# Israel: OT church?



## thistle93 (Dec 7, 2012)

Hi! I am a baptist and I also espouse covenant ( not new covenant) theology. I know some would say that is not possible (just like using term reformed baptist) but that is for another forum. I have a question about Israel being referred to by some in covenant theology circles as the OT church. This is something new to me. I have heard of the church being referred to as the "Israel of God" but not Israel being the "church of God". While I see no distinction between Israel and the church (like dispensationlists) in the NT, I do think there was a distinction before the coming of Jesus and his sacrificial death and resurrection which brought reconciliation not only to God and those who believe but believing Jews and believing Gentiles making them one. I am not saying that I think using the terminology of Israel being the OT church is anti-Biblical just wondering what is the Biblical basis for using this terminology? Also think matters if when mentioning Israel need to clarify if we are talking about the nation of Israel or just those Jews in the OT who believed in the coming Messiah and where saved. Paul seems to make that distinction. While I know God has always had His "ekklesia" (called out ones) even before Pentecost (I know that ultra- dispensationalists take too far and say that nothing before Pentecost directly applies to the church. That would include the words of Jesus in the Gospels. This is crazy. Even Jesus mentions His church in the Gospels.) but it still seems a bit odd to use the term church to describe Israel as the OT church but am open to hearing reasoning and may be not to far from accepting. May just be semantics. 

Is part of the reason being that Septuagint uses "ekklesia" in reference to Israel in OT? 

Can you recommend any resources that explain this topic? Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 7, 2012)

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the *church in the wilderness* [τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμω] with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

I'm not given to lauding the benefits of isolated "prooftexts," without exegesis, or somehow having special confidence in some particualr doctrine because there's at least one "irrefutable verse" someplace that states the doctrine perfectly. But the above text makes an plain linguistic connection between the term "ekklesia" and the congregation (gathered people of God) in the wilderness. And "congregation" is a frequent English rendering for the OT covenant community. You rightly point out that the Gk. translation of the Heb. uses "ekklesia" sometimes for קהל [kahal], along with "synagogae," etc. There isn't a "uniform" rendering process, but clearly the terminology was part of the inheritance of the NT.

The truth is, the visible body of the people of God is never pure, never untainted by those whose connection to the substance of the covenant is false. A classic covenant-theologian today who recognizes today's believers in Jesus Christ as "the Israel of God," doesn't have a problem recognizing OT believers in the Coming One as the "Church of Christ." We are one and the same.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 7, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The truth is, the visible body of the people of God is never pure, never untainted by those whose connection to the substance of the covenant is false. A classic covenant-theologian today who recognizes today's believers in Jesus Christ as "the Israel of God," doesn't have a problem recognizing OT believers in the Coming One as the "Church of Christ." We are one and the same.



Right. And writing as a Baptist, I'd be first to note the similarities in practice. Our churches today are just as much a mixed multitude as was Israel.


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 25, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the *church in the wilderness* [τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμω] with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
> 
> I'm not given to lauding the benefits of isolated "prooftexts," without exegesis, or somehow having special confidence in some particualr doctrine because there's at least one "irrefutable verse" someplace that states the doctrine perfectly. But the above text makes an plain linguistic connection between the term "ekklesia" and the congregation (gathered people of God) in the wilderness. And "congregation" is a frequent English rendering for the OT covenant community. You rightly point out that the Gk. translation of the Heb. uses "ekklesia" sometimes for קהל [kahal], along with "synagogae," etc. There isn't a "uniform" rendering process, but clearly the terminology was part of the inheritance of the NT.
> 
> The truth is, the visible body of the people of God is never pure, never untainted by those whose connection to the substance of the covenant is false. A classic covenant-theologian today who recognizes today's believers in Jesus Christ as "the Israel of God," doesn't have a problem recognizing OT believers in the Coming One as the "Church of Christ." We are one and the same.



Rev. Buchanan,

In a discussion over Acts 7:38 with some people I received this question:



> Questions: What % of the OT "church" as you call it was truly saved? What happened to the rest of the "church" members in the OT? Did they all go to hell as idolaters? Israel had about a million people during the time of Elijah. 7000 men had not bowed the knee to BAAL What % is that. What happened to the BAAL worshipping members of the OT church? Just asking...
> 
> No - check the hebrew and greek. The word is ASSEMBLY - the same word used to describe the pagan mob in Acts.



The individual claims to be Reformed, Baptist, & Amill.

Since he claimed to be a baptist I referenced John Gill's Exposition of the passage which he then claimed that Gill's exposition of Hebrew's 8 contradicted the view that in 7:38 Gill stated the church in the wilderness was a reference to Israel. I was wondering how you would answer this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 26, 2012)

The man is invested in the _principle_ that the church is now, and wasn't then. It really doesn't matter who you can get to agree with you against him, like Gill; "Gill is wrong; I'm right; Gill must've contradicted himself." That's all the explanation he needs to validate the mind he already possesses. And its not just Gill, of course, but the prevailing opinion of the KJV translators, and many exegetical minds since.

I'd say the man is deciding what is theologically allowable based largely on semantic considerations. that is quite weak, It seems to me. It's obvious that the word "ekklesia" takes its English translational connotation from the context; so he doesn't get anywhere with me throwing that issue into the picture. This man just doesn't believe that Israel could possibly be "the church in the wilderness" going in, so therefore that's a "bad" translation. Well, that's fairly obviously a theological precommittment. 

I think his "questions" are nothing more than expressions of his unstated ecclessiology-committments, settled opinions he is fixed upon so far as how to think about the church. If you find out what he believes about defining the church today, then you'll be able to understand why he already "knows" that it makes no sense to think of OT Israel as church as well as nation. I suspect he thinks you only have a church-on-earth where a member believes he can say that most everyone in the company is bound for heaven, and that makes him comfortable saying they are a church. Given his fixation on percentages, he's not even comfortable saying Israel was even a weakly constituted church, or ever(?) in some generation could have been a strongly constituted one.

I'd say his ideas are at least resonant with dispensational themes, even if he doesn't identify with that grouping. But then, I see affinities between certain baptist-hermeneutic principles and dispensational-hermeneutic principles. I'm not saying these things "go together," but there's a reason why a Covenant Theology tendency to read "continuity" between the ages (ala Presbyterianism) tends to interfere with dispensational commitments.


----------

