Israel and the Church

[anochria]

Here's something I wrote for our church's discussion forums in order to explain my position on what the New Testament says about the identity of true Israel. This won't be news to alot of you who've listened to Steve, but I found it helpful to have a quick reference of the relevant scriptural arguments for the topic.

Israel and the Church
by Joshua Coles

Someone recently brought up Ezekiel 38 and 39, prophetic passages about Israel's future, in a discussion with me about eschatology (or, the study of the ‘last things’),. In the passage, Israel is said to be attacked by powerful enemies known as ‘Gog and Magog’ and God utterly destroys these enemies in a climactic showdown.

The same story (the short version) is told in Revelation 20:7-9, where the nations are inspired by Satan to attack the 'camp of God's people, the city He loves', indicating that it is the last thing that will happen before the final judgment.

I lean toward the understanding that the Church is the true fulfillment of Israel's promises and hopes. So, promises about Israel's future (after the first coming of Christ) are normally interpreted (by the first Christians) as things fulfilled in the Church age.

Thus, in this passage about ‘Gog and Magog’ from both Ezekiel and Revelation, I think "Israel and the city He loves" isn't some future earthly 'state of Israel', but us, the Church. But to make that argument sound, we‘re going to have to take a tour through the New Testament.

First off, this 'redefining of terms' I'm referring to (Israel= the Church, etc.) was definitely the a major fixation of the New Testament writers. What follows is a strong case demonstrating that the first Christians claimed that:

1.The true Israel is the Church
2.The true Jerusalem is the Church
3.The true Temple is the Church/Jesus

A little more in the way of clarification, before we dive into the verses: What I’m saying is that it is of the utmost importance when interpreting OT prophecies about Israel, Jerusalem, the Temple, Mt. Zion, etc.. that don't have an obvious fulfillment in OT history, to understand that the New Testament authors argued that those terms are equivalent to the Church, so they therefore looked for their fulfillment in the Church. So, most, if not all, prophecies about those things that were not fulfilled by the time of Christ, were fulfilled in the Church, and are not to be viewed as having to do with a future state of Israel. There may be a few exceptions to this; i.e., that the actual future state of Israel may still be referred to in some prophecies, but even then, certainly, most are really about the Church.

There are two contrasting views of eschatology which might need a bit of an outline here:

First there's the Premillenial Dispensationalist position, which:

-Expects future, physical fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies about Israel, including the anticipation of a rebuilt temple and temple sacrifices and a national, territorial reign of Christ
-Sometimes, but certainly not most of the time, propounds a ‘two people of God’ theory (one salvation plan for the Gentiles and another for the Jews)

This contrasts with the view I'm advocating, which would roughly be called teh Amillenialist Partial Preterist position, which among other things:
-Advocates for ‘one people of God’ , both Jew and Gentile
-Sees most (or all) prophecies in the Old Testament about Israel that were not fulfilled by the time of Jesus as actually speaking of the Church
-Stresses that Christ and the Church reign decisively now

So, on to my three points and the verses that evidence them:

1) The True Israel is the Church (not the physical nation)

Romans 9:6-8
6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Romans 2:28
28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.

Matthew 21:43
43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Matthew 3:9
9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:2-6,10-11
2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

see also John 8:12-47 and Romans 11

2) The True Jerusalem is the Church, the Bride of Christ (and therefore not a physical city)

To make this point, a logical chain must be developed:

A) Jesus is called the Bridegroom:

Mark 2:19-20 (and parallel passages in all 4 gospels)
19 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

Matthew 25:5
5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.


B) The Church is the Bride:

Ephesians 5:25-27,32
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 32 This is a profound mystery- but I am talking about Christ and the church.

C) The Bride is equivalent to the "New Jerusalem", so the "New Jerusalem" is the Church (not a physical city):

Revelation 21:2,9-10
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Galatians 4:26
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

John 18:36
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Luke 17:20-21
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."


D) Mt. Zion/Jerusalem now becomes the Church:

Hebrews 12:22-23a
22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.

Hebrews 13:14
14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

Hebrews 11:13-16
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country- a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

3.The True Temple is the Church/ Jesus, not a building:

John 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Acts 17:24
24 The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

Revelation 21:22
22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

2 Corinthians 6:16b
For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."



Conclusion

Now, again, there are a handful of verses in the OT and NT that may speak about the future of the earthly Israelites and the race of Jews, but I've come to believe that most are really about the Church, the true Israel, which is comprised of both physical Jews and Gentiles.

Why is all this important? Well, for a couple of reasons.

1) It helps us clarify our views on eschatology, which directly affect how we live our Christian lives- I hope to comment at this at some length later.

2) It helps us see the relevance and signficance of Old Testament passages and their relation to the Church. As a great excercise on this, read Isaiah 54:1-56:8 and Isaiah 60:1-62:12 in light of the New Testament interpretations of the phrases Israel, Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, and the Temple- not to mention the New Testament reinterpration of concepts such as sacrifices. I challenge you to read these passages with the fresh perspective (even if it requires a suspension of belief) that they are speaking of us, the Church, the Kingdom of God that will have no end and not some future temporal, physical kingdom.

I have to say, discovering how the New Testament authors redefined these terms (Israel, Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, and Temple) has totally revolutionized my reading of Scripture. I am so excited to be reading through the Prophets with this "key" to unlock their meanings. I just can't believe I've been reading the Bible so long and never before saw this. The Old Testament hardly seems to make any sense without this realization.

3) It helps us live “Kingdom Now”, realizing what it means to ‘reign with Christ’ as His Church now (Eph. 2:6-7). This also needs further comment. Our role in the world is not to hide and wait for an apocalypse, but to pray and work toward the marriage of heaven and earth (Matthew 6:10). We know that only the final return of Christ and the final judgment will finalize that process (1 Cor. 15:24-26), but we are to be actively engaged in the further establishment of His kingdom- making a real difference in the world in which we live.

[mikew]

I was trying to bring up the question about whether Israel was the Church. My analysis didn't find as much of a connection between the two that people assumed there was.
It may be too much for many people to look into the question of whether Israel is actually the Church. I get a bit flustered in investigating too issues that used to be standard doctrines for me.

You may see the other discussion at http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2550 which links to my quick survey of some of the names and phrases that you discussed too. I didn't mention of Zion or the bride -- these were related enough, but different enough to make it an uncertain addition to my topic.

So what should be noted here is that Romans 2 and Romans 9 are not very good for trying to make the Church out to be Israel. First in chapter 2 Paul appears to be rebuking wayward Jews and in the midst of that clarifying which of them were true Jews.

Then in Romans 9 Paul was just speaking about his grief over his fellow kinsmen according to the flesh(vs 3). Paul evidently was trying to explain the situation of his kinsmen, not to add Gentiles into the definition of Israel.
In verse 6, the purpose of explaining the meaning of "Israel" was to show God's faithfulness to His word. But His word was described in verse 4, in part, as His promises to Paul's kinsmen (to whom belong the covenants... and the promises.
So, to prove that God is faithful, Paul had to show that God fulfilled His promises to the people with whom He made the promise. Gentiles simply stated, were not logically included in the group named "Israel" when God made promises to Israel.

This only addresses the meaning of "Israel" within the Book of Romans. An argument may still exist, exclusive of Romans, that could try to associate the Church with Israel. My main thing was to explain why Romans doesn't establish that connection.

[anochria]

Well, setting aside the fact that national Israel is referenced in Romans, I think it's plain to see from all the other passages outside of Romans, coupled with some of the principles in those two Romans passages, that the Church is now equated with Israel.

Though it might be hard for some people to change their paradigm, I have to say this message is amazingly exciting and energizing to our notion of what we as the Church (Jew and Gentile) are called to be and called to do.

[RND]

"... the Church is now equated with Israel...."

The "church" (the "called out ones") are part of Israel. Israel is Jesus. Israel means "overcomer" Jesus "overcame" the world. Everything "national Israel" couldn't do, or wouldn't do, Jesus did in fact.

The "church" doesn't "replace Israel" it becomes Israel.

Replacement Theology

"I think that there is some confusion in the world today, among Christians and non-Christians alike, regarding the belief that the majority of Christians are taught or believe that “the Church” has somehow replaced the nation of Israel with respect to the promises, as well as the prophetic expectations attributed to the nation of Israel.

If this is indeed the thinking, that “the Church” has somehow replaced the nation of Israel then yes, that view, in light of clear and concise Biblical teaching and understanding, both in the Old Testament and that of the Apostle’s letters, is incorrect.

Personally I believe that very few Christians have this belief, because if more Christians did, they would understand the truth that the Church has not replaced Israel, Jesus Christ has!

Those that are called out by the Holy Spirit to believe in and, more imporantly, abide with Jesus Christ are members of His Body, the Church. They become adopted members of His nation. His family has replaced the secular, nation/state of Israel with the true nation of Israel, headed by the King Jesus Christ. Now, is that thinking simply semantics? Hardly. Here’s why:

In the Old Testament, if I wanted to join with the nation of Israel, after being exposed to their ceremonies, traditions and festivals, which were to lead to a clear revelation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, there were clear and specific guidelines that one would perform to become an Israelite. These “procedures” if you will were a type or a shadow for the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah by those that would accept Him, whether they were Jew or Gentile.

Exodus 12:43-49 clearly spells out God’s desire for accepting the Passover Lamb, Jesus Christ in type.

And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Now, if an Israelite had purchased a slave, that slave could participate in the eating of the Passover provided he was circumcised. Likewise, those that of their own volition who chose to partake in the eating Passover (verse 48), where also required to be circumcised and after wards were considered to be “as one that is born in the land.”

How are we, as Christians today, purchased just like a slave? Through the blood of Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:13. What is required of anyone that wishes to join Jesus Christ and become a follower of His way, truth and life? A circumcised heart. See Deuteronomy 30:6 and Romans 2:28-29. Those things in the Old Testament which pointed to Jesus Christ and that were to be performed by the tribe of Israel have all been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Those things are still being performed by Him today. When one takes the tremendous and wondrous leap of faith to enter into a relationship with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords they are openly declaring that they wish to be members of His family and His tribe.....the body, called Christians which are members of Israel."

[mikew]

Well, setting aside fact that national Israel is referenced in Romans, I think it's plain to see from all the other passages outside of Romans, coupled with some of the principles in those two Romans passages, that the Church is now equated with Israel.

Though it might be hard for some people to change their paradigm, I have to say this message is amazingly exciting and energizing to our notion of what we as the Church (Jew and Gentile) are called to be and called to do.

I didn't have any interpretations about Israel in prophecy or eschatology until I saw that Romans showed these prophecies to be about the bloodline Israel. So I went through a shift in thinking.

Your experience does seem to reflect similar changes to others here. But I haven't seen anything definitive in scripture (or evenly strongly suggestive) that Jesus or Paul or anyone saw the Church as being Israel. There are verses that show a connection between the New Jerusalem and the Church.

I would ask what amazing and exciting and energizing things you have gained from this connection, but I had asked a similar question recently. I didn't get a satisfying explanation of what benefits the Church has by the supposed association of "being Israel." And I would have to ask "What benefit is obtained by this association in contrast to that which we have in the Church anyhow?"

Anyhow, I'm not really trying to convince any specific person of anything. But I hope the discussion is useful to you, me and all others.

[MoGrace2u]

It does seem clear that Rev. distinguishes between the saints as being those in Christ and true Jerusalem as a heavenly city. The earthly counterparts in apostasy however take on symbolic names. Which seems in line with Paul's allegory of Hagar and Sarah and the 2 covenants. But in Rev., Israel/Jerusalem of the flesh is depicted as Babylon, Sodom and Egypt. So when we get to Gog and Magog coming against the saints in Rev 20 - who ought they to represent? I believe this is the only prophecy that explains Israel of the flesh back in the land having come in from the northern nations. Which given the Zionism of dispensationalism and its elevation of Israel over Christ, explains a lot to me of the deception we see going on today.

[mikew]

It does seem clear that Rev. distinguishes between the saints as being those in Christ and true Jerusalem as a heavenly city. The earthly counterparts in apostasy however take on symbolic names. Which seems in line with Paul's allegory of Hagar and Sarah and the 2 covenants. But in Rev., Israel/Jerusalem of the flesh is depicted as Babylon, Sodom and Egypt. So when we get to Gog and Magog coming against the saints in Rev 20 - who ought they to represent? I believe this is the only prophecy that explains Israel of the flesh back in the land having come in from the northern nations. Which given the Zionism of dispensationalism and its elevation of Israel over Christ, explains a lot to me of the deception we see going on today.

The problem of saying that Gog and Magog are Israel is that there were no judgment events upon Gog and Magog. The tendency of prophecy was to speak of Israel as the names of places that had been explicitly judged by God in interaction with Israel. So in a sense, the tables were turned whereupon Israel now became the country/people judged by the nations.

The best sense I make of Gog and Magog is that its a reference to nations beyond the Middle East that were not part of God's dealings and judgments. But it does seem like we have entered into the period of deception of nations now -- that such deception is of a religious nature in creating bias against Christianity. But I don't have enough understanding of the situation across nations to know if there truly is this overall increase of animosity against followers of Christ.