![]() | Q48 : Church vs. Israel |
| Q48 : Church vs. Israel When I read in my Bible in Acts 7 I noticed in verse 38 that Stephen actually uses the word "church" in reference to the time of Moses. I understand that the word 'church' comes from the Greek word ekklesia, which means 'called out ones' from which we get the word ecclesiastical. The main question is that most people I talk to say the Church began in the New Testament times, (usually at the time of Pentecost). Are not the Hebrews themselves the 'called out people' of the Old Testament? Even in Galatians 3:7-9 reads:
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. In Deuteronomy 7:6-8 it reads:
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. If this is not the Lord God Himself declaring that He has 'called out' his peculiar people unto himself then truly the heathen and the anti-Semites are right in saying that there is nothing special about the Jews. This would either make God a liar or the Bible inaccurate. If I am to believe Scripture then those people who tell me the Church started in the New Testament times don't read the same Bible that I do and are misleading me. I have a fear that this may be because of the rampant Dispensationalism that is so prevalent in today's liberal churches. I unfortunately noticed that those who ascribe to the Dispensationalism also ascribe to the Arminian heresy that Charles Spurgeon warned so strongly against. Can you help me with the seemingly irreconcilable difference between what I hear in the various Bible studies I attend and from behind the pulpit and what my Bible plainly makes reference to?
|
| A48 : by Tony Garland You mention that 'most people' you talk to 'say the Church began in New Testament times (usually at the time of Pentecost).' Perhaps there are reasons why they associate the beginning of the Church with the Day of Pentecost? Could it be that there are solid Biblical reasons for their idea that the Church did not exist prior to Pentecost? Indeed, this is the case. Most people who merge all people of faith into 'the Church' fail to understand the significance of the events of the Day of Pentecost--and their relation to the 'Promise of the Father' which Jesus told the disciples to wait for:
Jesus said they were to wait for this specific promise which 'you have heard from Me'. But when did they hear about this promise from Jesus? Jesus spoke of this unique promise many times:
Notice that the promise involves a unique coming of the Holy Spirit. But I thought that the Holy Spirit was omnipresent (being God) and was already ministering throughout history--even from the very beginning (Gen. 1:2)? Yes, indeed! But there was something very special about a new ministry of the Spirit. This new ministry could not occur until Jesus went to the cross. As Jesus Himself said:
How mysterious! The Holy Spirit is already ministering on earth, but Jesus says that He can't come unless Jesus leaves! Fortunately for us, John sheds more light on this situation in another passage:
John explains that the Holy Spirit was not yet [given] because Jesus was not yet glorified! There is something holding back this new ministry of the Spirit. He is active on earth, but there is something He cannot do until (1) Jesus departs and (2) Jesus is glorified? What is this which holds Him back? I submit to you that it is SIN! Jesus plans to build a new Temple 'made without hands' (Mark 14:58) -- like the physical Temple, before God's Spirit would set up residence in the Temple, it must be cleansed. The cleansing of this new Temple (within the believer, 1Cor. 3:16; 6:19) required the sacrifice of Jesus' blood which would occur at the cross. Prior to the cross, the Holy Spirit could not perform His baptizing work to form 'the body of Christ' which is the true technical phrase describing the Church (1Cor. 12:13). You rightfully observe that the term 'church' is not a technical term. That is, its meaning varies with context. In Acts 7:38, Stephen applies the term 'church' (KJV) to the congregation (NKJV, NASB) or assembly (NIV) of Israel in the wilderness. 1 Later in Acts, Luke applies the term even to non believers ('assembly', Acts 19:32, 39, 41). Thus, we see that the Greek term for 'church' means nothing more than those who are 'called out' as a group. The term doesn't even have the restricted meaning that your question implies (the faithful through the ages) because it doesn't necessarily denote people called out by God. Since the term 'ekklesia,' often translated 'church,' doesn't really tells us whether people are even believers, how do we go about defining the Church? Well, we let scripture define what the Church is. And when we do that, we find that the key identifying characteristic of the Church is Holy Spirit baptism (1Cor. 12:13). This is what forms the body of Christ which is actually a much better designation for the world-wide body of believers than the term 'church.' Now, as to the relationship between those baptized by the Spirit and Old Testament Israel, we look to Paul:
Notice some important points Paul makes to the Ephesian believers: (1) they were not party to the covenants of promise (including the Abrahamic covenant); (2) at the cross, Jesus joined Gentiles and Jews together to form 'one new man'; (3) this new 'household of God' is built on a foundation made up of apostles and prophets; (4) this is the Temple which the Holy Spirit now indwells permanently -- something that never occurred prior to Pentecost. Paul makes reference to a foundation. One might have expected him to refer to the person some contend to be 'the first member of the church': Adam. Not so! He refers to a foundation of apostles and prophets. Notice that there are no apostles in the OT. Then too, the near context establishes that the prophets he has in mind are NT prophets, not OT prophets (Eph. 3:5; 4:11). What have we learned so far?
Are there other indicators that the Church does not exist in the Old Testament? Yes:
You state that there is 'rampant Dispensationalism' in today's liberal churches. This is news to me! My experience is just the opposite: Dispensationalism thrives in conservative churches where people take the scriptures at face value. Replacement and Covenant Theology are more prevalent in liberal realms than Dispensationalism ever has been. (To be fair, Replacement and Covenant Theology are also found in conservative churches, but my point is simply that of the three, Dispensationalism is less frequently found associated with liberalism than the others.) I believe you falsely associate Dispensationalism with Arminianism--perhaps an indication that you don't understand Dispensationalism very well yet. Every dispensationalist I've met (so far) has been more Calvinist in theology than Arminian (this writer included). Consider people such as Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, and a host of others. I think your main challenge is that you are trying to force conclusions out of passages which you don't yet fully understand. In particular, you seem to be lacking a comprehensive overview of the scripture which would help you to systematize God's revelation and understand where there are discontinuities vs. where things remain the same. You are reading the book as if it were 'flat' -- everything it says applies equally in its original context to all readers. This is simply not the case. There are things we have as NT believers which people in the OT did not have (e.g., Holy Spirit baptism, permanent indwelling of the Spirit, sealing of the Spirit). And there are things with certain OT believers were beholden to that we are no longer (e.g., the laws of Moses). It is these sorts of issues that are the very heart and soul of what makes a person a Dispensationalist: recognizing that the scriptures make distinctions and that to make any sense of the scriptures we must account for them. All of scripture is for our learning, but not all of scripture is written directly to us as the primary audience (e.g., Matthew 24). I would suggest you seek to more fully understand the teachings of dispensationalists before assuming they are false. Perhaps it would be fruitful to spend time studying out the details of the 'Promise of the Father' and the 'Coming of the Spirit' on the Day of Pentecost. Consider how these events tied to Jesus' work at the cross and how the 'body of Christ' is dependent upon them? Once you grasp these implications, you will be well on your way to appreciating that the Church did not exist prior to Pentecost. For more background on the events associated with the Day of Pentecost, see our teaching on The Promise of Pentecosta.
[1] Notice that the scholars who translated the NKJV, NASB, and NIV believed it best not to render 'ekklesia' as 'church' in Acts 7:38. They understood a different usage was afoot. Links Mentioned Above a - See http://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/'http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/10-01.htm'. |