The Church: c.AD33 - present?

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:50 pm

As you know, Dispensationalism (the traditional kind) stands and falls on the idea that God is no longer dealng with Israel and will only start dealing with her again once the Church has been removed (by pre-tribulation secret rapture). Apparently, they think that He can't multi-task!

Anyhoo, I was wondering, as non-Dispensationalists, when do you guys think that the Church came into existence? I know most of you believe that the church has superceded or dar eI say, "replaced" Israel. Would this mean that you agree wit the Dispensationalists in saying that the church did not exist before the time of Jesus?

I'm not looking to debate, I'm just in getting some different understandings of the Church.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:17 pm

I think Dispensationalism stands or falls on a great deal more than the question of Israel. There are bigger issues, such as an overarching flawed hermeneutic. But we won't go there.

I think it helps, when discussing "the Church" if we use the Biblical word - ecclesia - which helps dispense with some of the collected baggage of the last 2,000 years. Ecclesia meant "the assembly of the elect". In secular usage "the elect" would refer to free citizens or civic leaders. The word ecclesia appears roughly 80 times in the Septuagint and is used to refer to, among other things, "the assembly of Yahweh" (Ezra 10, Neh. 13, etc.).

According to Frank Stagg, former Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

The expression, "the church of God" (he ekklesia tou theou), appears first in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. That Old Testament expression can be "used to describe God's people when assembled locally and also with no reference to assembly."Usually ekklesia is a translation of qahal (assembly), but ekklesia is not the only word used to translate qahal. In earlier Old Testament usage, God's assembled people was called a qahal. The term edhah (congregation) was used to refer to the people whether assembled or not. According to F. J. A. Hort, after the Exile, the usage of qahal paralleled the earlier usage of edhah. First century Jewish Christians, therefore, upon hearing the expression he ekklesia tou theou, "would think of the people of God with no necessary reference to localization and certainly not to organization...

Edhah in the Hebrew Bible describes the Israel of God. Before the Exile, qahal was employed to describe Israel assembled, but after the Exile it could describe Israel either assembled or not. In the Septuagint, sunagoge usually translated edhah, but it also translated qahal in the Pentateuch. The usual translation for qahal was ekklesia. Ekklesia takes on fuller meaning in Septuagint books referring to the postexilic period. It still translates qahal, which itself now included the fuller meaning of edhah. Thus, in the Septuagint, the Bible of the earliest Christians, the ekklesia of God meant the people of God.

Eduard Schweizer, New Testament scholar at the University of Zurich, wrote:

The thing that distinguishes the Church from other gatherings is the fact that it is the assembly "of God," qahal Jahwe, ekklesia theou . . . . The Church of Jesus is nothing other than the Israel of God, the chosen people of the 0.T. who in the N.T. are chosen out of the world. One can belong to the Church only as an inheritor of the hope of Israel, only as a "true Israelite."

The early Jewish Christians saw themselves as the "true Israel". Paul's metaphor in Romans of Gentile believers being grafted into the olive tree speaks of the fulfillment of Israel: The ecclesia of God.

In that sense then, you could say that the church started with Abraham but, of course, came into true focus in the person of Jesus Christ.

Post by **_Homer** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:11 am

When Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my Church" did He have in mind a remodeling of the Church of the OT or a new one that the members of the old one could become part of?

Nicodemus, John 3, appears to have beeen a good man, a teacher of Israel in the old church but needed to be born again to enter the new.

If Christ's Church is built on "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone", how could the Church exist before the foundation?

Seems to me God has always had a people, a Church in one sense, but Christ has a Church that is different. All have the indwelling Spirit, are born again, etc.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:53 am

Mort said: "In that sense then, you could say that the church started with Abraham but, of course, came into true focus in the person of Jesus Christ."

Homer said: "Seems to me God has always had a people, a Church in one sense, but Christ has a Church that is different."

I think we're kind of saying the same thing.

Post by **_Ely** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:41 pm

Mort_Coyle wrote:Mort said: "In that sense then, you could say that the church started with Abraham but, of course, came into true focus in the person of Jesus Christ."

Homer said: "Seems to me God has always had a people, a Church in one sense, but Christ has a Church that is different."

I think we're kind of saying the same thing.

What about before Abraham?

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:22 pm

What about before Abraham?

I suppose one could stretch it to make the case for Noah and his offspring (assuming one believes Noah was real and not mythical).

The bottom line is that there is a consistent pattern all through the Bible of a remnant who remain faithful to God. The NT church saw themselves as this remnant in their day.

Post by **_Ely** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:14 pm

Mort_Coyle wrote:
What about before Abraham?
I suppose one could stretch it to make the case for Noah and his offspring (assuming one believes Noah was real and not mythical).

The bottom line is that there is a consistent pattern all through the Bible of a remnant who remain faithful to God. The NT church saw themselves as this remnant in their day.

Yep, I agree.

Can I ask you another question. Could you briefly outline the basic amillennial view concerning Israel and the church. Do you understand that the Church is the new Israel and that this change-over took place in the first century?

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:01 pm

Could you briefly outline the basic amillennial view concerning Israel and the church.

I wouldn't presume to speak for other amillenialists, but my view is that Israel (as a nation or ethnic people) is no different to the church than Irish, Italians, Koreans or any other people group. Israel/Jews are just one among many nations/peoples (wonderful people though they are) who all come to God on the same terms: Through Jesus Christ.

There is much to learn and treasure from Jewish history, culture and language, particulary as it relates to Biblical exegesis.

Do you understand that the Church is the new Israel and that this change-over took place in the first century?

No, I don't consider the church to be the "new Israel". That would be "Replacement Theology". I consider the church to be the continuation of Israel, fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is "Olive Branch Theology". Any Jew, at any time, can become part of True Israel, as can any Gentile. The entry requirement is not based on ethnicity or geo-politics. It is based on faith in Jesus Christ.

Post by **_Ely** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:22 am

Mort_Coyle wrote:
Could you briefly outline the basic amillennial view concerning Israel and the church.
I wouldn't presume to speak for other amillenialists, but my view is that Israel (as a nation or ethnic people) is no different to the church than Irish, Italians, Koreans or any other people group. Israel/Jews are just one among many nations/peoples (wonderful people though they are) who all come to God on the same terms: Through Jesus Christ.

So, has it always been the case that "Israel (as a nation or ethnic people) is no different to the church than Irish, Italians, Koreans or any other people group." The reason I ask is because you went on to say:

Mort_Coyle wrote:
Do you understand that the Church is the new Israel and that this change-over took place in the first century?
No, I don't consider the church to be the "new Israel". That would be "Replacement Theology". I consider the church to be the continuation of Israel, fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is "Olive Branch Theology". Any Jew, at any time, can become part of True Israel, as can any Gentile. The entry requirement is not based on ethnicity or geo-politics. It is based on faith in Jesus Christ.

Does the Olive Branch Theology only apply to Israel or does it also apply to other nations/people groups? Has there always been "a true Israel" and has it always included Gentiles? Or is there such a thing as a "true Ireland" or a "true Italy"?

Post by **_anothersteve** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:58 pm

Ely wrote

Does the Olive Branch Theology only apply to Israel or does it also apply to other nations/people groups?

I think Mort was referring to true Israel as the faithful Israelites in a spiritual sense.

Rom 9:6 ….For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.

Ely wrote

Has there always been "a true Israel" and has it always included Gentiles?

It seems God has always had a remnant. There were also numerous Gentile converts, to Judaism, before Christ.

For the first few years Christians were exclusively Jewish. Using Mort’s definition it’s seems fairly clear to me who these early Jews were….God’s true Israel who faithfully followed the Messiah. Many Israelites rejected the Messiah. And of course Many Gentiles were grafted in later.

If you don’t consider the early Jews (before Gentiles were added in)“true Israel” then how would you categorize them? Natural Israelites and Christian Israelites? It seems kind of awkward or fuzzy to me. How would you categorize them biblically?

Steve