Jesus and the Nation of Israel

Last week we looked at the controversial issue of whether the NT Church is the continuation of OT Israel. The central issue here is determining who the descendents of Abraham are.

Discontinuity Theologians argue that the descendents of Abraham are his physical offspring, those who are related to Abraham by blood. Because the promises are made to Abraham’s physical children, only Jews can inherit the promises to Abraham. Therefore, the church cannot inherit the promises to Abraham.

Continuity Theologians argue that the descendents of Abraham are his spiritual offspring, those who are related to Abraham by faith. Because the promises are made to Abraham’s spiritual children, ethnicity is not the determinative factor. Therefore, the church can inherit the promises to Abraham.

Obviously, the people to whom God makes promises must be the people who receive the fulfillment of the promises. The Israel of promise must be the Israel of fulfillment. Who is Israel?

Israel/Jew as Ethnic Terms
There are times when the Bible speaks of Israel in terms of ethnicity, or physical descent from Abraham.

Roma 9:3 (NKJV) For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Paul speaks of the profound advantage that ethnic Jews had over Gentiles.

Roma 3:1 (NKJV) What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

The Bible uses does sometimes use “Israel” and “Jew” to refer to ethnic descendents from Abraham, regardless of their faith.

This is how most of the world uses these terms today. “Israel” is usually a reference to the modern nation of Israel, which is comprised of ethnic descendents from Abraham. We call them Jews. These are ethnic designations. They have little or nothing to do with religion. An atheist Jew is still considered a Jew.

Only 15% of the modern nation of Israel are practicing Judaism. Even fewer are Orthodox Jews. Yet, we continue to call them “Jews” and “Israel.” This is fine, as long as we understand this as a strictly ethnic designation. We need to acknowledge that the Bible does sometimes speak of Israel/Jews in an ethnic sense.

Israel/Jew as Spiritual Terms
What we need to remember is that ethnic descent from Abraham has never been a qualification for inheriting the promises to Abraham.

Genesis and the OT
Last week, we looked at Genesis 12-17 and how not all of Abraham’s natural offspring will inherit the promises. For example, Ishmael and his descendents are not part of the covenant. Abraham’s six sons by Keturah are not included. The line of Esau is cut off. When God establishes circumcision in Genesis 17, he states that those who are not circumcised are cut off. So, not all of Abraham’s ethnic descendents inherit the promises.

We also saw how God expands the line of promise beyond physical descendents. Foreigners became heirs to the promises through circumcision. Converts such as Rahab and Ruth not only became Jews but married into the line of David and of Christ.

Romans 2
The NT makes it even more explicit. Paul explains that a true Jew does not depend on ethnicity, but on an internal work of the heart.

Roma 3:1 (NKJV) What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

Paul is saying in 3:1-2 that ethnic Jews have an advantage over Gentiles because ethnic Jews were in covenant with God, they were entrusted with the law of God, etc.

Nevertheless, Paul has already made it clear that this advantage is wasted if it is not combined with faith. In 2:28-29, Paul specifically states that spiritual Jews are true Jews.

Roma 2:28 (NKJV) For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Romans 9
In Romans 9:3-5, Paul laments that ethnic Israel does not believe in Jesus as Messiah.

Roma 9:1 (NKJV) I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Paul rehearses the advantages that ethnic Israelites have. Yet, Paul also teaches that not all of ethnic Israel will be saved.

Roma 9:6 (NKJV) But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
There is an Israel (ethnically) that is not Israel (spiritually). Whenever those who claimed to be Israel assumed that Israel was a fixed and static entity, a people self-evident to all, the prophets issued strong warnings.

The promises given to Israel were not like automatic guarantees to be received apart from faith and obedience. Because Israel was disobedient, the prophets announced that in the end, only a remnant would be saved.

Isai 10:20 (NKJV) And it shall come to pass in that day
That the remnant of Israel,
And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob,
Will never again depend on him who defeated them,
But will depend on Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.
22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea,
A remnant of them will return;
The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

The vast majority of ethnic Israel was faithless. This is why Jesus said that claiming ethnic descent from Abraham was never a sufficient basis for claiming the covenant promises.

Matt 3:9 (NKJV) “and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Jesus is using “children of Abraham” in a spiritual sense. This was God’s desire all along, that ethnic Israel would also be believing Israel.

Galatians 3
In Galatians 3, Paul explains that Abraham’s sons are those who have faith.

Gala 3:7 (NKJV) Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Furthermore, Paul states that the true descendent of Abraham is Jesus Christ.

Gala 3:16 (NKJV) Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

Thus, what is important is not physical descent from Abraham. What is important is spiritual descent from Abraham and ultimately, Abraham’s seed, Jesus Christ.

Gala 3:29 (NKJV) And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gentiles who have no physical relationship with Abraham can become a descendent of Abraham and heirs of the promise if they are spiritually related to Jesus Christ.

From Israel to the Nations
God’s promises to Abraham were always intended to expand beyond his ethnic descendents.

Gene 12:1 (NKJV) Now Yahweh had said to Abram:
“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 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.”

God later reiterated this promise.

Gene 22:18 (NKJV) “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

The blessing of the nations was going to come from the descendents of Abraham.

Isaiah
Isaiah prophesied of the blessing being given not just to Israel, but to the other nations as well.

Isai 19:23 (NKJV) In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.
24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria-- a blessing in the midst of the land,
25 whom Yahweh of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

Egypt will be called “My people.” Assyria will be called “the work of My hands.” These are prophesies of the expansion of the blessing from Israel to all the world.

Israel was to be a light to the nations.

Isai 42:6 (NKJV) "I, Yahweh, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles,
7 To open blind eyes,
To bring out prisoners from the prison,
Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.

God did not elect Israel to be his only people on the earth. He elected them to reach all the peoples on the earth.

Jesus
Jesus was blunt with Israel in his day.

Matt 8:11 (NKJV) “And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 “But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Just before his ascension, Jesus commands the gospel be taken to the world.

Matt 28:18 (NKJV) And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Through Jesus, the Son of Abraham, all nations are being blessed and the promise to Abraham is being fulfilled.

This fulfills the reason that the Father sent Jesus.

John 3:16 (NKJV) "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

This is celebrated in heaven.

Reve 5:9 (NKJV) And they sang a new song, saying:
"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

Thus, God’s plan was never to limit the blessing of his promises to the ethnic descendents of Abraham. God’s plan was to use the ethnic descendents to bless the entire world.

Ethnic Israel largely failed at this task. It was not until God sent Jesus as the true Israel that the nations were brought to God.

Is the Church Israel?

Continuity vs. Discontinuity
In the past two sessions, we have looked at the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are two general approaches to understanding this complex relationship:

· Continuity – there is a basic unity between the OT and the NT. The NT continues what the OT began.

· Discontinuity – there is a basic distinction between the OT and the NT. The NT begins a new project that is not a continuation of the OT.

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).

Rightly Dividing?
In discussing continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments, many who argue for discontinuity appeal to 2 Timothy 2:15:

2Tim 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

According to this view, “rightly dividing the word of truth” means that the task of the interpreter is to distinguish OT truth from NT truth.

However, “rightly dividing” is an archaic expression that actually means “handling accurately” or “using correctly.” The NASB renders this in contemporary language.

2Tim 2:15 (NASB) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.

Was Israel a Church?
Last week, we considered the question, “Was Israel a church?” This question is somewhat complicated by a translation problem. The word that is most often translated as “church” is the Greek word, ekklesia. Yet, “church” and ekklesia are actually completely different words. So, this question “Was Israel a church?” needs to be answered in two parts:

Was Israel the Ekklesia?
Ekklesia simply 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. This is not an exclusively religious word, as it was commonly used in the secular sense of referring to civil assemblies.

If we take the literal meaning of ekklesia, was Israel the ekklesia? Absolutely! Israel was a group of people.

Moreover, this is supported by the Greek version of the OT, the Septuagint, which uses ekklesia approximately forty-five times to refer to Israel. For example:

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.

Furthermore, the NT teaches that Israel was the ekklesia. In his speech before the Jewish leaders, Stephen calls Israel the ekklesia.

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."

Since both the OT and the NT refer to Israel as the ekklesia, we should have no problem saying that Israel was the ekklesia.

Was Israel the “church?”
Our English word “church” comes from the Greek word for Lord, which is kurios. The possessive form of kurios is kuriakos (“belonging to the Lord”). In the time shortly after the NT was written, the word kuriakos was used by itself to refer to Christians, which made perfect sense because Christians belonged to the Lord. Later, kuriakos evolved into the Scottish kirk and was eventually Anglicized as “church.” Thus, our word “church” simply means “belonging to the Lord.”

Unfortunately, kurkiakos/kirk/”church” began to be used as a translation for ekklesia. This is problematic because kuriakos and ekklesia are completely different words that ought to be distinguished.

The failure to distinguish these words has contributed to the confusion surrounding the identity of Israel and the church.

If we take the literal meaning of “church,” was Israel the church? Absolutely! Israel belonged to the Lord. They were his people.

Summary
We should have no problem saying that Israel was the church. Israel was a group of people (ekklesia), and Israel belonged to the Lord (“church”). This issue should not be controversial.

Is the Church Israel?
The more controversial issue is whether the NT church is OT Israel, or is the NT Church the continuation of OT Israel. Continuity Theologians would say yes. Discontinuity Theologians would say no, the NT church is completely separate from OT Israel.

We must recognize that this is a complex issue that many good Christians disagree on. Nevertheless, this is an issue that we must study carefully because our conclusions will determine how we deal with the Old Testament, how we view Israel, and how we view the church. This issue can be answered by determining who the descendents of Abraham are.

Who are the Descendents of Abraham?
Throughout Genesis 12-17, God makes promises to Abraham’s descendents. A question that divides theologians is this: Who are the descendents of Abraham, that is, who will inherit the promises to Abraham?

Discontinuity Theologians argue that the descendents of Abraham are his physical offspring, those who are related to Abraham by blood. Because the promises are made to Abraham’s physical children, only Jews can inherit the promises to Abraham. Therefore, the church cannot inherit the promises to Abraham.

Continuity Theologians argue that the descendents of Abraham are his spiritual offspring, those who are related to Abraham by faith. Because the promises are made to Abraham’s spiritual children, ethnicity is not the determinative factor. Therefore, the church can inherit the promises to Abraham.

The Promise Narrows
In examining this issue, we must recognize that not all of Abraham’s physical descendents will inherit the promises. God uses universal language, such as:

Gene 12:7 (NKJV) Then Yahweh appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to Yahweh, who had appeared to him.

Yet, God never intended this to mean every single one of Abraham’s children.

Ishmael
Abraham asked God to include Ishmael.

Gene 17:20 (NKJV) “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
21 “But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year.”

So, the descendents of Abraham through Ishmael are not included in the promises; only the descendents of Abraham through Isaac are included in the promises.

Keturah’s Sons
Also, Abraham had six sons with his second wife, Keturah, yet none of these are included in the promises. Thus, out of Abraham’s eight sons, only Isaac is included in the promises. In fact, Isaac is Abraham’s “only son” according to God.

Gene 22:2 (NKJV) Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

From God’s perspective, Isaac was Abraham’s only son, or only “descendent.” The others were not included in the covenant.

Esau and the Edomites
Additionally, God again narrowed the promise to the line of Jacob. Esau and his descendents (Edomites) are not included in the promises. Though the Edomites are ethnic descendents of Abraham, they are not considered “descendents” with respect to the promises.

The Uncircumcised
God allowed for the further contraction of Abraham’s “descendents.”

Gene 17:14 (NKJV) “And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

An ethnic descendent of Abraham who was not circumcised was not considered a descendent of the promises. Thus, physical descent alone does not make someone a “descendent” of Abraham.

The Promise Expands
Furthermore, God allowed for the expansion of Abraham’s “descendents” to include those not related to Abraham by blood.

Gene 17:12 (NKJV) “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.

When God instituted circumcision, Abraham was to circumcise not only his physical children, but also male children who were physical descendents of Abraham. That is, a foreigner who was circumcised became a descendent of Abraham.

Summary
Thus, the picture that we get from the Genesis is that the descendents of Abraham, those who would inherit the promises, were initially comprised of Jacob’s physical descendents, minus those who were not circumcised, plus those foreigners who were circumcised.

More OT Evidence

Spiritual Circumcision
We later learn that although physical circumcision was important and was required for entrance into the covenant, what God really wanted was spiritual circumcision.

Jere 4:4 (NKJV) Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,
And take away the foreskins of your hearts,
You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Lest My fury come forth like fire,
And burn so that no one can quench it,
Because of the evil of your doings.”

In fact, those who were physically circumcised but not spiritually circumcised were cut off. Thus, God’s promises were not necessarily to those who shared Abraham’s bloodline, but to those who shared Abraham’s faith. God’s promises were to the spiritual descendents of Abraham.

Mixed Multitude
As Israel departs from Egypt, a “mixed multitude” went with them.

Exod 12:38 (NKJV) A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds--a great deal of livestock.

This mixed multitude included Egyptians and possibly even other nationalities. These foreigners became Israelites, “descendents” of Abraham.

Canaanites and Moabites
We also have several examples of foreigners becoming Jews. Prominently, two foreign women not only become Jews but married into the line of David.

· Rahab was a Canaanite harlot, who became the mother of Boaz.

· Ruth was a Moabite, who married Boaz and became the great-grandmother of David. So, David was one-eighth Moabite and one-sixteenth Canaanite.

Summary
So, according to the OT, the heirs of the promises to Abraham are his spiritual descendents. This is spelled out even more clearly in the NT, which we will look at next.

NT Evidence

Romans 2
Paul explains who a true Jew is in Romans 2.

Roma 2:28 (NKJV) For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Notice that this occurs after Pentecost, and that Paul is speaking in the present tense. A Jew is not defined by ethnicity, but by the Spirit.

Romans 9
In Romans 9, Paul is dealing with the objection: Because God does not save Israel, God has failed to keep his covenant. Because God does not save every ethnic descendant of Jacob, God is unfaithful.

Is this true? Did God ever promise to save all of Israel or every single one of Abraham’s ethnic descendants? No. Paul explains in verse 6.

Roma 9:6 (NASB) But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

He makes the cryptic statement, “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” What does this mean? Paul is arguing that not all of Israel is included in God’s covenant with Abraham.

Paul actually goes back to Abraham to prove his point.

Roma 9:7 (NKJV) nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

Not all of Abraham’s offspring are included in the covenant. Paul quotes Genesis 17, “in Isaac your seed shall be called.”

Paul then makes a critical statement.

Roma 9:8 (NKJV) That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Not all of Abraham’s physical descendants are included in the promise. Only the children of the promise are counted as the seed/offspring/descendant.

Roma 9:9 (NKJV) For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Only the descendants of Abraham and Sarah receive the promises.

Furthermore, this distinction continues with Isaac’s children.

Roma 9:10 (NKJV) And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac
11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”
13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Esau was a “descendant” of Abraham ethnically, but he was not a descendant of the faith of Abraham.

The same is true of all unbelievers who are ethnically descended from Jacob: they are not God’s people. They are not in covenant with God. They are not heirs of the promise. They are not “true” Israel.

Galatians 3:7-15
The NT explicitly teaches that the spiritual descendents of Abraham are the heirs to the promises to Abraham. For instance, Paul states this very thing in Galatians 3:7:

Gala 3:7 (NKJV) Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Paul is making a distinction among the children of Abraham. Not all of Abraham’s physical descendents will inherit the promises of Abraham. Specifically, only those who share Abraham’s faith are considered sons of Abraham.

Only those physical descendents who also have faith will receive the blessings of the covenant that God made with Abraham, as Paul states in Galatians 3:9,

Gala 3:9 (NKJV) So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Thus, God’s covenant with Abraham is not an “unconditional” covenant with all of Abraham’s physical descendents. Rather, faith is the condition of inheriting the blessings. The unfaithful are cut off.

Furthermore, faithful non-physical descendents of Abraham can be grafted into the promises, as Paul states in Galatians 3:14,

Gala 3:14 (NKJV) that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gentiles, who are not physically related to Abraham, can be grafted into the promises of Abraham if they are spiritually related to Abraham, that is, if they possess faith.

Therefore, in order to inherit the promises to Abraham, you don’t have to look like Abraham (i.e., be a physical descendent). You must believe like Abraham (i.e., be a spiritual descendent).

Galatians 3:16-29
As we are studying the issue of who are the descendents of Abraham, we need to understand a technical issue. The Hebrew word for “descendants” is zerah. The literal translation of zerah is “seed” or “offspring” or “descendant.” This is a collective noun, which means that even though it is singular, it could be referring to a group.

Paul picks up this concept in Galatians 3 in his discussion of the “seed” of Abraham. Paul makes this startling statement in Galatians 3:16:

Gala 3:16 (NKJV) Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

Paul argues that because zerah is singular, it should be interpreted as such and not collectively. Jesus Christ is the true zerah of Abraham.

Thus, what is important is not physical descent from Abraham. What is important is spiritual descent from Abraham and ultimately, Abraham’s seed, Jesus Christ.

This is Paul’s point in Galatians 3:29:

Gala 3:29 (NKJV) And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gentiles who have no physical relationship with Abraham can become a descendent of Abraham if they are spiritually related to Jesus Christ.

Conclusion
Is the NT church a continuation of OT Israel? Based upon the few passages that we looked at, I would say that the evidence points in this direction. Again, we lack a clear statement from Scripture, so we must be cautious. There are many other passages and many related issues that we will deal with in the coming weeks.

Nevertheless, passages like Romans 2, Romans 9, and Galatians 3 indicate we should think of continuity regarding Israel and the Church.

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.