Was Israel the Church?

OT and NT
The relationship of the Old Testament and the New Testament has been a subject of much debate throughout church history. In the last few centuries, the two basic theological positions have been forged as Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT) or Dispensationalism.

Covenant Theology
Covenant theologians look at the Bible from the perspective of covenants. They usually see two main covenants: one before the fall and one after the fall. The upshot of this is that Covenant Theologians tend to look at everything post-fall as one continuous story of God saving fallen men.

Thus, when it comes to describing the relationship between OT and NT, Covenant Theologians emphasize unity or continuity. That is, we should presume that things in the OT are the same in the NT unless we have an explicit statement in the NT.

Dispensational Theology
Dispensational theologians look at the Bible from the perspective of dispensations or eras. They usually see seven main dispensations, particularly focusing on distinguishing the eras of pre-Christ and post-Christ.

Thus, when it comes to describing the relationship between OT and NT, Dispensational Theologians emphasize disunity or discontinuity. That is, we should presume that things in the OT are different from the NT unless we have an explicit statement in the NT.

The Divide
The debate between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology is not really about covenants vs. dispensations. The crux of the matter is the relationship between the OT and the NT:

Covenant Theologians see a basic unity between the OT and the NT. The key word here is continuity. The NT continues what the OT began.

Dispensational Theologians see a basic distinction between the OT and the NT. The key word here is discontinuity. The NT begins a new project that is not a continuation of the OT.

The crux of the matter is continuity vs. discontinuity. For this reason, I am going to refer to Covenant Theology as Continuity Theology (CT in both cases). I am going to refer to Dispensational Theology as Discontinuity Theology (DT in both cases).

Important Disclaimer
No one argues for strict continuity or strict discontinuity. That is, everyone believes in some continuity (e.g., we believe in one God) and some discontinuity (e.g., we no longer offer animal sacrifices). The difficulty is determining how much stays the same (continuity) and how much is different (discontinuity).

Israel and the Church
We are going to spend the next two weeks looking at the issue of Israel and the Church, answering questions such as,

· Is the Church different from Israel?
· Is the Church a continuation of Israel?
· Does the Church replace Israel?
· Is Israel defined ethnically or religiously?

When it comes to the relationship between Israel and the Church, the Bible neither explicitly affirms or denies that the church is Israel. We don’t find any verses that say either “the church is Israel” or “the church is not Israel.” This issue is going to be decided by looking at a variety of passages.

“The Church” in the OT & NT
Unfortunately, the whole issue of Israel and the church has been considerably marred by a misunderstanding of the word church. This week, we are going to attempt to correct this misunderstanding by exploring a couple of issues surrounding the Greek New Testament.

Translation
When translating from one language to another, it is most desirable to translate the idea or the concept. For instance, in the Greek NT, here are a couple of translations of concepts:

Basilean = Kingdom
Uios = Son
Theos = God

Notice that in each of these cases, the Greek word and the English word are totally different, yet they are equivalents because the concepts are identical.

Transliteration
Occasionally, a foreign word is brought straight over into another language (R.S.V.P, hors d’oeuvres, etc.). The pronunciation is retained, but the concept is often lost. For instance, here are a couple of examples of transliterations in our Bibles:

Hallelujah (Hebrew) = Praise Yahweh
Messiah (Hebrew) = Christ (Greek) = Anointed

Notice that in each of these cases, the Hebrew and the English are identical in pronunciation, yet we often use these transliterations without really understanding their meaning. That is, we sound authentic because we are using foreign words, but we are inauthentic if we do not understand what we are saying.

Ekklesia
“Church” is the most common translation of the NT Greek word ekklesia. This is a serious problem because “church” is neither an accurate translation or transliteration of ekklesia. Let’s start with ekklesia.

Sum of Parts?
Perhaps you have heard preachers explain ekklesia as derived from two parts:

· Ek = out of
· Kaleo = to call

It is argued that ekklesia refers to “those who have been called out” or “called-out-ones.” While this may be true in a general sense, this is simply bad exegesis.

Occasionally, you can determine what a word means by looking at the sum of its parts, but more often than not, this is improper. Such is the case with ekklesia. It does not mean “called-out-ones.”

Real Meaning of Ekklesia
Ekklesia means a group of people, a congregation of people, an assembly of people, a gathering of people. It refers to some kind of corporate group of people.

Right away, you should be able to spot that our typical use of “church” does not correspond with this definition of ekklesia. We most often use “church” to refer to the building where we meet. For example:

· I went to church last week.
· I left my Bible at church.

These uses of “church” are referring to the building where we meet, which is quite different than the NT word ekklesia.

Secular Usage of Ekklesia
Furthermore, we use “church” in an exclusively religious context. Nobody every looks at an ordinary crowd of people, and says, “Wow, look at that church.”

Yet, ekklesia was a common word. Ekklesia was not an exclusively religious word. It was used of a public gathering of citizens to discuss and debate local politics. However, we would never think of using the word “church” to denote such a group. “Church” is exclusively a religious word.

So, why do we use the word “church” for ekklesia. How did this come about? Where does the word “church” come from and what does it mean?

Church
“Church” is actually derived from the word “Lord.” The Hebrew word for “Lord” is Adonai. This was translated into the Greek as kurios.

Adonai (Hebrew) → Kurios (Greek) → Lord (English)

All three of these words means “lord” or “master.”

Possessives
In English, when we make a word possessive, we add apostrophe and an “s.” For instance, “Eric’s” is possessive. It means “belonging to Eric.”

“Eric’s” = possessive of “Eric” = “belonging to Eric”

In Greek, when a word is made possessive, there is no “apostrophe-s”. The word does change form. So, whereas we would make “Lord” possessive by writing “Lord’s,” the Greek would make kurios possessive by writing kuriakos.

Kuriakos = possessive of kurios = “belonging to the Lord”

Kuriakos was used to describe things that belonged to the Lord. For example:

· “The Lord’s Day” is called kuriakos day. It belongs to the Lord.
· “The Lord’s Supper” is called the kuriakos Supper. It belongs to the Lord.

In the time shortly after the NT was written, the word kuriakos was used by itself to refer to Christians.

Kuriakos people = “people who belong to the Lord”

Eventually kuriakos became used as shorthand to refer to Christians. This was carried over into other languages. First, the Greek ending “-os” was dropped, so that kuriakos became kuriak.

Kuriakos → Kuriak

Next, some of the vowels were changed in various languages.

Kuriak → Kurk → Kirk (Scottish)

Eventually, kirk was Anglicized as “church.” Thus, the word “church” simply means “belonging to the Lord.” There’s nothing wrong with this. God’s people belong to him. It’s entirely appropriate to call them so.

Thus, church is derived from the Greek word kuriakos.

Kuriakos → “Church”

Notice that this is a transliteration, not a translation. As is the case in transliterations, “church” retains the similar sound of kuriakos, but the meaning of kuriakos has been lost. Very few Christians understand that “church” means “belonging to the Lord.”

This problem of transliteration has been exacerbated by another historical development. Kurkiakos/Kirk/”Church” began to be used as a translation for ekklesia.

Now, in a theological sense, this is legitimate. The NT idea of ekklesia (“group of people”) did belong to God (“church”). However, in terms of the translating of Scripture, this was a disastrous mistake.

Ekklesia = “Church” (theologically)

When ekklesia is translated as “church,” there is a compound problem. “Church” is a transliteration of a completely different word. Ekklesia and kuriakos (“church”) are completely different words that ought to be distinguished.

This failure to distinguish these words has contributed to the general misunderstanding of Israel and the church.

Israel and the Church
For instance, Dispensational Theologians argue that there is a categorical difference between Israel and the Church. However, which “church” is being referred to? Is this ekklesia or kuriakos?

Israel and Kuriakos
Kuriakos (“church”) means “belonging to the Lord.” Did Israel belong to the Lord? Was Israel known as the Lord’s people? Yes, of course.

Therefore, if we are using the literal meaning of “church,” then Israel was certainly the “church.” Israel belonged to the Lord. Israel was the church of the OT.

Israel and Ekklesia
Ekklesia means “a group of people.” Was Israel a group of people? Yes, of course.

Therefore, if we are using the literal meaning of ekklesia, then Israel was certainly the ekklesia of God. They were the people of God. Israel was the ekklesia of the OT.

So, strictly speaking, Israel was both the ekklesia and the kuriakos of the OT. Israel was a group of people, and Israel belong to God. No matter which way we slice it, Israel was the church.

Ekklesia in the OT
Around 200 BC, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated in Greek. This Greek version of the OT is known as the Septuagint, or the LXX, referring to the seventy scholars that supposedly worked on it.

The Greek word ekklesia appears ninety-two times, and approximately half of these refer to Israel.

Judg 20:12 (NKJV) Then the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, “What is this wickedness that has occurred among you {ekklesia}

2Chr 20:25 (NKJV) When Jehoshaphat and his people {ekklesia} came to take away their spoil, they found among them an abundance of valuables on the dead bodies, and precious jewelry, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away; and they were three days gathering the spoil because there was so much.

Amos 7:8 (NKJV) And the Lord said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb line.” Then the Lord said: “Behold, I am setting a plumb line In the midst of My people {ekklesia} Israel; I will not pass by them anymore.

Israel is called an ekklesia forty-five times in the Septuagint. This is significant because the Septuagint was commonly used during the time of Jesus and the early church. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers often quoted from the Septuagint, rather than use their own translations from the Hebrew.

Ekklesia in the NT
Therefore, when the Jesus speaks about the church in Matthew 16 and 18, this is not a new concept for his hearers. They would have understood him to be referring to the people of God, to Israel. Israel was the church.

An important NT passage is Acts 7:38:

Acts 7:38 (NKJV) “This is he who was in the congregation {ekklesia} in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us,

Notice that Stephen is speaking of Israel as a congregation or ekklesia or “church.” Stephen calls Israel by the name “the church.”

Conclusion
· Israel was the ekklesia or church. Israel is called the ekklesia both in the OT and in the NT.

· Israel was also the kuriakos or church. Israel belonged to God. Israel was God’s people.

So, in both these ways, Israel was the church. This conclusion should not be controversial, provided that definitions are understood.

The controversial issue is whether the church is now Israel. We will examine this next week.