationalist should wrestle with.

If the Church and Israel are two distinct covenant peoples, why does Paul describe one olive tree in Romans 11 instead of two?

If Gentiles remain a separate people from Israel, why does Paul say they are fellow citizens, fellow heirs, and members of the same body (Eph. 2:19; 3:6)?

If Jeremiah 31 applies only to ethnic Israel, why does the author of Hebrews repeatedly apply the New Covenant to the Church?

If the Abrahamic Covenant is primarily about a strip of land, why does Paul expand the promise to Abraham inheriting the world (Rom. 4:13)?

If all of God’s promises must be fulfilled literally and nationally, why do the New Testament writers repeatedly interpret Old Testament institutions (temple, priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, Passover, Zion) as fulfilled in Christ?

If the New Testament authors interpret the Old Testament Christologically, shouldn’t that become our hermeneutic as well?

If believing Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree, at what point does Scripture say they become a separate covenant people again?

If unbelieving Jews remain God’s covenant people simply by ethnicity, why does Paul say, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6)?

If “Israel” always means ethnic Israel, how do you understand Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3, and Romans 2:28–29?

If the Church is merely a parenthesis in God’s plan, why is it called the mystery hidden from previous ages but now revealed as God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Eph. 3:9–11)?

If God has two covenant peoples forever, where does the New Testament explicitly teach that?

If the dividing wall has been broken down and Christ has made one new man (Eph. 2:14–15), on what basis do we reconstruct two covenant peoples?

If Abraham is the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11–16), why would believers constitute a people distinct from Abraham’s covenant family?

If Peter calls the Church “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), language originally spoken of Israel (Exod. 19:5–6), is Peter redefining Israel, or showing its fulfillment in Christ?

If the New Covenant is already in force, who are its beneficiaries today?

Shalom.

J.

23

The fact of the matter is that there will be three groups of people saved: The Jews who love God but do not believe in the Lord Jesus (but will latter); Christian Jews; Christians Gentiles. Of course there are no nationalities between Christian Jews and Gentiles in Christ (Gal 3:28), but Israel will always be those who are God’s “people.” They will believe in Christ when they see Him again, but that’s to late to allow being child-ship in the Father.

24

As an Israelite, Christ was born into a works covenant: “Born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). (1) From the beginning, the promise of the covenant of grace depended upon a substitute-the seed of the woman-who would both fulfill the positive requirements of the law and bear the requisite curse for the broken covenant of creation. The completion of his life’s mission at Calvary was also the founding of a New Covenant community in his shed blood (Luke 22:20). The blessings that the Father grants to him on the condition of his obedience, he now grants to his church graciously-again, on the condition of his own obedience (Luke 22:29-30; John 6:37-40; 17:20-26).

This is a new covenant in relation to the Mosaic Covenant, for the typological kingdom has been supplanted by the kingdom reality. Yet there remains continuity between the gracious covenant promised in the garden, confirmed to Abraham, and fulfilled in Christ, as is plain from Romans 4 and Galatians 3. (2) Now come in its fullness, it crowds out and cancels all other typological anticipations of its reality. Precisely because this one covenant between Christ and his church has been fulfilled, the New Testament over-whelmingly indicates that a new age has dawned, the promised consummation breaking in even now upon history-“Like a peninsula protruding into the sea.” (3) Since Christ, our firstfruits reign in the heavenlies, and we are members of him, our voice of praise one with the heavenly chorus (Heb. 12, Rev. 4-7). Resurrection life is now ours in the midst of a dying world.

1 [ Back ] Note that for Paul, not only Israel is condemned by law, for the Gentiles continue to be born as sinners into the works-based covenant of creation (Rom. 1-3). This is particularly evident in the simple fact that all men die (Rom. 5:12).
2 [ Back ] In this sense, it is important to realize that the most fitting model for the church in the world is provided by the patriarchs, not by the nation of Israel. Like Abraham, we are pilgrims seeking a heavenly land and ruled only by a risen King (Heb. 11).
3 [ Back ] This is the favorite expression of Geerhardus Vos for this majestic in breaking.
Photo of Brian J. Lee
Brian J. Lee

J.

25

If the Church and Israel are two distinct covenant peoples, why does Paul describe one olive tree in Romans 11 instead of two? The olive tree is Christ similar to the vine and branches.

If Gentiles remain a separate people from Israel, why does Paul say they are fellow citizens, fellow heirs, and members of the same body (Eph. 2:19; 3:6)? They are joined in the body of Christ

If Jeremiah 31 applies only to ethnic Israel, why does the author of Hebrews repeatedly apply the New Covenant to the Church? The writer of Hebrews is writing to the Hebrews. Their “church” is not the same as the body of Christ.

If the Abrahamic Covenant is primarily about a strip of land, why does Paul expand the promise to Abraham inheriting the world (Rom. 4:13)?

If all of God’s promises must be fulfilled literally and nationally, why do the New Testament writers repeatedly interpret Old Testament institutions (temple, priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, Passover, Zion) as fulfilled in Christ? Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to all that believe, however, the law was still in effect for Israel. Acts recounts the difficulty Paul had and the 12 did not preach the end of the law.

If the New Testament authors interpret the Old Testament Christologically, shouldn’t that become our hermeneutic as well? One needs to differentiate what is written for the Jews as opposed to what was written by Paul for the gentiles.

If believing Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree, at what point does Scripture say they become a separate covenant people again? The olive tree is not Israel.

If unbelieving Jews remain God’s covenant people simply by ethnicity, why does Paul say, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6)? Unbelieving Jews were the branches taken out

If “Israel” always means ethnic Israel, how do you understand Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3, and Romans 2:28–29? Not ethnic but believing Israel

If the Church is merely a parenthesis in God’s plan, why is it called the mystery hidden from previous ages but now revealed as God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Eph. 3:9–11)? It was hidden (mystery) because it might not have been needed. If national Israel received the kingdom, the gospel of grace would not have been needed

If God has two covenant peoples forever, where does the New Testament explicitly teach that? Israel will have the new covenant. Those of the body of Christ are not included in this covenant.

If the dividing wall has been broken down and Christ has made one new man (Eph. 2:14–15), on what basis do we reconstruct two covenant peoples? We don’t have two covenant people. Israel will have the covenant the Jews and gentiles in the body of Christ are not a “covenant” people.

If Abraham is the father of all believers (Rom. 4:11–16), why would believers constitute a people distinct from Abraham’s covenant family? Abraham was cited as an example of someone who had faith without the law.

If Peter calls the Church “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), language originally spoken of Israel (Exod. 19:5–6), is Peter redefining Israel, or showing its fulfillment in Christ? Peter was writing to those of Israel about their intended purpose of being a nation of priests (Ex 19)

26

@timf

Brother, with respect, most of your answers simply restate your theological system. They don’t actually answer the exegetical questions. Let me ask a few more.

You say the olive tree in Romans 11 is Christ. Where does Paul ever identify the olive tree as Christ? He explicitly identifies the root (ῥίζα) and distinguishes it from the branches (Rom. 11:16–18). If the olive tree is Christ Himself, how can unbelieving Jews be “broken off” (ἐξεκλάσθησαν, aorist passive) from Christ, and believing Gentiles be “grafted into” (ἐνεκεντρίσθης, aorist passive) Christ? Does that not create serious theological difficulties?

Isn’t Paul’s point that there is one covenant people nourished by one covenant root, not two peoples attached to Christ in different ways?

You say Ephesians 2 merely teaches Jews and Gentiles are joined in the body of Christ. But that is exactly the point. Paul doesn’t merely say they cooperate. He says Christ “made both one” (τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν, Eph. 2:14), “created in Himself one new man” (ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, Eph. 2:15), and reconciled both in one body (ἓν σῶμα, Eph. 2:16). If there is “one new man,” where does Paul later divide that one new man back into two covenant peoples?

Regarding Hebrews, you say it was written to Hebrews, not the Body of Christ. Then let me ask plainly: were the recipients of Hebrews members of Christ’s body or not? Paul says there is one body (Eph. 4:4), and all believers have been baptized into one body by one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). Are you proposing that believing Hebrews were somehow outside the Body of Christ? If so, where does Scripture teach that?

On Romans 4:13, you didn’t answer the question. Paul deliberately changes the promise. He does not say Abraham inherited Canaan. He says Abraham would inherit the world (κόσμος). Why does Paul expand the promise if your hermeneutic insists it must remain limited to the land? Isn’t Paul himself giving the inspired interpretation of the Abrahamic promise?

You argue that the Law remained in effect for Israel after Christ because of Acts. Yet Romans 10:4 says, “Christ is the end (τέλος) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Hebrews says the New Covenant has made the first covenant obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν, perfect active, Heb. 8:13). Galatians says the παιδαγωγός (“guardian” or “tutor”) has fulfilled its purpose because faith has come (Gal. 3:24–25). Why are you allowing the transitional history of Acts to override the didactic teaching of Romans and Hebrews?

You also say we must distinguish what was written to Jews from what Paul wrote to Gentiles. Where does the New Testament ever instruct us to divide apostolic doctrine this way? Paul says all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable (2 Tim. 3:16). Peter places Paul’s letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15–16). James writes to the twelve tribes, yet Christians universally apply James. Peter writes to the dispersion, yet you quote 1 Peter elsewhere. On what exegetical basis do you decide which apostolic writings apply to the Church?

You say the mystery “might not have been needed” if Israel had accepted the kingdom. Where does Scripture ever say that? Ephesians 3:11 says this mystery was “according to the eternal purpose” (κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων) which God accomplished in Christ. “Eternal purpose” leaves no room for Plan B theology. Are you saying God’s eternal purpose depended on Israel’s response?

You say the Body of Christ is not a covenant people because the New Covenant belongs only to Israel. Then whose blood did Jesus speak of when He said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20)? Why does Paul apply the Lord’s Supper to predominantly Gentile believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:23–26)? Why does Hebrews apply Jeremiah 31 to Christians if they are not participants in the New Covenant?

Finally, regarding 1 Peter 2:9, you say Peter is merely reminding Israel of its original purpose. But Peter is writing to those who were once “not a people” but are now “the people of God” (1 Pet. 2:10), echoing Hosea’s prophecy. He applies Exodus 19:6 directly to the Christian church. Is Peter merely repeating Old Testament language, or is he showing that those promises find their fulfillment in Christ and His people?

I think this is the central issue: you repeatedly ask us to interpret the New Testament through your reading of the Old Testament. The apostles consistently do the opposite. They interpret the Old Testament in light of Christ. The question is not whether we take the Old Testament seriously. The question is whether we will allow the inspired apostles to tell us how God’s promises reach their fulfillment.

Until that question is answered from the text, simply appealing to a dispensational framework does not settle the matter.

J.

27

Hi, and thanks for your reply! Christians Jews and Gentiles comprises the one people; the Jews that love God but disbelieve in the Lord Jesus is Israel–“God’s people.”

28

I disagree. For one, Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles aren’t two groups. That’s one group. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in God’s House, the Church. For another, salvation exists solely in Christ. A non-believing Jewish person who, later, comes to faith in Jesus is a member of Christ’s Church, the same as all who believe in the Lord.

As such, there is only one group of saved: Those who belong to God in Christ. From the ancient patriarchs to today, God has had one people, those who trust in Him and His promises.

When the Lord comes again, He comes to judge.

Until that grand moment at the conclusion of time and history, salvation is available to all.

I understand what you are trying to say, you are arguing in favor of the false doctrine of the Rapture (specifically pre-trib) and that after the rapture the Gospel as we know it is no longer in effect–that is why you say it’s “too late to allow being child-ship in the Father”, which of course is a perfect example of why I consider the false doctrines of Dispensationalism to be spiritually dangerous. That right there is an attack on the precious Gospel of salvation. You have just spoken against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And, that’s preaching another gospel.

29

I agree with everything you’ve said here, @TheologyNerd. My only question is, how do you understand Romans 11 in light of our Lord’s covenantal plan?
Shalom.

J.

30

Though we differ much in our understanding, you shouldn’t accuse of being against the Lord Jesus.

31

As a Lutheran I do not necessarily share the same Covenantal Theology as the Reformed do.

As it pertains to Romans 11, I try to read the chapter within the larger scope of Paul’s thesis in the epistle. The Apostle having established in the early chapters that whether Jew or Gentile, all are sinful and have fallen short of God’s glory–the bondage of sin and death is something all people have because all are born into this world bearing the scars and wounds of Adam.

The Apostle had asked rhetorically in Romans 9 about what if there are those whom God created to display His wrath, and offers Pharoah as an example. I don’t, however, like the Reformed, regard this as evidence that anyone is predestined for perdition.

Rather the Apostle is establishing the troubling problem he observes: He feels anguish seeing how many of his fellow Jews reject the Gospel, even though he clearly rejoices in that the Gentiles are receiving it in record numbers. Paul understands here that simply being a son of Abraham according to the flesh isn’t the point (and it never was the point), it was always about faith. So the Apostle can say in Romans 9

For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

That is, what matters is faith. And further, since it’s not about blood but instead is about faith. Then the fact that Gentiles are coming to faith shows that they are, indeed, true children of Abraham.

As an aside, this is hardly a crazy idea that Paul has here, after all, throughout the Old Testament we encounter many who are not Jews but Gentiles included in God’s Covenant and promises. Consider Rahab and Ruth.

So the Apostle, in this way, considers it entirely within reason that there may be those who, because of their stubbornness of heart would become vessels of wrath in order to magnify His mercy–hence the example of Pharoah. Pharoah’s obstinate refusal to let the Hebrews go leading to his own destruction, also served to showcase the depth and magnitude of His mercy toward the Hebrews as they were brought and delivered out from Egypt, to be brought into the land of promise. The Apostle seems to be indicating that God permits the hardening of the hearts of his own people in order that, through the grace being shown in and through the Gentiles, it might become a great marvel (which the Apostle later speaks of as perhaps a means to provoke jealousy).

By the time we get to Romans 11, then, the Apostle is working through these complex ideas, and recognizes that even though the animosity toward the Gospel by many of his kinsmen is a problem, nevertheless the Gospel is being proclaimed among the Gentiles, and they are coming to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So even as natural branches have been pruned away, so wild branches have been grafted on.

But in all this the Apostle looks at everything with eyes of hope, that ultimately “all Israel shall be saved”, the Apostle knows the word and stories of the Prophets, he knows the Scriptures, how Israel time and again turned her back on God, and even as God brought judgment, it was to bring His people to a place of repentance, so that they might again know Him. So, too, the Apostle probably sees the situation he was living in: the rejection of the Gospel was again another example of Israel’s hard-heartedness, but as so many times before, God intended to use it as a way to show forth His mercy. As St. Paul arrives at the statement that God consigned all to disobedience “in order that He might have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).

So the lessons of Romans 11 are that God’s covenantal faithfulness has never waned, He is not a God who abandons, but who saves. The unfaithfulness of some Israelites and God’s faithfulness toward Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles into God’s family (Israel) through faith in Jesus does not mean the rejection of the Jews from God’s family–for what mattered was what always mattered: Faith. Unfaithful people place themselves outside of God’s house, natural branches can be cut off, wild branches can be grafted on; likewise natural branches can be re-grafted, and wild branches that are diseased and unfruitful can be cut off.

It’s not being Jewish or being Gentile that matters–but faith.
It’s not biological descent, but faith.

The mercy of God extends down through history, inviting and calling all people to repentance, bringing all who believe into God’s house. And from start to finish, Jesus Christ is what it’s all about.

Romans 11, then, is about the enduring covenant faithfulness of the God who, from the beginning, intended to meet us in Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for us and the whole world. Because it has always been God’s purpose to redeem and reclaim what He had made, not letting any be abandoned to the curse of sin and death.

32

Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate that you sought to read Romans 11 within the broader argument of Romans 9–11. I also agree with much of what you’ve written. Paul is defending the faithfulness of God to His covenant promises. Salvation has never been by ethnic descent but by faith. There is one olive tree, not two peoples of God. Jew and Gentile alike stand in the same covenant blessing through Christ.

Where I think we begin to part ways is in Romans 9. You describe God’s hardening as something He merely permits because of human stubbornness. I don’t think Paul allows us to soften the language that way. Romans 9:18 says, ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει (“whom He wills He hardens”). The verb σκληρύνει (sklērynei) is active. God is the subject of the verb. Likewise, Paul’s illustration of the potter and the clay is intended to magnify God’s sovereign freedom, not merely His permission of human choices. Paul’s anticipated objection, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” only makes sense if he has asserted a stronger view of divine sovereignty than simple permission.

I also agree that faith is what distinguishes the true children of Abraham. Romans 9:6–8 and Galatians 3 make that abundantly clear. My question is, where does that faith come from? Paul consistently traces it back to God’s gracious initiative. Romans 8:30 says those whom He predestined He also called, justified, and glorified. Romans 11:5 speaks of “a remnant according to the election of grace.” Romans 11:7 says, “The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” Faith is not presented as an independent human contribution but as the fruit of God’s electing grace.

On Romans 11, I appreciate your emphasis on God’s covenant faithfulness. I think that is exactly Paul’s point. The natural branches were broken off because of unbelief. The wild branches were grafted in by faith. Yet even that faith is never detached from God’s sovereign mercy. Paul concludes the chapter by saying, “God has consigned all to disobedience that He may have mercy on all.” The emphasis is not on human ability but on divine mercy.

I would also gently push back on your statement that God intends “not letting any be abandoned to the curse of sin and death.” I certainly affirm God’s sincere call for all people to repent. Yet Romans 9 itself distinguishes between vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. Paul never resolves that tension by diminishing either God’s justice or His mercy. Instead, he ends in worship because God’s judgments are unsearchable and His ways are beyond tracing out.

So I think we agree on far more than we disagree. We both confess that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises, that salvation is by grace through faith, and that Jew and Gentile are one people in Christ. Our primary difference is this. I believe Paul grounds saving faith in God’s sovereign election and effectual calling, whereas you seem to place greater emphasis on faith as the distinguishing response. For me, Romans 9 through 11 consistently places the accent on God’s mercy from beginning to end. As Jonah confessed, “Salvation belongs to the LORD.”

John Calvin greatly admired Luther. He once wrote:

“I often say that, even if he should call me a devil, I would still give him the honor of acknowledging him to be an eminent servant of God.”

The irony is that Lutherans sometimes think the Reformed go too far, while Reformed theologians often think Lutherans stop just short of the logical conclusions of Luther’s own theology, especially regarding election.

Shalom to you and family brother.

J.

33

https://www.enotes.com/topics/history/questions/how-did-theology-martin-luther-john-calvin-differ-308581#:~:text=What%20were%20the%20differences%20between%20Martin%20Luther%20and%20John%20Calvin%3F

What were the differences between Luther and Calvin.
Condensed version. More for the readers sake and would seem to fit in the topic of discussion…“Two Houses Of Clay”.

J.

34

Didn’t Luther believe in consubstantiation? I know Calvin didn’t believe in it nor transubstantiation.

35

Not really brother @NetChaplian, it is all laid out in the link I have provided.
Keep up the good work for Christ Jesus, online conversations can sound harsh and unforgiving.

Leonard Cohen (from Anthem):

“There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.”

2 Corinthians 4:7 (Paul):

“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” (ESV)

Shalom to you and family.

Johann.

1 Like
36

Luther didn’t believe in Consubstantiation, and Lutherans don’t either. Not because the idea is necessarily problematic, but because just like Transubstantiation it is attempting to explain what Lutherans understand to be a mystery of faith.

For Lutherans the answer to the question, “How can mere bread and wine be the true body and blood of Jesus Christ?” is simply, “Because Jesus says so” “Because the Bible says so”.

The real problem with Transubstantiation for Lutherans isn’t the idea that bread and wine can, in their substance, change by the power of God, into the body and blood of Jesus while retaining their “accidents” (the external appearance and texture and taste etc of bread and wine). The problem is that it’s entirely unnecessary to engage in all that philosophical speculation in the first place.

And that is why Consubstantiation is likewise rejected within Lutheranism. We don’t like to add to what God Himself has already said, He said “it is” and that is sufficient for us.

Instead, Luther (and Lutherans still) will instead, if anything, talk about a Sacramental Union. This is less explanation, and more analogy. In the Hypostatic (or Personal) Union we confess that Jesus Christ is indeed truly God and truly human, without division, without separation–there is one Divine Person of the Son, Jesus Christ, conceived and born of Mary as her true human child. By analogy, Lutheran confesstional statements, going back to Luther, talk of a “Sacramental Union”; essentially this: when we behold Christ we behold the God-Man, without division and without confusion. In a likewise way, when we talk about the Lord’s Supper we behold that it is bread and wine, and that this bread and wine is, indeed, the true body and blood of Jesus Christ which was broken and shed for our salvation. Is it bread or is it flesh? Is it wine or is it blood? The answer is yes.

That is probably why many mistakenly think we hold to Consubstantiation; but the difference between the Sacramental Union and Consubstantiation is a matter of humility. The Sacramental Union insists, without explaining how, the bread and wine is the body and blood of Jesus; Consubstantiation (and Transubstantiation) attempt to explain how this can be.

More common in Lutheran confessional language is this: that the body and blood of Jesus is “in, with, and under” the bread and the wine. This “in, with, and under” is, again, a way to insist that it is what it is, without trying to shoehorn philosophy into it.

At the end of the day, however, the Lutheran view, and it’s what Luther himself argued, is that the Most Holy Eucharist simply is what it is. Jesus said it, so we believe it. If He says it’s His flesh and blood, then that’s what it is. It’s not our place to understand it, but to believe it.

So, indeed, the bread and wine of the Supper is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus.