Principle 19
HERMENEUTICS
PRINCIPLE 19
Differentiate Between Israel and the Church
When did the Church begin? We believe the Bible indicates that the Church began at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the early Christians who were gathered together in Jerusalem (Acts 2). However, Christians are not all in agreement that the Church began at Pentecost. Some say it began in the Old Testament with Abraham. Others say it began as far back as Adam, and they would say the Church is comprised of all the people of God throughout human history. That leads us to the principle of differentiating between Israel and the Church. It continues our discussion of Covenant and Dispensational theologies.
Look again at this diagram which contrasts these two theologies. Dispensationalists believe that the Church began in the Dispensation of Grace. The Church wasn’t present in Old Testament times, and it shouldn’t be confused or combined with the nation of Israel.
Although the Church, as it exists now, includes saved Jews and Gentiles, God is still working with the Jewish people. Romans chapter 11 certainly indicates that God still has plans for the nation of Israel. The unfulfilled prophecies about Israel that were made in the Old Testament will be fulfilled in the future. There is no indication these prophecies were meant to be spiritualized and applied to the Church.
Therefore, our principle for this lesson is, Differentiate Between Israel and the Church. When we interpret Scripture, we must ask ourselves whether the prophecy or promise is specifically made to Israel, or whether it was specifically given for the Church.
Covenant theologians take a different approach to Israel and the Church. In their view, a Covenant of Redemption overarches all of human history. They tend to see only “one people of God” throughout history. As a result, the distinction between Israel and the Church is blurred, and often lost completely.
Most covenant theologians would say that the Church began with Abraham, and the Church is founded on the Abrahamic Covenant. they would call the Church of the New Testament the “New Israel.” So in this scheme, the “Church” in the Old Testament is Israel, and the Church in the New Testament is the “New Israel.” Thus, the distinction between Israel and the Church is blurred. The unfulfilled prophecies that were made to the nation of Israel are spiritualized or allegorized to the Church of the New Testament, the “New Israel.”
As you can imagine, these two different approaches lead to some major differences in interpretation. Let’s look at a few examples.
Genesis 12:1-3, 13:14-17, and 15:18
These passages of Scripture establish and confirm God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How should the Abrahamic Covenant be interpreted? It’s clearly an unconditional covenant given to the literal descendants of Abraham, the Jewish people, and thus it should be interpreted literally. Abraham certainly understood that this covenant was to apply to his literal, biological descendants and to a specific land area in the Middle East that God described to him in Genesis 15:18. It seems quite clear that God intended Abraham to understand these promises in a literal way.
However, believers who hold to Covenant theology interpret the Abrahamic Covenant differently. They allegorize the descendants of Abraham, and say that his descendants are Christians in the church. They also allegorize the land given to Abraham as the world that we Christians are to evangelize. They spiritualize all the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant and apply them to the New Testament Church. The primary basis and rationale for this interpretation is the fact that the biological descendants of Abraham did not consistently follow God. So they say the promises no longer apply to the Jewish people, and they are now to be allegorized to the New Testament Church.
But there’s a problem with this rationale. The covenant promises given to Abraham were unconditional. The promises of the covenant did not depend on whether or not Abraham’s descendants continued to follow God. Romans 11 indicates that the Abrahamic Covenant is still valid today. Because of disobedience, Israel has been temporarily “set aside” during the present Church age, but Israel will become a believing nation in the future. At that future time all the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled literally, including the possession of the Land. The Church should not be read into this covenant, and the promises of the covenant should not be spiritualized to the Church. Differentiate between Israel and the Church!
Isaiah 11:6-12
Verses 11 and 12 of this prophecy concern the return of Israel and Judah to the land of Israel from “the four corners of the earth.” This prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, because until modern times, the Jews have never returned to their land from all of the places mentioned here. Notice that Isaiah 11:11 refers to a “second time.” The first return was the Jews’ return from their captivity in Babylon. This second return will take place - literally. The present-day return of many Jews to the Land from all over the earth, along with the establishment of the modern state of Israel, may be the beginning of this prophesied return.
Covenant theologians interpret this passage differently. Some say the “second” time refers to Judah’s return from Babylon (the first being the exodus from Egypt). But the peaceful conditions described by Isaiah didn’t take place after the Babylonian captivity. Nevertheless, most covenant theologians spiritualize this prophecy to the Church, saying that it refers to the worldwide response to the gospel by which people of all nations return and become part of the church, the New Israel.
Furthermore, covenant theologians spiritualize the animals mentioned in verses 6-10 to apply to the Church as well. Should these animals be considered “wolf-like” and “sheep-like” believers in the church? This seems unlikely, and therefore this portion of the passage should also be interpreted literally. These peaceful conditions refer to the time when the Lord will return and establish His millennial kingdom on earth. Certain aspects of the curse will be lifted at that time. The wolf will literally lie down with the lamb, and children will not have to fear poisonous snakes. Since Covenant theology does not believe in a future millennial kingdom, everything in the passage, including the animals, must be spiritualized to the peace and love that exists in the Church today.
So we see that there are major differences in the interpretation of this passage, depending on whether or not you distinguish between Israel and the Church.
Ezekiel 28:25-26
Here’s another passage that’s interpreted differently, depending on the theological approach of the interpreter. Dispensationalists believe that this prophecy refers to the literal, millennial kingdom that Christ will set up on earth. Verse 25 refers to the literal gathering of the Jewish people to the literal land of ancient Israel, and verse 26 indicates a time of great peace after the Lord returns and destroys the enemies of the Jewish people.
Believers who hold Covenant theology spiritualize this passage of Scripture. They spiritualize the re-gathering of Israel by seeing it as the gathering of people into the Church through the gospel. The land given by God to Jacob is therefore viewed as the world, which should be evangelized, and peace for Israel is spiritualized to be the peace and protection we enjoy in the Church today.
The important question we must ask at this point is: Which theology is correct? Should we see one people of God throughout human history? Or should we make a distinction between Israel and the Church in God’s dealings with mankind? Should the Israel of the Old Testament be spiritualized to the Church of the New Testament, and should the Church be viewed as the “New Israel”? The following Scriptures guide us to answers for these questions.
Matthew 16:18
The Church is first mentioned in Matthew 16. The Church was not in existence when the Lord Jesus Christ said (in the future tense), “I will build My church.” He did not say that the Church was continuation of the Old Testament “people of God.”
Ephesians 2:20
This verse indicates that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself as the cornerstone. When you build a house, the foundation comes first. How could the Church have begun in the Old Testament, before the time of the apostles?
1 Corinthians 10:32
The Church and Israel are distinguished in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 10:32, notice the distinction between the Church and the Jewish people.
Romans 11
This is a key passage that distinguishes between Israel and the Church. Romans 11 clearly indicates that God has set Israel aside temporarily from its former place of His blessing during this present Church age. And it clearly teaches that God plans to restore the Jewish people to their place of blessing. There’s no blurring of the distinction between the Church and Israel in Romans 11.
Look specifically at verses 25 and 26. The words “all Israel” do not refer to the Church. they refer to the believing Jews who will comprise the nation of Israel when the Lord sets up His millennial kingdom. Notice that when Paul quoted from the Old Testament book of Isaiah, he didn’t spiritualize Zion or Jacob to the Church as the “New Israel”! Paul, the inspired writer, differentiated between Israel and the Church.
Ephesians 3:1-12
Another reason to believe that the Church didn’t begin in Old Testament times is the fact that the New Testament refers to the Church as a “mystery.” The New Testament uses the term “mystery” to refer to a truth that was concealed in the Old Testament, but is now fully revealed in the New Testament with the coming of Christ. If the Church is merely a change in terminology for the people of God throughout human history, it wouldn’t be called a “mystery.” The mystery of the church includes the great truths that the Church is the body and bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:30-32). Thus, it could not have existed before the coming of Christ! The Church is unique. It must be distinguished from Israel.
Given these straightforward and scriptural reasons for distinguishing between the Church and Israel, why does covenant theology continue to blur the distinction between the two? Let’s look at several reasons:
Galatians 3:7, 29
A covenant theologian reading this passage will say, “All believers are children of Abraham. There’s no distinction between Israel and the Church.” Dispensationalists respond that there is the natural, “biological seed” of Abraham, and there is the “spiritual seed” of Abraham. While all who believe by faith are the spiritual seed of Abraham, this doesn’t invalidate the Abrahamic Covenant made with Abraham and his natural, biological descendants.
Galatians 6:16
Covenant theologians use this verse to argue that the Church is “the Israel of God.” But here the term refers to faithful Christian Jews! In the letter to the Galatians, Paul was arguing against the false teaching of the Judaizers. Now he’s pronouncing blessing upon the faithful believers, and especially upon faithful Jewish believers. While Jewish believers today are part of the Church, they are still Jews. They are the “believing remnant” of Israel. They are the Israel of God!
Hebrews 8:8-12 and Galatians 3:16
A final argument that Covenant theologians use for viewing one people of God throughout history is that Hebrews 8 applies the New Covenant to Christians. The author of Hebrews quoted the New Covenant prophecy from Jeremiah 31.
In the context of Jeremiah 31 we find that the New Covenant is specifically made with Israel and Judah, yet Hebrews seems to apply it to Christians in the Church. The resolution is that the New Covenant was made with Israel and will be fulfilled with Israel in the future. However, the blessings of the New Covenant have been extended to the Church.
Maybe this illustration will be helpful. Suppose you promise to give each of your children a car on their 18th birthday, and they believe your promise. When they turn eighteen, however, instead of giving them real cars, you give them a picture of a car. You have spiritualized your promise! Your kids would feel angry, and rightly so.
Now suppose that your children had flunked driver’s education. They’re irresponsible and fail to obey traffic laws. You may give them the real car on their 18th birthday, but you withhold the keys to their real cars until they learn to drive properly. The car still belongs to your children, but the children are temporarily kept from driving them.
In the same way, Israel has been temporarily kept from enjoying the literal promises that God made in His unconditional covenants with Israel. These promises shouldn’t be spiritualized away. These covenants will be fulfilled literally when Israel returns to the Lord.
To continue the illustration, suppose you adopt several children and extend the promise of a car to your adopted children. In your grace, you’re free to do this. If the adopted children prove themselves capable of safe driving when they turn eighteen, you may give them their cars and the keys, and they begin to enjoy the blessings. Meanwhile, your biological children, to whom you originally made your promise, are still waiting to receive the blessings of the promise.
The point of the illustration should be obvious. It would be wrong to spiritualize the promise you made to your biological children, even though their behavior shows they are not ready to drive the cars at the present time. Furthermore, you would not be wrong to extend the blessings of the promise to your adopted children. In the same way, the blessings of God’s unconditional covenants with Israel have been delayed for Israel, but they have been extended to the Church—not instead of Israel, but in addition to Israel.
Galatians 3:16 refers to the unconditional covenant promises made to Abraham and his Seed—not “seeds,” but “Seed.” This Seed is Christ, and in Christ all the promises are good, not only for the believing remnant of Israel, but also for all believers in the Church today. Second Corinthians 7:1 refers to the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament. As Christians, we have these promises as well. The promises have not been terminated for Israel, but they have been extended to the Church.
Dispensational theology and Covenant theology agree in many areas of Christian faith and doctrine. We stand together on the crucial doctrines of salvation and the inspiration and authority of the Bible. But because Covenant theology does not differentiate between Israel and the Church, there are major differences between us in the interpretation of many passages of Scripture. Dispensationalists believe that, to be consistent in our hermeneutics, we must not read the Church back into the Old Testament (except in types), nor should we make the Church some kind of “New Testament Israel.” God still has plans for Israel, His chosen people!