|
One God. One Ecclesia. One Israel.
by Brian Hennessy
An article by
the late author and teacher Derek Prince appeared in the Spring, 2001
issue of a quarterly newspaper publication, Christians For Israel
Today. The article was entitled, “Who Is Israel?” and was adapted
from “Who Are the Israel of God?” written by Prince in 1984. I
was shocked to see that Prince, whose teachings I have long admired,
took the position he did concerning the identity of Israel and the
church!
The essence
of his teaching, which he calls “two entities,” is that the Bible is a
book divided into two separate stories about two separate people of
God, the church and Israel. As I discovered later, this teaching can
be traced back to the writings of John Nelson Darby who wrote in the
early 1800’s. His theology went viral when included in the Scofield
Bible notes a hundred years later. This is the same man who brought us
the “rapture” teaching as God’s way to separate the church from the
Israel before the coming of anti-Christ.
Although I greatly respect the ministry of Derek Prince and his
support for Israel, I cannot agree with this particular teaching he
has embraced. I believe the Bible is clearly a continuous story about
one and the same entity – namely Israel. The Old Testament tells how
this family grew to become a nation and was given marvelous future
promises related to a coming Messiah. In the New Testament we learn
about the great difficulty the nation then had in transitioning from
the Old Covenant mediated by Moses into the New Covenant inaugurated
by Messiah Jesus. I have written this article in an attempt to reveal
the error of the “two-entity” teaching.
His Argument
In trying to
establish his belief that the church and Israel are two permanently
separate entities,” Prince lists all 79 verses in the New Testament
where the word “Israel” or “Israelite” is mentioned. He argues that
the word “Israel” found in all these NT references continues to refer
to the same entity found in the first half of our Bible. And if that
is true, which it is, then it can’t be the other group who is called
“the church.” But just because a part of the nation is called by one
name (“the church”) doesn’t disqualify it from also being called by
another name, namely “Israel.” It would be like saying Episcopalians
are automatically different from the church because they are referred
to as “Episcopalians” and not “the church.”
Let’s
consider one of the 79 NT Scriptures quoted by Prince in the NT that
mentions the word “Israel”: “I will make a new covenant with the
House of Judah and with the House of Israel” (Heb. 8:8). This
Scripture identifies the New Covenant introduced by Jesus to be the
very “new covenant” promised to the nation of Israel by the prophet
Jeremiah. (Jer. 31:31.) However, when it was offered to Israel, some
Jews accepted it while others rejected it. Those who accepted it were
eventually known as “the church of Jesus Christ.” If the church had
remained purely Jewish, it would have been obvious the nation of
Israel had simply split into two factions - those who moved forward
into the New Covenant and those who chose to stay under the Old
Covenant. Things got more complicated when Gentiles were suddenly
invited into New Covenant Israel. In time that minority became the
majority, which resulted in a major cultural shift that so eroded the
identity of New Covenant Israel that Jews no longer joined. Without
any Jews or Jewish influence in the church, it no longer resembled
Israel. Yet it still was!
Let’s look at
the first “Israel” Scripture on Prince’s list, the one that declares
Jesus to be the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy about a “ruler who
will shepherd my people Israel” (Matt 2:6). This future “shepherd”
is declared to be Israel’s Messiah! To accept Prince’s argument that
the church and Israel are different entities requires Jesus to
abdicate His claim to be the leader of Israel to become the leader of
the church. Either that, or Jesus has become the head of two groups of
people: a Gentile church and a Jewish Israel. But that violates the
entire spirit of the New Testament! Over and over we are told that in
Him, both Jews and Gentiles have become ”one new man” (Eph
2:15). That we are “one flock with one shepherd” (John 10:16).
“That through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs (the NIV
inserts “together with Israel”), members together of one
body ” (Eph. 3:6). Jesus final prayer with His disciples was
that all who hear the gospel “may be one” (John 17:21). The
Scriptures simply do not allow us to say that Jesus has become the
head of a new Gentile entity called “the church” that is totally
separate from Israel.
A Rose by Any Other Name
So - if they
are the same entity, why does the Bible refer to the two groups by two
different names? It doesn’t. Just as the word “Israel” is used the
same way in both testaments, so is ecclesia, the word
translated as “church” in the NT, the same in both testaments. That’s
right, the same Greek word ecclesia is found in both testaments
describing the same ever-growing, faith-filled community of God’s
chosen people. How can that be, you might ask, because wasn’t the OT
written in Hebrew, not Greek? Yes the OT was originally written in
Hebrew but a Greek translation of the OT was made by 70 rabbis known
as the Septuagint before the coming of Jesus. In over 200 places where
the rabbis found the Hebrew words ehad and qahal, which
are translated into English as “assembly” and “congregation” in our
OT, they rendered them as ecclesia in the Greek.
Since Greek
was the original language of the NT we can now compare the two
testaments in the same language. And we can see that ecclesia
in the OT is always translated into English as “congregation” or
“assembly.” For example, Exodus 17:1 reads: “All the congregation
(ecclesia) of the children of Israel moved on from the wilderness of
Sin.” But in the NT, ecclesia is almost always translated
as “church.” This has made it appear as if God has two separate and
distinct groups.
The problem
is the English word “church.” It is a bad translation of ecclesia.
Ecclesia, which literally means “the called-out-ones” would
have been better translated in our New Testament as “congregation” or
“assembly, just as it is in the OT. That is how Tyndale originally
rendered it in his English translation, but later the translators of
the King James version changed it everywhere to “church.” If they had
left it as “assembly” or “congregation” we would see that it is used
the exact same way throughout the Bible.
But
the NT ecclesia is different from the OT ecclesia, isn’t it? Those who
are in Messiah’s congregation or “church” have certainly advanced in
the realm of the spirit, but they are no less a part of the same
physical entity known as Israel. That is, New Covenant Israel has
received an impartation of God’s Spirit, and a forgiveness of sins,
that the rest of Israel still lacks. But both groups are still Israel,
even though presently New Covenant Israel includes more Gentiles than
Jews.
(So
that there will be no confusion about what I am saying, let me add
also that the Jewish people who have not yet entered into the promised
New Covenant are still considered by God to be Israel. Paul asks,
“What if some did not have faith? And he responds, “Will their
lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?” (Rom 3:3). Later Paul
declares, “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”
(Rom. 11: 29). The majority of the Jews may have rejected Jesus, but
He never rejected them. Those who say He has, fall into the other
error of Replacement Theology.)
But getting
back to the “two-entity” error I am dealing with, we don’t even have
to depend on the Septuagint to prove that the Church is the same
congregation of God in both testaments. There are two verses in the NT
which reveal the same truth: Acts 7:38 and Hebrews 2:12.
In Acts 7:38
we find Steven in the middle of his discourse and referring to the
congregational gathering of Israelites at Mt. Sinai! “He (Moses)
was with the assembly (ecclesia) in the wilderness…” So here we
have the Holy Spirit in the NT describing the entire family of Abraham
in the OT as the “ecclesia.” Our English translators however don’t
render it as “church” as they do everywhere else in the New
Testament.
Hebrews 2:12
quotes a verse from the 22nd Psalm, which reads, “I will
declare your name to my brothers. In the presence of the congregation
(ecclesia) I will sing your praises.” (Ps. 22:22) And once again
the translators avoid using the term “church” because the congregation
being referred to is Israel. (“Church” might be a bad translation, but
they should at least be consistent. You have to assume they treat them
differently because they view them as two groups, and not as the same
group in different stages of spiritual growth.)
Unscrambling the Mystery
So where are
we? Hopefully you are beginning to see that the church and Israel are
the very same entity. If you are still not sure, it is due no doubt to
one over-riding clouding issue: the inclusion of the Gentiles. If the
NT had ended at the 9th chapter of the Book of Acts, the
question of who is Israel would have never even come up - because the
only people in the Church would have been Jews! But once Peter met
Cornelius, and the Gentiles started to come into New Covenant Israel
under Paul’s ministry, the issue became hopelessly confused for
centuries.
Yet this
should have never become a problem. For even under the Old Covenant an
opportunity was provided by God to include Gentiles into the nation of
Israel. You just had to be circumcised, keep the Passover, and be a
sojourner in the land with a heart for the Living God. (Ex. 12:48;
Num. 9:14) As Isaiah declared long ago: “Let not the foreigner who
has joined himself to the Lord say,’ The Lord will surely separate me
from His people….for My house shall become a house of prayer for all
the nations (Gentiles)” (Isa. 56:3,7). If Gentiles could be added
to Old Covenant Israel and it was still considered Israel, why is it
so difficult to accept that Gentiles could be added to New Covenant
Israel and have it still remain Israel?
The real
question that needs to be resolved, as I see it, is not whether the
Jews or the church are Israel. But who are the Gentile believers in
the church? Can we be considered part of New Covenant Israel as I
argue? Or have we been segregated from Israel and placed in a separate
new entity called the church, as Prince argues? And if so, where do
all the believing Jews like Peter, Paul and John who were the founding
members of the church go? Are they part of the church or part of
Israel? As you can see, the situation is hopelessly confusing because
it creates two churches of Jesus Christ, or two Israel’s of God.
In supporting
his position of two entities, Prince turns
to Romans Nine where Paul says "not all who are descended from
Israel are Israel."
He writes:
“By using the words ‘not all’ at the
beginning, Paul is not expanding the number of who is part of Israel;
he’s limiting it. He’s not adding to those who can be classified as
Israel, he’s subtracting. And I believe that is the true meaning.
So there are no legitimate grounds for giving the title
Israel to anybody not descended from Israel
(emphasis mine).”
In other words, Prince is
arguing that according to Romans Nine the entity of Israel cannot be
expanded to include Gentiles. And with that assessment I agree
wholeheartedly. Romans Nine is not an argument by Paul to include
anyone from outside the family into Israel. It is an argument to
exclude persons already in the family from qualifying as God’s
Israel. He is saying only those family members who come from the loins
of Abraham whom God has pre-chosen, like Isaac and Jacob,
can be counted as God’s nation. No one else.
As
further proof, Paul goes on to remind us how God chose Isaac over
Ishmael. And Jacob over Esau, even while those twins were still in the
womb and before either had done anything good or bad. That’s why
Israel is called God’s “chosen people.” So the bottom line is that not
all who are Abraham’s physical descendants are truly Israel. But at
the same time all those who are truly Israel must be Abraham’s
physical descendants. (Keep in mind that many who have been chosen
are still walking in ignorance. As each of us who have been awakened
to our inclusion into Israel through Messiah knows, God’s alarm clock
is set according to His schedule, not ours.)
Because Prince saw this principle taught in Roman Nine is why he was
forced to exclude Gentile believers from Israel and put us in another
body called “the church.” But there is a solution to this dilemma that
Prince either did not see or could not believe. One that reconciles
Romans 9 with the understanding that that there can only be “one
body... one Spirit...one hope of your calling...one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph 4:4-6). And yes, one
Israel.
The Mystery of the Gentiles
So how can
the Gentiles be considered part of Israel if true Israel can only
include the chosen physical descendants of Abraham? The answer is that
things aren’t always as they seem. An old, politically-incorrect
riddle asks: “If two Indians are walking along a trail in the Arizona
desert, one behind the other, and the Indian in front is the son of
the Indian in back, but the Indian in back is not the father of the
Indian in front, what then is the relationship between the two
Indians?” Think about it for a minute. It’s a puzzler. Do you know?
The obvious
answer is that the Indian in back is the mother of the Indian in
front. Simple. Yet most people who hear the riddle are initially
stumped. Why? Because the word “Indian” is automatically assumed to be
male. Likewise, the word “Gentile” is automatically assumed to be
someone who is not Jewish or has no blood relationship with the family
of Abraham. But that is not necessarily true. Many Jews, for example,
have been assimilated among the Gentile peoples for one reason or
another. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for
example, discovered late in life that her parents were Jewish who had
left her with a Gentile family during the war. There are also unknown
thousands of Jewish offspring also who were born out of wedlock who
were never acknowledged or informed of their heritage.
And we also
know for certain that hundreds of thousands of Israelites, ten of the
twelve tribes of Israel, were scattered abroad and absorbed by the
Gentile nations in the 8th century BC after Assyria
conquered the northern kingdom of Israel. (Read about it in 2 Kings
17.) Today their descendants would number in the hundreds of millions
and would no doubt be found in every nation on earth. Therefore, isn’t
it possible that we born-again “Gentile” believers in Messiah could be
their biological descendants? Surely God knows who they are and where
they went – and how to find them again. Remember, it is the Father who
knows us and leads us to His Son for salvation. Jesus Himself told us
that. “No one can come to Me, unless the Father draws him”
(John 6:44). We don’t find Jesus on our own. Or even choose Him. We
were already chosen “in Him before the world was made” (Eph
1:4), which becomes a reality when God the Father awakens us and gives
us the grace to be born again. “For grace you have been saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not
as a result of works, that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9).
I myself am
convinced by faith from studying the Scriptures that all true
believers who are not Jewish are physical descendants of Abraham from
the other tribes. This would perfectly fulfill the promise to Abraham
that “he would become the father of many Gentiles (nations)”
(Gen. 17:4). It would also satisfy the several hundred as yet
unfulfilled prophecies of a reunited and restored Israel. As overcome
Prince’s main objection to why the church cannot be Israel.
It especially
fulfills Jeremiah’s prophetic promise that God would “make a new
covenant with the House of Judah and with the House of Israel.” The
House of Judah, of course, is the southern kingdom from whom the Jews
have come and derive their name. The House of Israel is the northern
kingdom (also called “Ephraim”) that assimilated among the nations and
has been missing for 2700 years. Since they are included in the
promise of the New Covenant they must be found. Where are they? Surely
they are the so-called “Gentiles” who have been found and grafted into
the Body of Messiah! Especially since the prophecy of the New Covenant
makes no mention or provision for those who are descended from a
lineage outside the chosen line of Abraham.
If this is
so, then the last obstacle – the biological-connection – has been
satisfied and there is no reason why believing Gentiles should not be
recognized as part of New Covenant Israel. The mystery is solved.
And Finally...
I will make
one last point. In his listing of the 79 “Israel” Scriptures in the
NT, Prince completely ignores all the Scriptures that don’t actually
use the word “Israel” in the verse, but which clearly identify the
chosen Gentiles as part of physical Israel. Here are a number of
them:
Galatians 3:29: “If
you belong to Messiah (whether Jew or Gentile), you ARE Abraham’s
offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Ephesians 2:11-12:
“Remember that formerly you who are Gentiles…were separate from
Christ, excluded from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel and
foreigners to the covenants of promise…but now you who were far
away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.”
Galatians 3:7:
“understand, then, that those who believe are children of
Abraham.”
Galatians 4:28:
“Now you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.”
Romans 4:1:
“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to
the flesh, discovered in this matter?”
Romans 4:16:
“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and
may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring –not only to those
who are of the law (Jews), but also to those who are of the faith
of Abraham (Gentiles).”
James 1:1: “James,
a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes
scattered among the nations: greetings!” (James is speaking
to ALL believers.)
Romans 11: The
whole chapter shows we are grafted into the tree of Israel.
To conclude,
I consider this “two entities” teaching, which I call “Separation
Theology,” to be one of the most divisive teachings in the Body of
Christ today. Only Replacement Theology and the clergy/laity tradition
are more divisive in my opinion. If allowed to remain unchallenged it
will ultimately suffocate the coming reconciliation of Jews and
“Christians” (if that were possible) by not allowing us to become one
nation with our Jewish brothers who are now awakening from their
centuries-long, God-imposed rejection of Jesus as Israel’s true
Messiah.
“Now may
the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of
the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with
one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our
Lord Messiah Jesus. Therefore, accept one another, just as Messiah
also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Messiah has
become a servant to the circumcision (the Jews) on behalf of the truth
of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the
Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, ….’Rejoice, O
Gentiles, with His people.’ ” (Rom. 15: 5-10)
2001
www.reunionministries.net
|