Using three lines of thought I want to prove the distinction between Israel and the Church. There are numerous reasons why this is important, but primarily at the moment due to current events. God still has a purpose for ethnic Israel and it is right, despite their current denial of the Messiah, to support their right to exist and to exist in the land.
In his book, Basic Theology, Ryrie highlights three distinctives between Israel and the church even after the church was established. If they are one and the same, or if the one has replaced the other, then why contrast them?
- 1. Contrasts Between Israel and the Church
In the New Testament ethnic Israel and Gentiles are contrasted. If the original, ethnic Israel had been replaced by the church, or simply had become a part of the church, then why are they spoken to directly as Israel throughout the book of Acts? (Acts 3:12; 4:8, 10; 5:21, 31, 25; 21:19)
Did they have it wrong because Acts is a transitional period? Did they do it for simplicity, trying to avoid the discussion in favor of weightier matters? Or did they continue to address the people of Israel as Israel because they were still Israel?
If the references in Acts are dismissed, we still see a contrast made in Romans 9:3-4:
“(3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
Here, Paul makes it clear of whom he is speaking, ethnic Israel. He calls them his brethren, not just in a spiritual sense but physically, “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…” He speaks of the historic, ethnic people as being the ones who received the covenants and the giving of the law, to whom belonged the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). They were the ones who physically were the line through whom Messiah was born.
These statements cannot be allegorized away or transferred to another. Paul clearly identifies ethnic Israel as still a distinguishable people of God.
Nor does verse 6 led weight to their argument when it says “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
We can easily contrast ethnic Israel from the church. But we can also distinguish believing Israel from ethnic Israel. We don’t have to erase ethnic Israel and replace them with believers of every ethnicity.
Even in the Old Testament a contrast was made between the believing descendants and the unbelieving descendants of Abraham. It’s a perfectly natural reading, and consistent with the rest of Scripture. This lines up perfectly with Paul’s line of argument in Romans 2:28-29.
Simply being a descendant of Abraham did not guarantee every blessing or participation in every part of the promises made to Abraham. Even among believing Jews not all of them were equal participants in the fulfilment of promises made to the “fathers”.
- 2. Ethnic Israel and the Church are Distinct
Often those who believe the church has replaced or absorbed ethnic Israel will point to Galatians 3:27-28 as evidence that in the church there is neither Jew nor Greek.
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
However, in 1 Corinthians 10:32 Paul makes a clear distinction between Jew, Gentile, and the church.
“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.”
If in the church they are all one and the same, then why make the distinction? Why isolate the church of God from Gentiles and from the ethnic people of Israel?
In line with 1 Corinthians 10:32 let’s return to Galatians 3. Does anyone deny that some people are still prisoners and some are free? Do they deny that males and females still exist? If so, this would be a boon for the transgender community?
In Galatians 3:28 Paul deals with unity and equality in Christ, with the law, and with the spiritual partakers of the seed of Abraham regarding spiritual blessings.
The promises to Abraham fell into distinct categories of personal, familial, ethnic, and spiritual. Those who deny those distinctions have to arbitrarily confer some promises on themselves and not others. They must make some promises relevant to themselves, and simply ignore the others.
Even though Abraham had many children the promises followed the line of Isaac and then Jacob. Then, with Jacob though faithful believers would be found among the twelve tribes, it was only to a particular tribe and a single family line that the Messiah would be born. So, not all of the promises applied to all of the descendants. Some were selected to fulfil the purposes of God. While others were faithful, they were not included in that precise way.
So, it is not inconsistent or problematic to see that believers in the church are the seed of Abraham in one sense, while leaving other parts of the covenant to ethnic Israel.
This interpretation applies to connected passages in Romans 3 and 9-11 also.
Consider also Ephesians 2:11-15. Paul describes Gentiles as being without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants, without hope, and without God.
Jew and Gentiles were separated by the law and the promises given exclusively to Israel.
However, because of the blood of Christ we have been brought near. But brought near to what? Israel? No. We are brought near to God. Further, we are not absorbed into Israel, and Israel is not transformed into something else, but God has made something new. Jew and Gentile, previously separated by the law are brought together by Christ by becoming something new! The church!
Finally, consider this other distinctives. All of which could be expanded upon, but for I need to try and wrap things up.
Israel – A nation chosen and given unconditional and conditional covenants, not all individuals are believers and therefore saved; their origin is with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; God’s program for them centered in Jerusalem and draws in from around the world; their hope included an earthly kingdom with physical blessings and boundaries; they had a limited priesthood in a particular family line; they had a distinctively ethnic focus, though others could be brought in under strict conditions; their worship focused on a place, Jerusalem; they are described as the wife of God.
The Church – A called out assembly of every ethnicity made up of only saved individuals; our origin is with Christ at Pentecost (some understandably will go back to the earthly ministry of Christ); God’s program for us began at Jerusalem but reaches out to the world; our hope is focused on Heaven and Christ’s glorious appearing; each member of the church is a priest; the church is not focused on any ethnicity but made up of every nation; anyone can become a part by being born again without any physical sign or symbol; our worship is wherever we may be, particularly where two or three are gathered together; and we are the bride of Jesus Christ to be presented one day spotless and to partake in the marriage supper of the Lamb.
- 3. The Israel of God
Another favored passage of those who want to see themselves as replacing Israel is Galatians 6:16. Who, exactly, are the Israel of God?
Some might want to use this phrase to nullify the previous two arguments made. They argue that yes, ethnic Israel continues, however, the Israel of God has become the new recipients of the promises. Now, ethnic Israel is no different to any other nation.
Much hangs upon the word “and”. It can be used in an explicative sense where it has the meaning of “even”. In this case the sentence would read, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, EVEN [and] upon the Israel of God.” If this were the case then the church and Israel are one and the same. The phrase, “Israel of God” becomes a synonym of the “new creature” in verse 15.
However, the word “and” can have two other meanings. It can be used in an emphatic sense, it adds a special part to the whole. This is the way it is used in Mark 16:7. Jesus tells the women at the tomb to give a message to the disciples AND Peter. He was not saying Peter was not a disciple, he was making a special point to include Peter.
Another meaning for the word “and” is connective. It’s less emphatic than the above usage, but it also distinguishes Israel from the church made up of Jews and Gentiles.
Grammar alone does settle what is meant by “Israel of God”. As is always the case, we must look to the context.
Ryrie explains,
“While the grammar cannot of itself decide the question, the argument of the book of Galatians does favor the connective or emphatic meaning of ‘and’. Paul had strongly attacked the Jewish legalists; therefore, it would be natural for him to remember with a special blessing those Jews who had forsaken this legalism and followed Christ and the rule of the new creation.”
Leave a Reply