Israel and the Church

Can the Church claim Old Testament promises or
only New Testament ones?

A literal promise to Israel can be given a spiritual signification and applied, not to the Church, but to saints — to Christians. The Church is a corporate thing — the body of Christ, composed of all believers. These believers are separately in union with Christ as individuals, and from any part of the Scriptures may be drawn spiritual analogies and lessons of inestimable value to Christians in this Church age. The distinction between Israel and the Church is between a nation and the body of Christ. Romans 15:4 and 2 Timothy 3:16 apply here. It is well to remember that all Scripture was written for us, but all Scripture was not written to us. It is our Bible from beginning to end, and frequently a prophecy addressed to Israel and for Israel is such a disclosure of the mind and nature of the unchanging God that we who belong to a different order may nevertheless learn from it vitally important lessons concerning our Father’s way of looking at things and what manner of being He really is.

Do not such Old Testament scriptures as Isaiah 55 show that the Church was in the mind of the prophets? Isaiah 55 is a Messianic prophecy and it foretells the extension of Messianic blessing and salvation to other nations than Israel. This phase of prophecy is taken up in the 9th, 10th and 11th chapters of Romans. The Old Testament abundantly testifies that through Messiah salvation should come to the Gentiles, but Paul tells us that the Church was a mystery, hidden (Eph. 3:1-11). A salvation extending to all people who believe, without reference to race distinction is a Messianic promise, but the Church is not a mere mass of saved individuals, but is an organic unity formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, uniting believers to the risen Christ in glory (1 Cor. 12:12, 13). This failure to distinguish between the individual Jew or Christian, and Israel the nation, and the saved of this dispensation, as forming the Church brings confusion to many minds.

Since Paul speaks of the Church as the Israel of God, may we not apply Old Testament texts to believers of this age?

1. It is decidedly erroneous to speak of the Church as the Israel of God. That expression occurs, as you know, in Galatians 6:16, and the use of the conjunction shows that the apostle is thinking of categories or divisions; there is peace to those who walk according to this rule — that is, the Christian, — and peace invoked also upon the Israel of God. The Apostle Paul never lost his kinsmen according to the flesh out of his solicitude. )

2. Is there not a spiritual Israel? Certainly. That is the explicit teaching of Romans 9. There is an Israel within Israel, just as in this day there is a true Church within that body of profession that constitutes the visible church.

3. As to the use of Old Testament texts in preaching to the men of this day, — there is nothing in the distinctions between Israel and the Church to forbid such use of Old Testament texts, provided they are used to illustrate and enforce the principles upon which God is acting toward the world. In a word, the error to be avoided is the theological notion that Israel has been forever set aside, and the Church put in the place of Israel as inheriting Israel’s promises.

How could Israel accept Christ if blindness was sent upon them (2 Cor. 3:14)?

Blindness was not sent until Israel had finally rejected the light, which, persistently rejected, always produces blindness. Both are from God, the one in mercy, the other in judgment. The laws of nature explain the laws of God. So it was with Pharaoh. We, as free agents may harden our hearts against God — He simply seals our choice. What a tremendous responsibility is wrapped up in the marvelous endowment of a free moral agency! We choose, — God seals.

Who were “the twelve tribes scattered abroad’ to whom Peter addressed his epistle?

By “the twelve tribes scattered abroad” we are to understand, not Jews, but Christian Jews of the Dispersion. The twelve tribes, simply as Jews would have no “elders of the church” to call for. So the admonitions and promises of James are for all the members of the Church, though especially written to Jewish believers (as, also, was Hebrews) for whom James felt a special solicitude and pastoral responsibility. It was probably the first epistle written to Christians, and is therefore most elementary in doctrine, written before the Pauline Epistles.

Matthew is peculiarly the gospel foz Israel, but, as flowing from the death of Christ, a gospel for the whole world. When you come to study the book of Matthew distinguish between that in it which relates to the future kingdom (which then being offered, was rejected and therefore set aside for the time being) and to the Church; e. g., the Sermon on the Mount will be the law of the kingdom age, but its moral applications are in force today, just as all that is spiritual in the Old Testament, though written in an age of law and earthly promises, may be appropriated by us as belonging to the heavenly seed of Abraham.

Since Israel’s rejection of Christ was foretold, how would it have been possible for them to recognize in Him the Messiah?

1. Had Israel accepted all of the prophecies concerning Christ they would have had no difficulty in recognizing Him as the promised Messiah. Because of their rejection, foreseen by the prophets, Christ’s second coming became necessary, Israel being set aside in the interregnum and the Gentiles brought in (Rom. 11). We must constantly bear in mind that the foreseeing of an event by the prophets in no way affected the event.

2. It was not because the prophets foretold Christ’s rejection by Israel, but because of Israel’s own sin and blindness of heart that they rejected and crucified Him. The prophecies concerning Christ, His own spotless life, His miracles and His testimony, all should have been sufficient evidence for those who knew the Scriptures and the God of the Scriptures as Israel claimed to, but did not (see John 8:19, 42-59). They were far from ready, spiritually, for the establishment of the kingdom, which must be based on spiritual principles, the Sermon on the Mount forming the ethical constitution of the kingdom. How far short of this Israel fell we can readily see in the Gospels. Had Israel been spiritually ready, the development of the kingdom into its glorious character would have been the natural result.

The Jews were justified in expecting a glorious and visible kingdom, but, taught by the same prophets, they should have expected Isaiah 7:14; 58, also to be fulfilled. Our Lord took up that very question with the Emmaus disciples. “Ought not the Christ to have suffered?” etc. (Luke 24:26), according to the Scriptures.

What is the “Israel of God’’ in Galatians 6:16?

In this passage the heart of the apostle turns for a moment from the Church, in which believing Jews and believing Gentiles alike become ‘‘new creatures,” to God’s ancient people, the Jews, who are always “the Israel of God.” It may be added that elsewhere (Rom. 9:10) Paul distinguishes between the true spiritual Israel and the Israel made up of the mere literal descendants of Jacob. All Jews belong to the latter; believing Jews only to the former (Rom. 2:28, 29; Rom. 9:6-8).