2

I was speaking with a Dispensationalist pastor and he made the claim that "the Old Testament always defines Israel as genetic Israel". I mentioned Josh. 8:33 as a counterexample, but he said that that verse is talking about the "assembly of Israel" which should be distinguished from Israel proper, which he claims must be genetically defined. Notes from a friend of mine who attends his church similarly say that "Every time ‘Israel’ is read in the OT, it only ever means a genetic descendant of Jacob (and sometimes it means a subset of this group—northern 10 tribes) – ethnic Jews."

Is there any basis for these assertions? Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the pastor about where he got this idea from. It strikes me as incompatible with Josh. 8:33-35. Exodus 12:42-49 and Ruth 1:16 are also relevant.

I know that Dispensationalists don't all emphasize genetic Israel the way this pastor did, since some of my dispy friends also were surprised by this claim. Are there other Dispensationalist authorities that would make the claim that "Israel" in the Bible is always be defined genetically? If so, what reasoning is used to justify it? If not, then what Dispensationalist doctrine might this pastor have been misinterpreting?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    One pastor may say one thing, and another say something different. Is there any published proof of such a view being typically "dispensationalist"? And does the word 'genetic' misrepresent what many of them may believe; that descendants from Jacob are the physical nation of Israel (which includes all 10-tribes plus proselytes from other nations), contrasted with spiritual Israel (as explained in the New Testament)? Some dispensationalist quotes giving clarity to this idea would be helpful.
    – Anne
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:08
  • This is a quote from his own lips; I don't know of any published work reinforcing it. I was a little surprised so I asked him again just to be clear and yes--he did emphasize the genetic aspect.
    – Dark Malthorp
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:11
  • 1
    I'm sure that is what he said, but one man's opinion is hardly a basis for supposing this is an official teaching that needs to be looked into. Even if it is official, it may allow for exceptions (that prove the rule), yes?
    – Anne
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:15
  • 1
    Thanks for your comments; I've modified the question to account for that. I don't spend much time reading dispensationalists, maybe that pastor really is a lone wolf on this claim. (Also, there isn't really an "official" source for dispy doctrine. It appears from the small interactions I've had with them that there is a lot of internal diversity.)
    – Dark Malthorp
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:32

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

The primary basis for understanding a "Israel" as a genetic group is found as far back in Genesis 17, where God speaks to Abraham:

6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. 7 I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

A major problem with interpreting God's covenant as strictly genetic is that, in the same chapter, Abraham is instructed to include non-descendants in this agreement:

12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Later, as the OP mentions, Exodus 12:48 states:

But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land.

In addition, many other non-Israelites came to be adopted into the covenant, including the Kenites, Gibeonites and others. The OP's example of Ruth is also relevant. Females commonly married into the covenant. Although this was against Torah law there are well known examples: the entire tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were descended from Joseph's marriage to the Egyptian Asenath. Moses' sons were born of a the Midianite Zipporah. Indeed many Moabites are known to have sought refuge in Judah during wartime, and it is almost certain that many of them intermarried.

Isaiah 16:

The daughters of Moab will be at the fords of the Arnon... 4 “Let the outcasts of Moab stay with you; Be a hiding place to them from the destroyer.”

After the Exile, Ezra and Nehemiah sought to purge "Israel" of mixed-blood marriages but it is certain that they did not succeed, as Jews continued to intermarry and receive non-Jews into the covenant community throughout the intertestamental period.

Conclusion: while "Israel" generally referred to descendants of Jacob, it was not limited to that genetic group.

Improve this answer
1
  • "Although this was against Torah law" - unless I've missed something, there was no restriction in the law against marrying an Egyptian or Midianite, perhaps even Moabite (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Canaanite, yes, but even there we see a possibility for conversion and becoming part of the Israelite nation (see Rahab and Ruth). Having said that I'd agree on the main point, I do see a clear Biblical distinction between the church and the nation of Israel, but we shouldn't get too hung up on genetics.
    – user111403
    Commented Sep 5 at 6:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .