Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 4
The lesson says “the true Israel, the Israel of God, is comprised of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles”; what tensions does that create with common modern ideas about ethnic Israel, “God’s chosen people,” and the way Christians talk about prophecy and God’s plan?
Another way to ask: If the “true Israel” includes believing Jews and believing Gentiles, how does that clash with common ideas today about ethnic Israel as “God’s chosen people” and how Christians talk about prophecy and God’s plan?

Direct Answer It creates tension by shifting “chosen people” language away from ethnicity and toward faith in Christ, meaning ethnic Israel is not automatically identical with “the Israel of God.” It also challenges prophecy-talk that assumes God’s promises must apply to every ethnic descendant regardless of belief.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot explains “of Israel” means ethnic descent from Jacob/Israel, but “they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”
  • He states plainly: “the true Israel, the Israel of God, is comprised of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles.”
  • “Just because someone is a fleshly descendant… does not mean… automatically part of the Israel of God.”
  • He adds: “All the promises are still in effect for those Jews who are part of the Israel of God.”
  • The “kingdom… will be taken away… and… given to a nation producing its fruit,” highlighting fruit/faith as decisive.
Discussion Follow-ups How should Christians talk about God’s ongoing purposes without separating God’s promises from the condition Bercot emphasizes—faith and belonging to Christ?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next