Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Romans Commentary Chapters 1-8  /  Romans 2 – The Two Israels  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 1
The lesson claims early Gentile Christians “so thoroughly identified themselves” as Israel that they sometimes called unbelievers “Gentiles”; what would have to change in a congregation’s self-understanding for Christians today to speak that way without arrogance or ethnic hostility?
Another way to ask: The lesson says early Gentile Christians saw themselves so much as Israel that they even called unbelievers “Gentiles.” What would need to change in how a church sees itself for Christians today to talk like that without being proud or hostile to other ethnic groups?

Direct Answer A congregation would need to understand “Israel” as a spiritual identity in Christ—not an ethnic boast—so that the language serves holiness and faithfulness rather than superiority. Based on the transcript, the shift is from bloodline markers to “circumcision of the heart” and “fruits of the kingdom.”

Support from Transcript:

  • The lesson distinguishes “two Israels”: “the Israel of God and the Israel according [to] the flesh.”
  • Early writers show the habit: Cyprian: “A believer should not live like a Gentile,” implying “Gentile” can mean unbelieving/ungodly, not merely ethnic.
  • Ethnicity is explicitly removed as the basis: “Ethnicity plays no role in being part of the Israel of God.”
  • The “nation” receiving the kingdom is defined by fruit: “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it.”
  • True membership is inward: “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly… uncircumcised in heart” versus “circumcised in the Spirit.”
Discussion Follow-ups How can a church keep strong identity language (“Israel of God”) while guarding humility, especially toward Jews and unbelievers? What practices would keep “Israel” tied to fruit-bearing rather than labels?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next