Old Testament Israel in the Baptist understanding

[JTB.SDG]

Hi,

Does a Reformed Baptist believe that Israel in the OT REALLY WAS the church or that they were a TYPE/PICTURE of the Church? Can you guys help me? Thanks!

 

[Von]

I think I would lean towards a "type"/"picture".
The 1689 Baptist Confession states that:
"The universal church (brought into being by the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called the invisible church. It consists of the complete number of the elect who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ its Head. The church is the bride, the body, the fullness of Christ who fills all in all." In this definition would be contained even the elect from national Israel.
But as a local congregation (with believers and unbelievers), the congregation of (national/ethnic) Israel was a type of what was to come.

 

[brandonadams]

Abraham's carnal offspring (Israel) were a type of Abraham's spiritual offspring (the church). (Some of Abraham's carnal offspring were also Abraham's spiritual offspring).

 

[JTB.SDG]

Abraham's carnal offspring (Israel) were a type of Abraham's spiritual offspring (the church). (Some of Abraham's carnal offspring were also Abraham's spiritual offspring).

Great; that's what I thought but wanted to make absolutely sure. Thanks Brandon. Also, can you point me to specific places in Baptist creeds/confessions/etc that would clearly affirm this? Thanks again.

 

[Timotheos]

The 2LBC does speak of the church in the OT like 21.1's "Jewish church".

 

[brandonadams]

Sorry Jon, I'm short on time at the moment, but I'm not certain that particular point is made in the 1 or 2 LBCF. It is throughout the writings though. Here are some examples if they are helpful (can reference more later if you want):

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...ulfillment-184-years-before-kingdom-prologue/

http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/genesis-177/

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...d-of-Christ-physical-israel-spiritual-israel/

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/roger-williams-on-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/

 

[brandonadams]

Timotheos, I would understand 21.1 to either be a reference to the believers within the nation of Israel, or to the nation of Israel itself as an assembly (church). I do not believe the intention is to equate the nation of Israel with the church of Christ. Compare with Coxe, end of Chapter 5, chapter 6, and end of chapter 7 and 8 as well where he talks about the "church-state" of Israel in distinction from the body of Christ.

On page 133 he says "1. During the time of the law the true church was impaled within the bounds of the commonwealth of Israel which in its entire body was a typical church"

Jon - the question the typology of Israel is addressed extensively in Coxe if you have a copy.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Brandon, is that Nehemiah Coxe/John Owen on Covenant Theology? Is the page reference to the reprinted 2005 version?

Anything really clear in a classical baptist systematic like Gill?

Thanks again for your time,

JB

 

[brandonadams]

Yes, it is the Coxe/Owen volume 2005 reprint. Coxe is really clear about it. See p. 130ff under the heading "Abraham’s Family a Type of the Future Church"

You can search "type" in this outline to see numerous locations of discussions http://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/coxe.html

I also recommend Abraham Booth's "An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ"
http://www.1689federalism.com/the-kingdom-of-Christ-abraham-booth/

pg 59ff in Haldane on the Abrahamic Covenant also lays it out https://books.google.com/books?id=HOtLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would have to do some re-reading to find specific discussion in Gill of Israel as a type, but here is a summary of a his covenant theology if it is of any use https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/

I think the above references are very clear, so please let me know if they don't seem clear to you or you are having a hard time understanding what they are saying.

For what it's worth, Owen also discusses the issue briefly in his comments on Heb 8:8 under the heading "The Persons With Whom This Covenant Are Made" (page 236 in the Coxe/Owen volume).

this house of Israel and house of Judah may be considered in two ways: [1.] As that people who were the whole entire posterity of Abraham. [2.] As they were typical, and spiritually symbolic of the whole church of God. Because of this fact alone it is that the promises of grace under the old testament are given to the church under these names, because they were types of them who should really and effectually be made partakers of them.
​

 

[JTB.SDG]

Awesome, thank you Brandon for taking the time on this.

 

[Timotheos]

Timotheos, I would understand 21.1 to either be a reference to the believers within the nation of Israel, or to the nation of Israel itself as an assembly (church). I do not believe the intention is to equate the nation of Israel with the church of Christ. Compare with Coxe, end of Chapter 5, chapter 6, and end of chapter 7 and 8 as well where he talks about the "church-state" of Israel in distinction from the body of Christ.

On page 133 he says "1. During the time of the law the true church was impaled within the bounds of the commonwealth of Israel which in its entire body was a typical church"

Jon - the question the typology of Israel is addressed extensively in Coxe if you have a copy.

I wasn't stating emphatically. Just that the Confession uses similar language. But I am in essential agreement with what you and Coxe and others have said.