Christian nations or Christian nationalism

[RandyPNW]

Here is what I think was an interesting conversation I had with my brother, discussing the idea of "nations" being promised to Abraham. My brother's comments are italicized.

Your email prompted me to look up the promise to Abraham. Genesis 12:2 says that God will make of him a great nation. Genesis 18:18 especially caught my eye, where God says that Abraham will "surely become a great and mighty nation and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him." I also landed on Genesis 22:19, "And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

These promises are a key to understanding Scripture, but the focus seems to be not so much on the nation, but on offspring who would come from that nation, Jesus. When I look for evidence of Israel becoming a great and mighty nation, I find that as well, though, in the reigns of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Paul says that they were a blessing by their unbelief in that the Gentiles received the Gospel, and it will be a blessing again should they be grafted back into the olive tree (Romans 11:12)."

In my view, when the Scriptures indicate that Abraham's offspring or Israel's offspring would bless the whole world, the idea is on Christ ultimately, but certainly at the time was focused on the people of Israel as a whole, particularly among those who shared the faith of Abraham. Christ is the focus of our Salvation, but the People of God carried out the ministry that is associated with getting that message across.

Israel was still a full "nation" when the Gospel came to be. So it could be said that the "nation blessed the world" when only a relative few were believers and transmitted that message to the rest of the world. But at that point the "nation," as such, had fallen on hard times, and was not, for the most part, exemplary of Christian standards. It was about to fall.

The remnant of Jewish believers then ceased to be a "national blessing" to the world. The Gentile Church picked up where Israel left off, becoming themselves "Christian nations." They were just beginning in faith, and God allowed them time for development, just as He had for Israel. But this history goes well beyond the Scriptural account, and in my view is not "unscriptural" with regard to the prophecies that predicted "nations" to Abraham.


"These are wonderful insights into God's plan for Israel. Beyond that, though, I don't find a promise of God raising up, for example, Christian theocracies. Is that what we are talking about? It sure has been tried, but the failures have been spectacular."


I've come to hate the word "theocracy" because with the Protestant Reformation, opposing Catholic imperial government, and with the Enlightenment opposing the establishment of religion, Christian "national" status has lost any appeal in the modern world. With bad examples of Christian government in Catholic countries and with bad examples of a "theocracy" in Islamic countries, the idea of a Christian theocracy has completely lost favor.

However, the promise to Abraham of the nation Israel and of the nations, to join in with Abraham's faith, one has to accept that a political state went along with the whole idea of "nations." Israel had a monarchy, which when joined with the Law of God, came to represent a kind of "theocracy." God certainly sanctioned both the monarchy/theocracy combo, and fully embraced David's political rule.

It would not be different if a modern democratic government, which was predominantly "Christian," called itself a Christian "theocracy." It would not be a subversive use of the term "theocracy," but more, the idea of a political government deliberately placed under divine government.

If Jesus sanctioned the Davidic kings, and saw that as a partial fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, then "theocracies" are indeed a part of God's plan for fulfilling God's promise to Abraham to bring about believing nations. Again, this is just my opinion, recognizing it involves controversial terms and is therefore unpopular.


"You mentioned that the word "salvation" is key. I can understand that it is, but if we're talking biblical theology, then biblical terms must be given meaning based on the specific text they are found in. You are right in that "salvation" has many uses and references in the Bible, but their meanings are unique to their context. If we're going to talk about political salvation, I would be interested in knowing from which Scripture the idea or meaning of "political" is taken. Maybe part of my challenge is that where the idea of modern nation is different than that of the Bible, the idea of "political" seems a rather modern term not found in Scripture to my knowledge. I imagine that alone becomes a red flag for some on the forum. If there is a verse or verses where political salvation is mentioned in Scripture, perhaps in synonymous terms, a case might be built for using that expression with greater clarity."


The Scriptures that refer to "salvation" combine, as I suggested, the ideas of political and spiritual salvation. If you look at the blessings and the curses on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal, you will see the connection I alluded to. Israel repents, in order to achieve a spiritual connection with God, and the result is political salvation.

Spiritual Salvation is more fully developed in the New Testament because Eternal Life was not given under the Law. Spiritual Salvation, under the Law, then would not be viewed as "Eternal Salvation," but only as a temporary deliverance from suffering a variety of curses for disobedience. This is where "political salvation" comes into play.


"Again, my focus is on how words are used in Scripture and using their context to understand what is meant by them. I think that is foundational to exegesis, and exegesis is foundational to biblical theology. At the same time, I realize that there are volumes written on theology with little Scripture cited. I've had to read some of those. (Those liberal Germans!) But I find that the appeal is to philosophy, to ethics, to comparative religion, to history, etc. It ends up sounding to me like the tree of knowledge, where we can determine from our own thinking apart from God what is truth about God. That is not at all what you are doing, but I think my experience in this area has given me a bias against much of that kind of reasoning. Give me Scripture.
Mark Kluth"


Thanks, I do understand since I've been sharing these things for years. I know the responses, but I appreciate your unique perspective as someone well-educated in the language of Scriptures.

Much of what I believe is indeed about the language of Scriptures. The terms may not be "political salvation," but the concept of political deliverance is there, alluding to a spiritual connection as well.

I don't think these things are quickly sorted out because of the long history of hate for all things Christian, including for Christian government and Christian statehood or Christian nationality. I don't like to use the word "Christian nationalism" because that conveys an activist sense of forcing Christianity upon a nation and a state. I think to be truly Christian, a country would have to have a virtual consensus with a predominant group who genuinely believe and want laws favoring Christianity and disfavoring immoral, pagan practices. I'm not a "freedom for all religions" kind of guy except that under our current post-Christian, or semi-Christian democracy, it's either freedom for all religions or freedom for none at all.

Thanks again for your well-thought-out response. I don't know how much we'll agree or disagree on these matters, but it's always fun to look at things from all angles, positive or negative. My purpose is not to use controversial issues for notoriety or attention. Rather, my aim is to understand the word of God and to promote it faithfully out of love for God.
Randy

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The remnant of Jewish believers then ceased to be a "national blessing" to the world. The Gentile Church picked up where Israel left off, becoming themselves "Christian nations."

There has never been such thing as "The Gentile Church". And who were these "Christian nations" that you're talking about?

 

[RandyPNW]

There has never been such thing as "The Gentile Church". And who were these "Christian nations" that you're talking about?

I get this response all the time. It's very strange since all one has to do is look it up on the internet. You might as well ask me where I get the notion of "Christian" or the notion of "nation?" It's extremely weird to me because with the tremendous opposition there is to the very thing God promised Abraham we get a complete denial of what has been and what still is.

I'm adding a little more to this response this morning, because I think I owe it to you. Often "Church" is used in a more comprehensive way, referring to an imagined collection of churches comprising God's People. This is as opposed to using the word "church" in only the local sense of individual churches.

So when I refer to the "Gentile Church" I'm identifying the predominance of nations not including Israel, primarily because Israel ceased to exist as a nation for many hundreds of years. In effect the entire collection of Christian denominations consisted of nations that were not "Israel."

Some Christians, however, define "Israel" as a spiritualized term referring to all believers, Jewish or non-Jewish. I don't share that view, nor do I believe in Replacement Theology.

When Israel lost her national status, it was thought by many Christians that God was defacing political realities that distinguish nations and ethnic groups, and declaring irrelevant the separation of nations that use words like "Gentiles" or "Christians." Terms like "Germany" or "German" came to be viewed as antithetical to any sense of who a "Christian" was.

Whatever one believes, it is normal in Christian literature and discussion to refer to "Christian nations" when a country is viewed as favoring Christianity predominantly, with no sense that the entire nation has to be 100% Christian or that 100% of the Christians in that country have to be perfect followers of Jesus' teachings.

The thought is only that the majority in a nation has favored Christianity among all religions and has wished to use Christian values as the primary interest in producing society's laws and customs. To deny that "Christian nations" is used or has value in conversation therefore seems to be just a means to avoid discussion that does not see God's promises as neutral with respect to nationality and ethnicity.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I get this response all the time. It's very strange since all one has to do is look it up on the internet. You might as well ask me where I get the notion of "Christian" or the notion of "nation?" It's extremely weird to me because with the tremendous opposition there is to the very thing God promised Abraham we get a complete denial of what has been and what still is.

No idea of what you're talking about here. I'm every bit as baffled by what you believe as you are that others can't see it.

I'm adding a little more to this response this morning, because I think I owe it to you. Often "Church" is used in a more comprehensive way, referring to an imagined collection of churches comprising God's People. This is as opposed to using the word "church" in only the local sense of individual churches.

So when I refer to the "Gentile Church" I'm identifying the predominance of nations not including Israel, primarily because Israel ceased to exist as a nation for many hundreds of years. In effect the entire collection of Christian denominations consisted of nations that were not "Israel."

You are making up a term not found anywhere in scripture. I'm not a fan of that.

Some Christians, however, define "Israel" as a spiritualized term referring to all believers, Jewish or non-Jewish. I don't share that view,

That's too bad since it is clearly taught in scripture.

nor do I believe in Replacement Theology.

Neither do I. But, since you're implying that I do, I'm done here. No interest in having my view misrepresented. Have a nice day.

 

[timothyu]

In regards to "Church", it is neither Israel nor Gentile, both misrepresentations. It is, as Jesus said, only truth from the Father. Humans have a habit of making things about themselves. They love to use God to promote themselves.

 

[RandyPNW]

No idea of what you're talking about here. I'm every bit as baffled by what you believe as you are that others can't see it.

The word "Christian" is put together with the word "nations" to form the term "Christian nations." These are nations that have become Christian religiously and legally. There is no debate about that in history, and therefore my use of the term should not "befuddle" you.

So you must be speaking of the term in strictly a biblical sense. I fully admit that the term is not used in Scriptures, and for good reason. Biblical Prophecy infers it in the Abraham covenant which promised him nations that share his faith. There can be no debate about this.

Gen 17.1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.

But in seeing how God fulfilled His promise to Abraham to produce nations of faith, I don't think there can be any debate about that either. Paul said this quite explicitly...

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

So Paul was talking explicitly about nations that have been blessed by Christian justification. To me, that refers to "Christian nations," whether the term is there or not.

But the Scriptures were written before entire nations had committed to Christianity. Many nations coming out of the old Christian Roman State have been Christian countries. Look them up in any encycloopedia--England, France, Germany, Russia, etc. At one time or another, many European countries, if not all, have declared themselves to be Christian nations.

You are making up a term not found anywhere in scripture. I'm not a fan of that.

Or, you don't like the term I use because of its implications. It does not fit into your theological brand.

That's too bad since it is clearly taught in scripture.

No, it is *not* taught in Scripture that "Israel" is the new name for the Christian Church, now that Israel proper has ceased as a theocracy under the Law of Moses. You may believe "Israel" is implied to be the name for the Christian church, but it is *not* taught. There are arguments where these things that seem to be implied are actually references to literal Israel, and not to the entire Church.

Neither do I. But, since you're implying that I do, I'm done here. No interest in having my view misrepresented. Have a nice day.

I can seee how you "think" I implied you are into Replacement Theology. But I didn't actually say that. I just tie the denial of the reality of lliteral Israel as God's People to the theological system called "Replacement Theology." If Israel has been displaced "as God's People" for the international Church, then Israel has been replaced--no question about it.

But if you want to make yourself a martyr, feel free. I never said you personally believed you held to "Replacement Theology." But I happen to believe from my point of view that your view is a form of "Replacement Theology." I don't see much difference between denying Israel is still God's People and replacing them with the International Church!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I can seee how you "think" I implied you are into Replacement Theology. But I didn't actually say that. I just tie the denial of the reality of lliteral Israel as God's People to the theological system called "Replacement Theology." If Israel has been displaced "as God's People" for the international Church, then Israel has been replaced--no question about it.

But if you want to make yourself a martyr, feel free. I never said you personally believed you held to "Replacement Theology." But I happen to believe from my point of view that your view is a form of "Replacement Theology." I don't see much difference between denying Israel is still God's People and replacing them with the International Church!

For goodness sakes, buddy. Do you think we've never talked before? You have accused me of believing in replacement theology multiple times in the past, so that's how I knew you were using that term in reference to me. And then you confirmed it here, so why be dishonest and act like you didn't have that in mind? Have a nice day.

 

[RandyPNW]

For goodness sakes, buddy. Do you think we've never talked before? You have accused me of believing in replacement theology multiple times in the past, so that's how I knew you were using that term in reference to me. And then you confirmed it here, so why be dishonest and act like you didn't have that in mind? Have a nice day.

Yes, I know who you are. Read what I said--I did not directly accuse you of adhering to Replacement Theology because I knew you would likely attach a different meaning to it than I do. By your own admission you do not adhere to Replacement Theology.

But yes, my definition would definitely include you among those who adhere to Replacement Theology, whether you agree with my definition or not. Normally, those who deny they hold to that theology claim that they have not denied the existence of Israel, nor even perhaps that they have their own covenant with God.

My definition of Replacement Theology includes all those who have rejected Israel's place *as a nation* in the future Church. If you can accept Israel's future place *as a nation* in a future Millennium, you do *not* believe in Replacement Theology.

 

[RandyPNW]

Covenant Theology, as I understand it, gathers all ethnic groups and nationalities into a single entity called "the Church." There is no thought that part of God's promises include maintaining the distinctions of nations and ethnicities, since they believe that Salvation excludes such distinctions.

It isn't so much that Covenant Theology would reject or resist the idea of Christian nations. They just do not seem to view it as part of God's Salvation plan. But I can be corrected on this?

I agree that Salvation excludes the importance of distinctions of race, nation, and culture and would admit as much within my own theological system. But unlike any system that dismisses distinctions of race and nation I do believe that ethnic and national divisions are an important part of God's promises, OT and NT. God made them, and He promised them in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Those in Covenant Theology who throw out such distinctions tend to reject Israel as a nation, and hold to a low view of state Christianity because it produces political divisions into nations and ethnic groups. Those divisions do not, however, imply a necessary disunity among Christians of the various groups.

I believe God had a reason for asserting the need for such divisions, whether it is to avoid another Tower of Babel or to provide freedom for diversity. Quite simply, it is in God's word.

God uses those terms, and has promised the continuous use of those terms until the New Creation. Since I'm a Premillennialist, I believe those divisions will continue for a thousand years after Christ comes. But to each his own.

 

[RandyPNW]

For goodness sakes, buddy. Do you think we've never talked before? You have accused me of believing in replacement theology multiple times in the past, so that's how I knew you were using that term in reference to me. And then you confirmed it here, so why be dishonest and act like you didn't have that in mind? Have a nice day.

I haven't talked with you about this for some time. If I remember correctly, you hold to a spiritualize definition of "Israel," and so would not be denying the continued importance of Israel in God's plans. As such, you would not be "replaacing" this spiritualized version of "Israel."

But this is not what I see as the normal definition of Israel. The normal definition of "Israel" refers to the physical, literal definition of a nation consisting of all members--not just the "spiritual ones." So in effect, from my point of view you would be "replacing" the real physical Israel with a false "spiritualized" versions of the same.

This is indeed a little different than how many view Replacement Theology. With the normal version of "Israel" many, including myself, would view Israel as delegitimized, at least temporarily, and "replaced" with the believing among the Gentile nations. Jesus said the Kingdom of God would be "taken" from Israel and given instaed to another worthy nation. This is indeed a form of "replacement"--one that I accept.

But this is not Replacement Theology unless this replacement of Israel with the Gentile Church is viewed as permanent, with Israel's place in that Church as being in the form of a "remnant," or minority. In fact, many Replacement Theologians likely dismiss the idea of political nations altogether in the belief that only true believers within the nations are a true part of the Church.

That means the idea of "nations" is excluded altogether and "replaced" with the idea of a single ideal entity called the "Universal Church" consisting of remnants of all nations. The idea of an entire nation operating in a Christian way is thought to be either impossible or not something God has ever been interested in.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The word "Christian" is put together with the word "nations" to form the term "Christian nations." These are nations that have become Christian religiously and legally. There is no debate about that in history, and therefore my use of the term should not "befuddle" you.

Prior to the 18th century the term "nation" was understood to mean a people. In the 17th century we began to see the emergence of Nationalism and the the Nation-State. This was was a product of the European Enlightenment and the emergence of Revolution. The American and French Revolutions were both products of, and instrumental, to this emergence of nationalism, of a national identity. Before this people tended to be identified with their local communities, families, clans, tribes, they were subjects of the ruling powers. "Irish" did not denote, for example, a nation-state called "Ireland", but referred to people who inhabited the island of Ireland, which throughout history was governed in lots of ways, both local (such as by local Irish chieftains) and foreign (such as when it was ruled by the British Crown); it wouldn't be until the emergence of Nationalism that we'd see the rising idea that the Irish people should rule themselves as a self-governing political entity--which then gets us into the modern history of Ireland, including rise of Irish Republicanism, Irish independence, the period of time known as The Troubles with the highly politically charged situation with Northern Ireland, which is still part of the United Kingdom even today.

I chose the Irish/Ireland as just an example. But we see this emerging throughout Europe, and the European colonial possession; and so we see it spread throughout much of the globe. As old monarchies and dynastic states gave way to nation-states.

"Christian nation" in the sense of a nation-state that is legally Christian is something we don't see in most of history, since the nation-state didn't exist through most of history. Kings, emperors, and tribal chieftains converted to Christianity; their courts converted to Christianity, and depending on exact circumstances and situations, the subjects were expected to convert. Nations didn't become Christian, kingdoms did. In the sense that the monarch and the governing power structure associated with the monarch converted and Christianity became officially part of that governing power structure. The idea of a nation converting would involve a more grassroots conversion, wherein ethnic groups adopt Christianity. Egypt, then, could be called a "Christian nation" in the sense that the Coptic people, as a people, adopted Christianity through the conversion of the people over time. Obviously the ruling structure of Egypt wasn't Christian in the ancient world prior to the conversion of Constantine; and obviously not everyone was a Christian, as there were plenty of Pagans for a long time. After the Islamic conquest in which the region of Egypt fell out of Roman control and into Islamic control, the region underwent a process of Arabization and Islamification; even though many of the indigenous Egyptian people were Christian at that point, the Islamic power structure which ruled the area and which forced the conversion of people to Islam, and the adoption of Arab culture into the region drastically changed Egypt. Today we could, therefore, say that the Copts are a Christian people, a Christian nation. But "Egypt" refers to a political entity, the nation-state of Egypt is, by law, a Muslim nation. Though the Copts, the historic Egyptian people, remain Christian and being Christian has been a central part of their Coptic/Egyptian identity.

Which is all to say, "Christian Nations" is, at best, a muddy and ambiguous word and concept.

So you must be speaking of the term in strictly a biblical sense. I fully admit that the term is not used in Scriptures, and for good reason. Biblical Prophecy infers it in the Abraham covenant which promised him nations that share his faith. There can be no debate about this.

Gen 17.1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations.

But in seeing how God fulfilled His promise to Abraham to produce nations of faith, I don't think there can be any debate about that either. Paul said this quite explicitly...

Gal 3.8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

So Paul was talking explicitly about nations that have been blessed by Christian justification. To me, that refers to "Christian nations," whether the term is there or not.

It's about the Gospel going out into the world and being believed. It's about the Church.

It's not about Christians having government authority, or having Christian laws on the books.

But the Scriptures were written before entire nations had committed to Christianity. Many nations coming out of the old Christian Roman State have been Christian countries. Look them up in any encycloopedia--England, France, Germany, Russia, etc. At one time or another, many European countries, if not all, have declared themselves to be Christian nations.

Or, you don't like the term I use because of its implications. It does not fit into your theological brand.

No, it is *not* taught in Scripture that "Israel" is the new name for the Christian Church, now that Israel proper has ceased as a theocracy under the Law of Moses. You may believe "Israel" is implied to be the name for the Christian church, but it is *not* taught. There are arguments where these things that seem to be implied are actually references to literal Israel, and not to the entire Church.

I can seee how you "think" I implied you are into Replacement Theology. But I didn't actually say that. I just tie the denial of the reality of lliteral Israel as God's People to the theological system called "Replacement Theology." If Israel has been displaced "as God's People" for the international Church, then Israel has been replaced--no question about it.

But if you want to make yourself a martyr, feel free. I never said you personally believed you held to "Replacement Theology." But I happen to believe from my point of view that your view is a form of "Replacement Theology." I don't see much difference between denying Israel is still God's People and replacing them with the International Church!

Israel is God's Covenant people, in Christ the Gentiles are made members of the Commonwealth of Israel; and thus the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down, and God has made what was formerly two people, one people; so that there is only the one new man in Christ. That is what Scripture explicitly teaches.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

Prior to the 18th century the term "nation" was understood to mean a people.

I understand what you're saying, but view your definition of "nation" as purely a "modern" one. "Nations" existed well before the modern states of Europe found their independence from the Holy Roman Empire or from other empires. A much earlier form of "nation" might be considered a "kingdom."

"Christian nation" in the sense of a nation-state that is legally Christian is something we don't see in most of history, since the nation-state didn't exist through most of history.

Yes, as I've said elsewhere, Christian nations did not yet exist when the Bible was written. So Christians may not have known how to interpret the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise, that he would evolve believing nations.

But the Roman Empire became more fully Christianized under Theodosius, and in the modern world we ended up with Christian states in Europe. It is normal, language-wise, to call these former and current states "Christian countries" or "Christian nations," or even "Christian empires."

The real question is: Is this what God had in mind when He promised Abraham "nations of faith?" I think it is.

Kings, emperors, and tribal chieftains converted to Christianity; their courts converted to Christianity, and depending on exact circumstances and situations, the subjects were expected to convert. Nations didn't become Christian, kingdoms did.

That is a distinction without a difference. Both the kingdoms and the nations converted to Christianity, generally speaking. It would be like saying a Christian country is not a Christian country only because the President or Prime Minister is, and a minority among the people are not.

Egypt, then, could be called a "Christian nation" in the sense that the Coptic people, as a people, adopted Christianity through the conversion of the people over time. ...Today we could, therefore, say that the Copts are a Christian people, a Christian nation. But "Egypt" refers to a political entity, the nation-state of Egypt is, by law, a Muslim nation. Though the Copts, the historic Egyptian people, remain Christian and being Christian has been a central part of their Coptic/Egyptian identity.

Which is all to say, "Christian Nations" is, at best, a muddy and ambiguous word and concept.

I don't think so. It is our presupposition that "nations" are irrelevant in the biblical story of Salvation that alters our view of "nations," in my opinion. Let me give you an exchange I had on another forum on this subject (today and yesterday).

Here is the discussion...

Ethnic groups.

Not land mass.

I will make you a great nation; (goy)
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;

And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the regular treatment I get when I insist that the Abrahamic Covenant requires actual "nations"--not just ethnic groups. There is a big difference between "ethnic groups" and "nations." A "nation" is not just a race or family, as we see in the development of Israel from a family to a "nation"--not just an "ethnic group."

We have various ethnic groups throughout the US, for example. But they would not be described as "nations!" The US is a nation, and various ethnic groups are either the majority or minority groups. But those who want to revise the definition of "nation" to mean only an "ethnic group" must have that definition to support their theological suppositions.

Abraham, the gentile was to become a great nation Israel, which are called Jews, however God’s intent was not just natural Israel but a distinct nation called the Israel of God made up of the one new man; who like Abraham are both gentile and Jew, or rather neither Jew or Gentile.

Jesus is the "New Man," and all ethnic groups and all nations may participate in him via the Holy Spirit when they sign on to the covenant he offers. This has nothing to do with annihilating ethnicities and nationalities. It only removes the former restrictions that had been imposed upon Israel by the Law.

It had provided a covenant exclusively for Israel, and made them distinct from other nations. Ethnicities could be included in the covenant of Law with conversion to Judaism. But Israel remained the singular nation with whom God made an exclusive covenant.

A Christian nation; A Christian ethnic group -
a nation of Christ followers. With the DNA of Christ.

Yes, this is what I'm regularly told, that the Bible depicts the international Church as a "nation." But language seems to forbid this unless the word "nation" is given in the context of a metaphor. And I don't see that. The few examples where this is claimed can also be used in a literal way and not metaphorically.

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Galatians 3:7-8
Genesis - in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
Galatians - In you all the nations shall be blessed.

Nations are often peopled by a predominant race, or "family." This occasion does not remove the definition of "nation," but defines its constitution. A ethnic group is a family group or race that is either the majority or a minority group.

A nation is more than a family or race. It is a social constitution providing for self-sufficiency and distinction from other like groups, or "nations."There can be many races in a single nation, but they would not be viewed as "nations" within a single nation.

"Nation" suggests a pollitical constitution, which is indicated, biblically, with the leadership that came to organize and lead all of the Israeli tribes as a single entity. With the military campaigns under the judges, Israel was led not just as tribes, but as the single "nation" they were promised to Abraham to be.

And under the monarchies, Israel became a full-fledged nation, though it had already existed as such coming out of Egypt. We see that because God gave all 12 tribes a single covenant and a single Law. Later, this Law called upon all 12 tribes to meet together in a single location in Jerusalem 3 times per year. That is what made Israel a "nation," and not just an "ethnicity" or "family."

 

[timothyu]

Israel is God's Covenant people, in Christ the Gentiles are made members of the Commonwealth of Israel; and thus the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down, and God has made what was formerly two people, one people; so that there is only the one new man in Christ. That is what Scripture explicitly teaches.

The gentiles were/are anyone not Jewish. In other words also the other 10 tribes of the House of Israel. These 10 tribes were scattered expanding the Commonwealth of Israel. What was one people became two even before the scattering (Israel and Judah), and even though Jesus said to go out to all nations of the House of Israel, the two have not yet reunited as one. Sibling rivalry still exists.