The Narrow Path Ministries

Believers have been described as being children of Abraham. But are believers also children of Israel?

It seems that these two concepts get mixed up together but not within scripture.

I wrote an article called Different Names, Different Purposes which quickly lists the distinctions that I observed between the different designations of people and places in the New Testament. My article is here: http://www.biblereexamined.com/DifferNames.htm

I think this article forces a bit of rethinking of ideas that have been ingrained in people. Maybe luckily due to my Southern Baptist background, the topics related to the children of Abraham and Israel are pretty much new to me.

Anyhow, comments and corrections are desired regarding my analysis. My article, like always, isn't a research document incorporating many other experts. Its just ideas that I had been thinking about.

Mike, from your article:

Note also that Romans 4:16 confirmed the Gentiles as having Abraham as a father. An apparent reason for this inclusion was to make the Gentiles feel like they were truly part of God's people. (Part of the situation in Romans 4 was that Paul actually wanted to play on the Gentiles' feeling of exclusion and inferiority before bringing them into confidence as being children of Abraham.)

When Abram received the promises of God, and by faithfulness accepted them and took God at His word (grace through faith) he was an "uncircumcised gentile". He was a Hebrew, a son of Eber, from the other side of the tracks...er, river. Paul was not trying to make gentiles "feel" they were truly part of God's people he was clearly demonstrating that anyone who takes God at His word, Jew or Gentile, is considered a child of God. Faith is not by the law (i.e. circumcision) because if it was it would no longer be a promise. God made a "promise" to Abraham (Genesis 12, 13 & 15). The "law" (the covenant - an agreement between two or more) was signed by circumcision. What Paul is saying in Romans 4 is that to be a child of God it is not because of the law but because of faith.

Paul's letter was written to the "Church of Rome" which undoubtedly included both Jews and converted gentiles. It appears to me Paul was in "explanation mode" just as he appears to be in many of his letters.

Abraham's promises included the land he saw as well as him being father of many nations. The other side of the promise on nations is that the nations would be blessed through Abraham.

Interesting the "promise" that Abrams seed would be greater than the multitude of the stars was before the covenant of circumcision (law). Abraham is the "father" of all of those that believe, whether they be circumcised or not.

Rom 4:9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

The mention of Abraham as father of those of faith and then describing the Gentiles as children of Abraham both stand in contrast to the lack of parallel passages to describe Gentiles as children of Israel or as having Israel as their father.

In that Israel sprang from the loins of Abraham I don't see much lack at all in terms of describing gentiles as children of Israel. In fact, I think Paul takes many great lengths in many of his epistles to explain how the gentiles are adopted into Abraham's "seed" through faith.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

In examining the promises made to the gentile Abraham it is easy to see that the promises made (the "seed" Jesus) includes anyone of faith that accepts those promises. Heirs to the promises.

Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Also consider the fact that "the New Covenant" is only promised to the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer 31:31-34) and it is easy to see that the Gentiles are considered part of the House of Israel. Isaiah 56 describes those outside of "israel" that take hold of God's covenant.

Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Only the man Israel and the people called Israel needed to have certain actions performed as a fulfillment of the promises to Israel. Such promises did not include a blessing on the nations nor include the nations as a party to such promises. The promises to Israel then stand in stark contrast to the nation-oriented promises made to Abraham.

The Nation of Israel on the other hand is a type of Christ. All the things that Israel could not do, or would not do, Christ did. One of the names Israel invokes is "prevailing" or "overcoming." The name Israel not only referred to Jacob, but also to his descendants.

Gen 32:28 "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

Jesus said:

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

One of the Greek definitions for overcome is "prevail."

In the Old Testament, a man named Joseph has dreams and goes into Egypt to preserve his family (Gen 45:5). In the New Testament, another Joseph likewise had dreams and goes into Egypt to preserve his family (Mat 2:13).

When the young nation of Israel comes out of Egypt, God calls it “my son” (Ex 4:22). When Jesus comes out of Egypt, God says “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Mat 2:15).

When Israel leaves Egypt, her people go through the Red Sea. The apostle Paul says they were “baptized unto Moses ... in
the sea” (1 Cor 10:2). Jesus is also baptized to fulfill all righteousness and immediately afterward God proclaims Him, "my beloved Son" (Mat 3:15-17).

After the Red Sea crossing, the Israelites spend 40 years in the wilderness—led by the pillar of fire, God’s Holy Spirit. Immediately after baptism, Jesus is "led up of the Spirit into the wilderness" for 40 days (Mat 4:1, 2). At the end of the 40 years, Moses writes the book Deuteronomy. At the end of Jesus’ 40 days, He resists Satan’s temptations by quoting the Scriptures—all from Deuteronomy.

In Psalm 80:8, God calls Israel a "vine" that He brought "out of Egypt" and in other parables in the Gospels the kingdom of God is likened to husbandmen taking care of the householder's "vine." Jesus declares, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1).

The Lord told the Israelites, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Peter applies these exact words to the church. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet 2:9).

The scriptures tend to keep the nations out of the relationship between God and Israel. And Paul, at least in the letter to the Romans, does not speak of Gentiles as being descendants of Israel.

Actually, in Romans 2 Paul lays out exactly who is a "Jew" (Israelite) and who is not an Israelite.

There are the Jews who are only natural, physical descendants of Abraham. There are the Jews in Spirit who by "faith" (the faith of Abraham) believe in Jesus Christ. Paul writes, "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest on the law, and makest thy boast of God ... For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision [Gentiles] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? ... For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:17, 25, 26, 28, 29).

But this isn't a directive of the New Testament but one of the Old.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Those are some of my observations of your piece at the present time.

Thanks for the feedback

RND wrote:
When Abram received the promises of God, and by faithfulness accepted them and took God at His word (grace through faith) he was an "uncircumcised gentile". He was a Hebrew, a son of Eber, from the other side of the tracks...er, river. Paul was not trying to make gentiles "feel" they were truly part of God's people he was clearly demonstrating that anyone who takes God at His word, Jew or Gentile, is considered a child of God. Faith is not by the law (i.e. circumcision) because if it was it would no longer be a promise. God made a "promise" to Abraham (Genesis 12, 13 & 15). The "law" (the covenant - an agreement between two or more) was signed by circumcision. What Paul is saying in Romans 4 is that to be a child of God it is not because of the law but because of faith.

My comments about Paul making Gentiles "feel they were truly part of God's people" goes into deeper detail about study of Paul's letter in its emotional approach. This is something about the letter to the Romans I hope to express more clearly when I have the opportunity.
But you are right that he was also expressing a truth about being children of Abraham through faith.

RND wrote:Interesting the "promise" that Abrams seed would be greater than the multitude of the stars was before the covenant of circumcision (law). Abraham is the "father" of all of those that believe, whether they be circumcised or not.

This is true but didn't have to be addressed in my article.

RND wrote: In that Israel sprang from the loins of Abraham I don't see much lack at all in terms of describing gentiles as children of Israel. In fact, I think Paul takes many great lengths in many of his epistles to explain how the gentiles are adopted into Abraham's "seed" through faith.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

But you still end up showing verses about Abraham rather than showing verses saying that Israel would be father of many nations.

RND wrote: Also consider the fact that "the New Covenant" is only promised to the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer 31:31-34) and it is easy to see that the Gentiles are considered part of the House of Israel. Isaiah 56 describes those outside of "israel" that take hold of God's covenant.

Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

From these passages I would say that the important feature was those who hold to the covenant with God. The verses don't say that people become Israel in this process. The emphasis of Isaiah 56 is more about the spiritual Jerusalem rather than any concept about Israel.

RND wrote:The Nation of Israel on the other hand is a type of Christ. All the things that Israel could not do, or would not do, Christ did. One of the names Israel invokes is "prevailing" or "overcoming." The name Israel not only referred to Jacob, but also to his descendants.

Right. But there is nothing I have found to say that Gentiles are part of Jacob's descendants.

RND wrote:When Israel leaves Egypt, her people go through the Red Sea. The apostle Paul says they were “baptized unto Moses ... in
the sea” (1 Cor 10:2). Jesus is also baptized to fulfill all righteousness and immediately afterward God proclaims Him, "my beloved Son" (Mat 3:15-17).
...snip...
In Psalm 80:8, God calls Israel a "vine" that He brought "out of Egypt" and in other parables in the Gospels the kingdom of God is likened to husbandmen taking care of the householder's "vine." Jesus declares, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1).

The Lord told the Israelites, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Peter applies these exact words to the church. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet 2:9).

Since Jesus is the true vine, the false vine was Israel, where Israel was unable to be cultivated enough to become a suitable mate unto the Messiah.

RND wrote: Actually, in Romans 2 Paul lays out exactly who is a "Jew" (Israelite) and who is not an Israelite.

There are the Jews who are only natural, physical descendants of Abraham. There are the Jews in Spirit who by "faith" (the faith of Abraham) believe in Jesus Christ.
...snip...
(Rom 2:17, 25, 26, 28, 29).

The better understanding of this passage is that Paul was talking about Jews only, not about Gentiles. I address the context in other writings on my website.

RND wrote:But this isn't a directive of the New Testament but one of the Old.
Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Those are some of my observations of your piece at the present time.

Right. The problem God had with Israel was that they were sniff necked and stubborn, of the flesh. It wasn't that Israel was worse than any other people or nation, but just that those in the flesh could not please God. So God provided the path of being born of the Spirit so that we would no longer be of the flesh.

Mike, from your article:

In Romans 5 Paul showed a transition that occurred with the introduction of the Law of Moses. This was a transition from the reign of death to the reign of Law. Yet the reign of Law could only apply to Jews since only Jews (or Israel) were the recipients of the Law of Moses. Then with the adding of Gentiles to the Church, Paul's arguments to the Gentiles was that the Gentiles were free from the Law.

I'm not too sure I understand your take regarding a "transition from the reign of death to the reign of Law." The "law" was added because of transgression (Gal 3:19). Sin is the transgression of the "law." (1 John 3:4). So I think it is important to try an ascertain what "law" Paul was referring to. To me I think it is clear that Paul is referring to the Mosaic law being added, with all it's feasts, festivals and ceremonies for sin that pointed to Christ, and not the Ten Commandments.

I also don't think Paul was telling any "Jewish believers" they or the gentiles were "free from the law" even though Paul was rumored to be doing just that (Acts 21:17-26). One major reason I believe this is that when Paul was arrested he was never found by the the hard line Jews of breaking the law of Moses (Act 23:9).

If Paul was teaching the Jews that they didn't have to keep the law, but Paul always did, the Paul would simply be a hypocrite.

Paul therefore purposely avoided encouragement or statements that the Gentiles were now Israel.

I think just the opposite actually. I think Paul took great pains to illustrate that the same promises God gave to Abraham ans signed for in the covenant by circumcision were also available to the gentiles by the faith that Abraham displayed.

Paul maintained a distinction between the two such that Gentiles would not have an excuse to see themselves as part of Israel and hence subject to the Laws of Israel

When one entered into the land of Israel and wished to "sojourn" or "live with" the Israelites those "strangers" were subject to the same laws that the Israelites were required to observe (Lev 24:22, Num 15:16). They just weren't allowed near the sanctuary. If the stranger wanted to approach the sanctuary and be apart of it's ritual the stranger had to take the Passover and be circumcised. (Ex 12:48-49, Eze 44:9).

The same basic type of symbolic picture is still evident today.

mikew wrote:But you still end up showing verses about Abraham rather than showing verses saying that Israel would be father of many nations.

I don't think that Israel (Jacob) was ever promised to be a father of many nations outside of God's promise to Abraham. In fact it seems that "many nations" want to know the ways of God and to walk in His paths.

Mic 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

The way of the Lord is in the sanctuary.

Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, [is] in the sanctuary: who [is so] great a God as [our] God?

mikew wrote:The better understanding of this passage is that Paul was talking about Jews only, not about Gentiles. I address the context in other writings on my website.

Romans 2 is definitely speaking of the Gentiles.

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without (outside) law shall also perish without (outside) law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

God only writes His law on the hearts of those that are either of the House of Israel or the House of Judah.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 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 an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Paul is saying that if someone does the work of the law, even though they aren't of the law it is evidence of the law being written on their hearts.

mikew wrote:Right. The problem God had with Israel was that they were sniff necked and stubborn, of the flesh. It wasn't that Israel was worse than any other people or nation, but just that those in the flesh could not please God. So God provided the path of being born of the Spirit so that we would no longer be of the flesh.

Mike, this has always been by faith. See Romans 4.

RND wrote:Mike, from your article:
I'm not too sure I understand your take regarding a "transition from the reign of death to the reign of Law." The "law" was added because of transgression (Gal 3:19). Sin is the transgression of the "law." (1 John 3:4). So I think it is important to try an ascertain what "law" Paul was referring to. To me I think it is clear that Paul is referring to the Mosaic law being added, with all it's feasts, festivals and ceremonies for sin that pointed to Christ, and not the Ten Commandments.

You have to keep in mind that Rom 5:13 mentioned about sin occurring before law.
Rom 5:13 For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law (WEB)
Hence, before the Law of Moses, "sin" was just a description of actions according to the flesh -- not a violation of Law.


Paul in Romans 5 basically divided up the Jewish experience into 3 division:

1. Adam to Moses -- as reign of death (Rom 5:14)

2. Moses to Christ -- was reign of the Law of Moses, that's why Moses was mentioned (Rom 7:1 spoke of the Law having had dominion)

3. Christ to now (the time of Paul's letter) -- this was the time of grace (Rom 6:15 -- shall we sin cause we are not under Law but under grace?)

RND wrote:I also don't think Paul was telling any "Jewish believers" they or the gentiles were "free from the law" even though Paul was rumored to be doing just that (Acts 21:17-26). One major reason I believe this is that when Paul was arrested he was never found by the the hard line Jews of breaking the law of Moses (Act 23:9).

If Paul was teaching the Jews that they didn't have to keep the law, but Paul always did, the Paul would simply be a hypocrite.

I liked the verses in Acts 21 you quoted since it showed that there was no effort to say that the ethnic Jewish believers had to separate themselves from the Law. They may have had a continuing obligation to adhere to the Law of Moses. If nothing else they certainly had a cultural interest.

RND wrote:I think just the opposite actually. I think Paul took great pains to illustrate that the same promises God gave to Abraham ans signed for in the covenant by circumcision were also available to the gentiles by the faith that Abraham displayed.

I agree that we have benefits through Abraham. There is no dispute about Abraham. You keep on speaking of what Paul said regarding Abraham. This is my point -- that he only spoke of Gentiles as children of Abraham, not of Israel.

RND wrote:

Paul maintained a distinction between the two such that Gentiles would not have an excuse to see themselves as part of Israel and hence subject to the Laws of Israel

When one entered into the land of Israel and wished to "sojourn" or "live with" the Israelites those "strangers" were subject to the same laws that the Israelites were required to observe (Lev 24:22, Num 15:16). They just weren't allowed near the sanctuary. If the stranger wanted to approach the sanctuary and be apart of it's ritual the stranger had to take the Passover and be circumcised. (Ex 12:48-49, Eze 44:9).

The same basic type of symbolic picture is still evident today.

Ok. But I never have lived with Israelites. I've essentially just been around believers in Christ.

mikew wrote:You have to keep in mind that Rom 5:13 mentioned about sin occurring before law.

And sin is what?

Rom 5:13 For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not charged when there is no law (WEB)
Hence, before the Law of Moses, "sin" was just a description of actions according to the flesh -- not a violation of Law.

Sin could not be "imputed" before the law, that is the fault could not attributed to, or "charged to" or responsibility given to the law breaker. But once the light was given in the both the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law, sin could now be internalized and known.

That is why Jesus could say with great confidence that, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad." (John 8:56).

Paul in Romans 5 basically divided up the Jewish experience into 3 division:

1. Adam to Moses -- as reign of death (Rom 5:14)

Sin leads to death.

2. Moses to Christ -- was reign of the Law of Moses, that's why Moses was mentioned (Rom 7:1 spoke of the Law having had dominion)

Which law?

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

As long as "a man" lives he is subject to the law. Death is the payment for sin for all men.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

3. Christ to now (the time of Paul's letter) -- this was the time of grace (Rom 6:15 -- shall we sin cause we are not under Law but under grace?)

That's just it Mike, Abraham was "under grace." His "faith" was counted as righteousness. It was by "promise" not by "law."

All men (both Jew and Gentile) are offered salvation by "promise" not by the law.

I agree that we have benefits through Abraham. There is no dispute about Abraham. You keep on speaking of what Paul said regarding Abraham. This is my point -- that he only spoke of Gentiles as children of Abraham, not of Israel.

Where did Israel (Jacob) come from?

Ok. But I never have lived with Israelites. I've essentially just been around believers in Christ.

Adopted members of Israel. Fellow citizens with the saints.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

RND wrote:

mikew wrote:You have to keep in mind that Rom 5:13 mentioned about sin occurring before law.

I agree that we have benefits through Abraham. There is no dispute about Abraham. You keep on speaking of what Paul said regarding Abraham. This is my point -- that he only spoke of Gentiles as children of Abraham, not of Israel.

Where did Israel (Jacob) come from?

Cincinnati. j/k

The real question is whose children are the Gentile believers. Jacob was just another son of Abraham through Isaac. It may not change people's views by the mere reminder of this type of explanation.

RND wrote:

Ok. But I never have lived with Israelites. I've essentially just been around believers in Christ.

Adopted members of Israel. Fellow citizens with the saints.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This sounds like a new building started separately from what God had done with Israel.

In presenting my article I can't expect any specific person to be convinced. But the basic argument is presented toward the idea that believers are children of Abraham but not made into children of Israel. The biggest problem then is shifting the mindset from assuming that Gentiles have become part of Israel.