God's people (ekklesia) are one from the beginning

[sovereigngrace]

The Hebrew words that are used in the Old Testament to describe the overall company of the children of Israel are qâhâl and ‛êdâh. These words are usually translated, and mean, “congregation” or “assembly.” But, the Old Testament was not just written in Hebrew; it was also written in Greek. Interestingly, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) normally uses the word ekklesia (from ek- + kaleo, meaning “to call”) in place of these two Hebrew words to describe the gathering of the congregation of old covenant Israel. The word ekklesia literally means ‘the called-out assembly’. Notwithstanding: there are some instances where the Greek Old Testament translators use the word sunagoge to represent the same Hebrew words.

When you examine the usage of qâhâl and ‛êdâh in the Old Testament, you discover that they are interchangeably used throughout the ancient text and are considered by most Hebrew scholars to be synonymous, even though they are different Hebrew words. There are even times when these same or similar Hebrew words are linked together in the same text in order to describe ‘the congregating [verb] of the congregation [noun]’ or ‘the assembling [verb] of the assembly [noun]’. Number 20:1-13 is a case-in-point.

This should help us understand the true meaning and origin of the Greek word ekklesia. When used in a religious sense, we are basically looking at the congregation or assembly of God’s people. The word ekklesia can apply to a secular gathering, so the translator’s insistence upon the word “Church” is misplaced and not an appropriate rendering of the word.

Anders Runesson, a professor of New Testament at the University of Oslo, Norway, explains: “the ancient Mediterranean world, the word ekklesia was used in various ways and for various types of both political and unofficial, or semi-public institutions … The way the word ‘ekklesia’ functions in these ancient discourses thus differs from how the term ‘church’ functions in common usage today; if we agree that a translation should communicate approximate meaning across time and culture then clearly this particular translation is inaccurate. A historically more attuned translation of ekklēsia would be ‘assembly’, since this word leaves open for a variety of applications in religio-political or semi-public settings and does not lock the meaning of ekklesia into an anachronistic frame of reference” (Ekklesia).

The exact same Greek word used in the Greek Old Testament (ekklesia) is also used in the Greek New Testament to describe God’s people. This is no mere coincidence. It shows us the practical and spiritual connection and link between both. It is therefore right and reasonable for us to understand and translate the word in a similar vein in the New Testament. We should remember that it was the believing remnant of the Old Testament ekklesia of Israel (true Israel) that in fact became the infant New Testament Church (ekklesia or congregation or assembly). The Gospel was actually received and embraced first by those among natural Israel who had eyes to see and ears to hear.

Granted, whether one interprets ekklesia as “congregation,” “assembly,” “gathering” or “Church” does not change the overall New Testament reality. The fact remains, the word still describes the same overall religious company. But what is sure is that the forceful, undeniable and consistent evidence before us proves that the ekklesia refers to the gathering of God’s people throughout all ages.

Theologian John J Parsons who majors in Hebrew research, explains: “It appears to be a major fault of various English translations of the Christian Bible that the word ‘Church’ was translated for the Greek word ekklesia in the New Testament, since this suggests an anti-Jewish bias in their work by implying that there is a radical discontinuity between ‘Israel’ and the the ekklesia of Jesus (i.e., the ‘Church’). In other words, if the same Greek word (ekklesia) is used in both the LXX and the NT, then why was a new word coined for its usage in the English translation of the New Testament? Why not translate the word as it was used in the LXX, or better still, as it was used in the OT Scriptures?”

He continues: “In the New Testament sense, the word ekklesia refers to the group of ‘called out’ people (from every tribe and tongue) in covenant with God by means of their trust in Jesus Christ. In particular, this is composed of only those people who confess their faith that Jesus (Yeshua) is none other than Adonai come in the flesh.”

The word ekklesia (Church) is found 77 times in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) referring to Israel. This proves that the terms “Church” and “Israel” are synonymous and interchangeable. Christ and the Apostles employed and quoted extensively from the Septuagint during the early New Testament Church. The word is found 116 times in the New Testament. It was a term that they were very familiar with. The Septuagint was written about 200 years before Christ was born. While Dispensationalist conveniently portray the ekklesia as an Old Testament mystery and a New Testament phenomenon, Christ and the disciples were not so ignorant.

The ekklesia is found throughout the Greek Old Testament – the Septuagint (LXX): in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Joel, and Micah. That is 16 of the Old Testament books, which is nearly half of them.

The Old Testament prophets lamented for centuries over the blindness and deafness of many among visible outward Israel (Isaiah 6:9–10, Jeremiah 5:21, and Ezekiel 12:2). This prepared the way for Christ and His liberating spiritual message to the nation. Jesus directed strong rebukes to those within natural Israel that professed but didn’t possess. He warned in Matthew 13:15-16: “For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.”

Many had eyes to see in the natural but they did not have eyes to see in the spiritual. They had ears to hear in the natural but they did not have ears to hear in the spiritual.

The saved saints under the Mosaic covenant were simply the assembly of God of that day. Also, the kingdom which was repeatedly promised to the remnant of Israel developed into the New Testament gathering. Elect Israel and the elect Church were/are the same entity. The word ekklesia conveys the idea of a common assembly in both eras. The New Testament ekklesia is simply an extension of the Old Testament ekklesia (qâhâl or ‛êdâh), albeit it has taken on a different form under the new covenant.

Mirroring the process that a caterpillar undergoes developing into the maturity and beauty of a colorful butterfly, the Old Testament Church underwent a significant metamorphic change in the New Testament, progressing into the current Spirit-filled international New Testament Church. The ekklesia essentially took on wings! That is not to say that we can separate the elect of God in either dispensation or view them as two different entities. Rather, we must view both as the same organic entity. Just because Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church carry different names and possess a different outward appearance and scope of movement does not negate the fact they are the same overall entity.

Ray Porter highlights a notable difference with the New Testament ekklesia compared to its old covenant counterpart. He shows that it is found in the fact that it is “united not on the basis of a shared culture, language, or previous religious loyalties, but … [is] united around the Messiah” (The Church Local, Wider, and Universal).

Dispensational theologians do their best to put a wedge between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament. They try to divide them into two unrelated entities. They advocate an apartheid between both and teach a separation theology. They suggest that there is a total disconnect and a radical discontinuity between the Old Testament ekklesia and the New Testament ekklesia. They argue that they are two completely distinct and separate entities. However, repeated New Testament Scripture demonstrates that the believing element (or righteous remnant) of the Old Testament congregation and that of the New Testament congregation are spiritually joined through Christ, and His atoning work on the cross.

Dispensationalists typically present the New Testament ekklesia as a brand-new spiritual innovation, which had no origin prior to Pentecost. They teach that the Church itself is a “mystery” and that it is a completely separate entity to God’s people in the Old Testament. They say, because the New Testament Church is expressly called “the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God” that it is a brand-new construction started in the upper room. They contend that the Apostle Paul was specifically and specially tasked with revealing this great mystery.

What they miss, or deliberately distort, is that Paul was actually teaching the complete opposite to what they assert. Ephesians 3:1-9 tells us: “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

The debate is not over whether the ekklesia was some new innovation or whether it has replaced Israel or not (because it hasn’t) but rather, (1) is the new covenant congregation of God’s people spiritually connected to the old covenant congregation of God’s people and (2) do believing Gentiles after the cross enjoy an equal status with believing Jews?

The mystery regarding the congregation is not that it was unknown to the Old Testament prophets, but rather that believing Gentiles were integrated into the believing congregation on an equal footing (as fellow heirs) as existing Jewish believers. Dispensationalists fail to see that the ekklesia is not a New Testament novelty introduced at Pentecost but an ongoing spiritual organism that has contained the elect of God from the very beginning.

The new covenant congregation is not something entirely unique and new in God’s plan and purposes, totally separated from His old covenant people, but is an extension of Old Testament believing Israel. The New Testament assembly is the ongoing continuation of faithful old covenant Israel. Whilst the New Testament gathering has taken on a different form under the new covenant, the elect in the Old Testament and the elect in the New Testament are part of the same spiritual body.

Paul identifies “the mystery” here in a clear and unambiguous way in verse 6, namely: “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Here is the crux of his argument: he demonstrates that the notable metamorphosis that occurred as the old covenant ekklesia changed into the new covenant ekklesia resulted in the Gentiles assuming an equal footing to the Jews. There is no longer any favoritism. The mystery is the parity that occurred from this merger in regard to the promises of God.

Paul never said that the ekklesia wasn’t about before Pentecost, as Dispensationalists wrongly argue. In fact, he teaches the opposite. The Dispensational interpretation is the exact reverse to what the inspired text is actually saying. Paul is in fact talking about the joining of the old and new covenant saints together in Christ. The mystery is the mystical union of the people of God of all time in one spiritual body.

It was always God’s heart to expand His old covenant congregation (the ekklesia) out beyond the borders of national Israel, to reach the Gentile people. The Church itself was not a mystery (or secret) prior to Paul, neither was God’s great eternal plan of redemption, neither was the ingathering of the Gentiles. Passage after passage in the Old Testament predicted these events. What was a mystery was the Gentiles being “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Dispensationalists make the existence of the ekklesia the “mystery” in order to support their theology, even though it has been around as long as there have been believers.

Thomas Croskery explains in his in-depth classic research from 1879: “Though the prophets foretold that the Gentiles were to be blessed in Abraham, it was not made known to them in what manner the blessing was to be realized. This was the special revelation to which the apostle alludes when he speaks of the dispensation committed to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles.”

He adds: “we, of this dispensation, were to be incorporated into the ‘one commonwealth’, from which we were alienated, into the ‘one body’, the ‘one household’, the ‘one building fitly framed together’. The mystery was the admission of Gentiles to share on equal terms with the Jews all the blessings purchased by Christ” (Plymouth-Brethrenism: A Refutation of Its Principles and Doctrines).

Ephesians 3:1-9 is just another example of the gradual spiritual unfolding of the progressive revelation of God. In this instance, it shows how New Testament Gentiles would possess an equal status to that of New Testament Jews under the new covenant arrangement. This was something that was largely veiled in the Old Testament.

John Gay explains: “The Church is the assembly of people, whether Jew or Gentile, who have been called out of the world to form the spiritual body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Those in the Church come together by the Spirit and through the Messiah. They are said to be ‘in Christ’ (Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 1:13).”

He sums up: “The Church is Jews who have been physically called out of the nations, but also spiritually called out from unbelieving Israel, and Gentiles who have been spiritually called out of the nations to worship the God of Israel. Both spiritually called-out peoples form one called-out people known as the Church. These called-out ones are saved by faith in the pattern of their spiritual father, Abraham (Romans 4:11). Thus, while only some in the Church are physically Jewish, all in the Church are spiritually Jewish. They are circumcised of the heart (Romans 2:29), the offspring of Abraham (Romans 4:16) and citizens of Israel (Ephesians 2:12, 19)” (Remnant Theology, A Different Perspective on the Church and Israel).

 

[sovereigngrace]

So, what about the Dispensationalist theory that the Church wasn’t birthed till Pentecost?

Christ speaking in the gospel that the Dispensationalists say was written solely to the Jews – Matthew – confirms how the term ekklesia was related to the gathering of God’s people in His day, rather than some post-Pentecost New Testament period of time, as some would try and argue. Jesus said, in Matthew 18:15-17, “if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the ekklesia: but if he neglect to hear the church [Gr. ekklesia], let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

This is before Pentecost!

Here, in this supposed Jewish gospel, the disciples are carefully counselled in the proper way to deal with matters of discipline within the local assembly. Expressly, if the transgressor does not receive the private admonition from a brother, with a witness, or from the ruling elders, the issue should be brought before ‘the congregation’ of God’s people – the ekklesia – for public exposure. This is historically before Pentecost, where Dispensationalists suggest “the Church” began.

Stephen goes back even further. He takes us back to ancient Israel in the wilderness. He taught in Acts 7:36-38, “he (Moses) had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church [Gr. ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”

Stephen classifies Old Testament Israel in this text as the ekklesia (or Church or assembly or congregation). This correlates with our previous findings. No one could surely deny this. This passage shows the existence of the Church long before Pentecost. Nothing could be clearer. To deny that is to fight with Scripture.

Speaking on Acts 7:36-38, Peter Ditzel writes: “Like the New Testament ekklēsia that God called out of this world of sin, God called Israel out of Egypt. In a physical, typological way, Israel was God’s special people, physically assembled before Him. In those places in the Old Testament where English versions refer to Israel as an assembly or a congregation, the Greek Septuagint uses the word ekklēsia” (What is the relationship between the Old Covenant assembly of Israel and the New Covenant assembly of believers?).

The Roman Catholic Church was the first to change the meaning of ekklesia from the congregation of God’s people to a religious institution of man replacing physical Israel. This was highly advantageous in reinforcing its apostate religious system. It allowed its clergy to lord over the people. This strategy likewise rubber stamped the whole foundation of its global religious system, its “Holy” Roman Empire, its papal state and its false teaching. But this construal was totally out of kilter with the common usage of the word in ancient times.

William Tyndale recognized this when translating his early English Bible. Despite intense pressure from the Roman Catholic powers that be, he stood strong on his interpretation, suitably and consistently translating ekklesia as congregation. The Coverdale Bible (1535), The Great Bible (1540), Matthew Bible (1549) and The Bishops Bible (1568) all followed suit, using the word “congregation” to describe God’s New Testament people.

The writer of the Hebrews also quotes and applies the word ekklesia, as it literally reads in Psalm 22:22 in the Greek Septuagint, to the Old Testament saints, saying: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church [Gr. ekklesia] will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12).

Psalm 22:22 reads, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.”

This quote is taken directly from the Greek Septuagint, the Bible that was used by Jesus, and Paul, and the disciples in the first century AD. It proves that the ekklesia (the Church) was alive, kicking, and written about throughout the Old Testament. Wherever people of faith are found or written about in history, the “Church” (ekklesia) is revealed. Dr. Michael Milton (President, Reformed Theological Seminary) tells us that “Psalm 22 [verse 22] uses the Hebrew word qahal for congregation … This same verse appears in Hebrews … the Holy Spirit has replaced qahal with ecclesia” (Engrafted, Not Replaced).

Just like with Israel in the Old Testament, the New Testament assembly has a visible and an invisible aspect. Those who profess a faith in Christ, and participate in Christian worship, are recognized as the outward visible congregation, but only those who have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are recognized as being part of the true invisible Church – that which Christ sees and knows – His redeemed. The visible congregation are those who are typically outwardly committed to the Christian faith, whereas, the redeemed invisible congregation are those that have “passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).

When Jesus states in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church [Gr. ekklesia]; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He is only referring to the elect of God. He is describing the faithful remnant that have entered into spiritual union with God. This is the invisible ekklesia.

The Church describes those who he has redeemed with his own precious blood. It describes all those that have a personal relationship with Christ! Paul instructs the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church [Gr. ekklesia] of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

The visible ekklesia is that which gives outward adherence to the Lord and which congregates together in public worship. For example, we see the local churches in Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation chapter 2 and 3. These were local congregations that evidently included believers and unbelievers. We know that because the Lord exposed those that were playing at it in these gatherings. There was “the church [Gr. ekklesia] of Ephesus” (Rev 2:1-7), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Smyrna” (Rev 2:8-11), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Pergamos” (Rev 2:12-17), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Thyatira” (Rev 2:18-29), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Sardis” (Rev 3:1-6), “the church [Gr. ekklesia] in Philadelphia” (Rev 3:7-13) and “the church [Gr. ekklesia] of the Laodiceans” (Rev 3:14-22). This was the visible outward face of the Church, but it did not denote the true elect ekklesia of God who existed within those congregation.

The Westminster Confession of Faith put it like this: “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all” (Chapter 25:1).

William Tyndale took a courageous, consistent and correct stance on this word, unfortunately, many other translations chose (or were forced) to compromise. It is believed the KJV translators were pressured by King James, against their better judgment, to substitute the word “Church” for ekklesia in their version, a path that most modern translations have duly followed. Tyndale interprets Matthew 16:18 as: “And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my congregation. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Tyndale New Testament).

With the apostate development of the Roman Catholic Church, the term ekklesia has evolved in the minds of many into some type of ritualistic super-structure, some elaborate religious institution or some global quasi-political kingdom. Sadly, many Protestant churches have followed in Rome’s footsteps on this matter. They have placed an emphasis on the outward form rather than the spiritual reality. Because of this, many Christians in our day look at the Old Testament ekklesia of God and then compare it to what parades itself as the ekklesia today and see no connection between both. But rather than look beyond the outward misrepresentation, they get entangled in the religious distortion.

Dr Michael Milton tells us that “In the New Testament, the Church, or ecclesia, of Christ is one with the qahal of God throughout the Old Testament. These are one people of God who trust in God’s Messiah, although living under two different dispensations—Old Testament and New Testament” (Engrafted, Not Replaced).

Dispensationalism has taken advantage of the translation of ekklesia as “Church” and has used it to their own advantage. They have manufactured an imaginary deep divide between the New Testament congregation and the Old Testament assembly, which clearly doesn’t exist in the original text. As a result, they have made the New Testament Church a unique and distinct entity which is totally separate to Old Covenant Israel and which enjoys no spiritual connection. This undermines numerous New Testament teaching and makes this interpretation something it was never intended to be.

It seems like, if the translators of most English Bible versions would have actually interpreted the word ekklesia consistent with its original meaning, and in keeping with its normal usage in the Old Testament, then there would be less confusion among Christians today. Few would have any difficulty in noticing the continuity between the congregation in Old Testament and the congregation in New Testament.

Whilst the people of God were largely found within the nation of ethnic Israel before the cross, that was broadened out after the cross to embrace all nations. Race means nothing under the new covenant. The New Testament outlines clearly and repeatedly that “there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles.” True believing Israel has been completely, and deliberately, genetically mixed among the nations under the new covenant.

The elect now come from all tribes, races, nations and languages equally (Revelation 7:9). What is more, believers who, before the cross, were required to submit to an elaborate system of ritualistic temple worship, the keeping of feasts and sacred laws, have, because Christ has wholesale fulfilled and removed that shadow, been liberated into serving Him by simple faith in a spiritual manner.

When all is said and done, when all the debating is over, when the full revelation of the ekklesia is honestly considered in its entirety, the true assembly of Jesus Christ is clearly revealed in Scripture to be a spiritual entity that can be traced through both testaments right back to the beginning that embodies all those who have entered into a personal eternal covenant with God through Jesus Christ and His finished work at the cross. And that is all that matters! That is why Ephesians 3:21 testifies: “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”

Rather than communicating a distinction between Israel and the Church, the Scriptures show that God has only ever had one chosen people belonging to “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

 

[keras]

The elect now come from all tribes, races, nations and languages equally (Revelation 7:9).

Very good, SG.
The English word 'church' is derived from kuriakos, a Greek word meaning belonging to The Lord. "Church" is commonly used to translate another original New Testament Greek word, ekklesia, which meant an assembly of called out ones. It corresponds to the congregation of the Old Testament: This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai… Acts 7:38

"Congregation," "meeting" or "assembly" are most often used to translate the original Hebrew words of the Old Testament, pronounced: ay-daw and kaw-hawl which were used primarily to describe the Israelites in a sense of a gathering of the Lord's holy people.

They set out from Elim, and all the congregation [ay-daw] of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin…..Exodus 16:1

But when the assembly [kaw-hawl] is to be gathered together, you shall blow, but you shall not sound an alarm. Numbers 10:7-8


In the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, ay-daw was translated as sunagoge (synagogue), and kaw-hawl was translated as ekklesia. Earlier, synagogue was a term used collectively for the Jewish people, while ekklesia was used for the church, the "called out ones."

The "Rock Of Ages" provides a direct continuity between the Old Testament congregation, the "physical Israel" who were set free by the blood of a Passover lamb, and the New Testament church, the "spiritual Israel" who are set free by the blood of the Lamb of God.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Matthew 16:18 On this Rock I will build My church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Romans 9:6-8 For not all who are ethnic Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the Children of God but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

True, righteous Christian individuals are the holy people of God, the Israel of God.
A continuity of faithful believers of Abrahams type and now with Jesus as our Mediator, we look forward to the great promises of God to His Israelite people.

Of their redemption, their gathering into all of the holy Land and eventually how it will be them, the children of the Living God, Romans 9:24-26, who call out to the Returning Jesus: Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Very good, SG.
The English word 'church' is derived from kuriakos, a Greek word meaning belonging to The Lord. "Church" is commonly used to translate another original New Testament Greek word, ekklesia, which meant an assembly of called out ones. It corresponds to the congregation of the Old Testament: This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai… Acts 7:38

"Congregation," "meeting" or "assembly" are most often used to translate the original Hebrew words of the Old Testament, pronounced: ay-daw and kaw-hawl which were used primarily to describe the Israelites in a sense of a gathering of the Lord's holy people.

They set out from Elim, and all the congregation [ay-daw] of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin…..Exodus 16:1

But when the assembly [kaw-hawl] is to be gathered together, you shall blow, but you shall not sound an alarm. Numbers 10:7-8


In the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, ay-daw was translated as sunagoge (synagogue), and kaw-hawl was translated as ekklesia. Earlier, synagogue was a term used collectively for the Jewish people, while ekklesia was used for the church, the "called out ones."

The "Rock Of Ages" provides a direct continuity between the Old Testament congregation, the "physical Israel" who were set free by the blood of a Passover lamb, and the New Testament church, the "spiritual Israel" who are set free by the blood of the Lamb of God.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Matthew 16:18 On this Rock I will build My church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Romans 9:6-8 For not all who are ethnic Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named."

This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the Children of God but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.

True, righteous Christian individuals are the holy people of God, the Israel of God.
A continuity of faithful believers of Abrahams type and now with Jesus as our Mediator, we look forward to the great promises of God to His Israelite people.

Of their redemption, their gathering into all of the holy Land and eventually how it will be them, the children of the Living God, Romans 9:24-26, who call out to the Returning Jesus: Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord.

Absolutely. Dispensationalists have to ignore this because it destroys the core of their teaching

 

[Timtofly]

We should remember that it was the believing remnant of the Old Testament ekklesia of Israel (true Israel) that in fact became the infant New Testament Church (ekklesia or congregation or assembly).

What remnant? Jesus chose His disciples. This makes it sound like God had no say in the matter. The NT did not evolve out of the OT.

It is true that those redeemed in Christ include all of Adam's descendants. Redemption was always made available to all.

The Hebrews were supposed to be a witness in the OT, or at the least examples. They did not have the same responsibility nor spiritual authority. The Gospel had not been finalized, until Messiah would come. I am not sure why the church came to odds with Israel, but if the viral difference between just amil and Premil is any indication, I am not surprised.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What remnant? Jesus chose His disciples. This makes it sound like God had no say in the matter. The NT did not evolve out of the OT.

It is true that those redeemed in Christ include all of Adam's descendants. Redemption was always made available to all.

The Hebrews were supposed to be a witness in the OT, or at the least examples. They did not have the same responsibility nor spiritual authority. The Gospel had not been finalized, until Messiah would come. I am not sure why the church came to odds with Israel, but if the viral difference between just amil and Premil is any indication, I am not surprised.

You are not actually addressing what I am writing. You are always going off on a tangent. You have obviously no rebuttal.

Universalism is heresy. If all are redeemed then all are saved. But Scripture shows that few are saved. Scripture calls the elect a remnant. Please read Romans 9:6.

 

[Timtofly]

You are not actually addressing what I am writing. You are always going off on a tangent. You have obviously no rebuttal.

Universalism is hersy. If all are redeemed then all are saved. But Scripture shows that few are saved. Scripture calls the elect a remnant. Please read Romans 9:6.

No, all being redeemed, does not mean all are saved. God did not even "save" those who rebelled in the wilderness, those He just brought out of Egypt. He punished all with death, instead of gaining the promised land. Exactly what Romans 9:6 implies. And that death was not to eternal life. Saying one is of God, when they are not is the same as God’s own rebellious people. One rejected God. The other pretended to be accepted by God. God does accept all who come to Him. The problem is how people come to God in their own wisdom, and demand God and His church to accept them. Those are universalist, who claim God takes them no matter what they believe.

The only way one is accepted by God is in the Atonement that God Himself provided. That grace stands against the desires of our sinful flesh. Even though all have been redeemed, God's Atonement has been dismissed by them by faulty human reasoning. They demand that God accept their sinful works instead.

God reconciling the whole world to Himself is not the problem. Universalism claims all humans can reconcile themselves to God in their own belief systems.

Saying that the NT is just an evolution of the OT system by saying a remnant of OT believers changed the course of history and wrote out NT guidelines is very misleading to the truth of God's Word.

 

[sovereigngrace]

No, all being redeemed, does not mean all are saved. God did not even "save" those who rebelled in the wilderness, those He just brought out of Egypt. He punished all with death, instead of gaining the promised land. Exactly what Romans 9:6 implies. And that death was not to eternal life. Saying one is of God, when they are not is the same as God’s own rebellious people. One rejected God. The other pretended to be accepted by God. God does accept all who come to Him. The problem is how people come to God in their own wisdom, and demand God and His church to accept them. Those are universalist, who claim God takes them no matter what they believe.

The only way one is accepted by God is in the Atonement that God Himself provided. That grace stands against the desires of our sinful flesh. Even though all have been redeemed, God's Atonement has been dismissed by them by faulty human reasoning. They demand that God accept their sinful works instead.

God reconciling the whole world to Himself is not the problem. Universalism claims all humans can reconcile themselves to God in their own belief systems.

Saying that the NT is just an evolution of the OT system by saying a remnant of OT believers changed the course of history and wrote out NT guidelines is very misleading to the truth of God's Word.

No wonder you are confused on this matter. No wonder you are trying to divert this thread. You do not even know who the redeemed are in Scripture. Universalism believes what you do - that all mankind are redeemed. Orthodox Christianity rightly attributes that only to the elect. The majority are lost. No wonder we disagree. You do not even know who the saved are or what redemption actually means.

 

[Timtofly]

No wonder you are confused on this matter. No wonder you are trying to divert this thread. You do not even know who the redeemed are in Scripture. Universalism believes what you do - that all mankind are redeemed. Orthodox Christian rightly attributes that only to the elect. The majority are lost. No wonder we disagree. You do not even know who the saved are or what redemption actually means.

I know what the Bible says about it. I know what theology claims. If you feel that I am just interpreting Scripture for my own agenda, then no, we do not agree. My interpretation is not private, so no agenda whatsoever. Remember I am the literalist, who does not change the meaning to fit my theology. I am not even a literalist, by choice. That is what a person is called who does not spiritualize God's Word to make it fit their theology.

As pointed out, being elect is not a magic wand. God sent His own chosen people to sheol, because they rejected Him. Now you can label them, but you do not know the heart and mind of every single human that ever lived. I know what Salvation is, and it is not defined by theology. You may not accept that Redemption is limited by choice. If you claim Redemption is limited by God, you will have to show verses that limit Redemption to just a select few. This is not an argument about God electing certain individuals to accomplish His Will. Or that God shows favor to some and not others. That is not Salvation. That is God carrying out His plan of history. Jacob wrestled with God, and God changed his name to Israel. That is a Scriptural fact. Not all of Jacob's descendants would accept God. That is a Scriptural fact. They themselves chose not to follow God's plan of Redemption. They were Redeemed, but they chose Satan over God. Being Redeemed is not Universalism.

Universalism changes God’s Redemption and says people can still use their own religion and own beliefs, and God will still accept them universally. It is like saying, one can live in sin openly, but if they claim they are elect and redeemed, it is ok to live openly in the most reprobate way, because God will remove their sin in the end. They can enjoy it now in this flesh, because it is a sin nature flesh any ways. That is not what being Redeemed means.

Driving a car around with flat tires is dangerous. Claiming at least you have tires around the rim, even if they are flat, does not cut it. Yes you have tires, but that is abusing the meaning of having tires. One would have to spend way more on replacing their tires every day, when all they had to do is put air in those tires. Living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and not ones own sinful flesh, denying that power. Those who crucify the flesh daily, are those serious about being the redeemed of God.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I know what the Bible says about it. I know what theology claims. If you feel that I am just interpreting Scripture for my own agenda, then no, we do not agree. My interpretation is not private, so no agenda whatsoever. Remember I am the literalist, who does not change the meaning to fit my theology. I am not even a literalist, by choice. That is what a person is called who does not spiritualize God's Word to make it fit their theology.

As pointed out, being elect is not a magic wand. God sent His own chosen people to sheol, because they rejected Him. Now you can label them, but you do not know the heart and mind of every single human that ever lived. I know what Salvation is, and it is not defined by theology. You may not accept that Redemption is limited by choice. If you claim Redemption is limited by God, you will have to show verses that limit Redemption to just a select few. This is not an argument about God electing certain individuals to accomplish His Will. Or that God shows favor to some and not others. That is not Salvation. That is God carrying out His plan of history. Jacob wrestled with God, and God changed his name to Israel. That is a Scriptural fact. Not all of Jacob's descendants would accept God. That is a Scriptural fact. They themselves chose not to follow God's plan of Redemption. They were Redeemed, but they chose Satan over God. Being Redeemed is not Universalism.

Universalism changes God’s Redemption and says people can still use their own religion and own beliefs, and God will still accept them universally. It is like saying, one can live in sin openly, but if they claim they are elect and redeemed, it is ok to live openly in the most reprobate way, because God will remove their sin in the end. They can enjoy it now in this flesh, because it is a sin nature flesh any ways. That is not what being Redeemed means.

Driving a car around with flat tires is dangerous. Claiming at least you have tires around the rim, even if they are flat, does not cut it. Yes you have tires, but that is abusing the meaning of having tires. One would have to spend way more on replacing their tires every day, when all they had to do is put air in those tires. Living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and not ones own sinful flesh, denying that power. Those who crucify the flesh daily, are those serious about being the redeemed of God.

You have not addressed my post. If you do not know who the redeemed are and what redemption means are are you supposed to understand anything else. This is basis 101 Christianity.

 

[Timtofly]

You have not addressed my post. If you do not know who the redeemed are and what redemption means are are you supposed to understand anything else. This is basis 101 Christianity.

Did Abraham and Moses learn Christianity 101?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Did Abraham and Moses learn Christianity 101?

They looked forward by faith to our day. They believed in the coming Messiah (Jesus) by faith. Their revelation of new covenant was not obviously what ours is today. The truth of God has been a gradual progressive unfolding revelation.

 

[Timtofly]

They looked forward by faith to our day. They believed in the coming Messiah (Jesus) by faith. Their revelation of new covenant was not obviously what ours is today. The truth of God has been a gradual progressive unfolding revelation.

Are you saying that Salvation is the same as a covenant? We were discussing redemption, and now you bring up covenants.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Are you saying that Salvation is the same as a covenant? We were discussing redemption, and now you bring up covenants.

The new covenant bought our full redemption.

 

[Timtofly]

The new covenant bought our full redemption.

When it comes to Salvation, there was only one covenant between God and Adam. God Himself would be the Atonement to redeem all of Adam's descendants back to God. Then even the sons of God rebelled and followed after Adam's fallen nature. The covenant was always there. Not many on earth acknowledged it until Abraham was introduced to it. Yes there were OT believers under the same covenant since Adam. It was considered new in relationship with the economy of the Law. The Law was the new covenant. It was an economy centered around the tabernacle for a select family inheritance of Abraham through Jacob. It was not Salvation nor Atonement. Did that Law and covenant fade out or was it replaced by a more republic or democratic economy? Daniel's image of earthly government seemed to indicate that the Law would not last, even if the Temple was rebuilt. God never returned to the Second temple. The fulness of time was in the midst of the 4th and final major kingdom. The covenant with Adam and the redemption of mankind was never an earthly attempt at a kingdom. Neither was the covenant of the Law. The Nations once again took away any earthly enforcement of a political or economic covenant. The church was a spiritual body, not an earthly body. Except someone decided to take Satan's offer of reigning over the earth’s kingdoms and changed "church" history forever.

The church had a covenant, and maybe even a following since Adam. Enoch was a righteous man, type of church, pre-Flood. Noah belonged to that group. Job was a righteous man, post Flood church. We are just never told who by God. Then came Abraham and Jacob. Called out assembly, of ethnical identity. A physical economy and Law. Still, some in this family were spiritually part of the church, that would be part of Adam's covenant of Atonement and redemption. David with the Psalms was the most vocal preacher of the Gospel in the OT. David did not have a congregation. God still used the inspired Word of God though.

The problem is rightly dividing the spiritual covenant since Adam, and the earthly economic covenant that Moses recorded as the physical covenant. Technically the new covenant that was short lived. Jesus embodied the spiritual covenant in physical ministry, and was God Himself, Adam's Atonement. The Cross being the act of redeeming Adam's descendants back to God. To God it did not matter when Jesus came, as much as we think it matters as a connection between an old and new covenant.

Jesus was the second Adam. Thus the oldest and only covenant that mattered was the Atonement on the Cross. What the physical covenant could not do as an earthly kingdom, the church was supposed to change all kingdoms from the bottom up. That did not even last as long as the physical covenant did. The spiritual covenant was hijacked into a physical covenant with Satan himself. So just like before the Flood, and before Abraham, and before the congregation in the wilderness, the spiritual church, was small and lost to history. The covenant was presented as a physical one from the leaders of the government, herself, dictating a false god to the governed.

Yes there is a large ground up spiritual body, but how to distinguish it from the false body is only in God's sight. To say a covenant or redemption is at the mercy of some religion or denomination would be dead wrong. Theology has as much to do with Salvation and Atonement as a restaurant menu would work as a national constitution.

There is only one covenant God is dealing with right now, and that is the spiritual one with Adam.

I think that to completely rule out the physical covenant is wrong. Those who try to say the physical covenant given to Moses was one of Salvation and Redemption are just plain wrong. Both covenants are in effect, but the physical has been put on hold until the time of the Gentiles ( the descendants of Adam ) comes to an end. The church really has no say or authority over the physical covenant. The church barely handles the spiritual covenant well. Especially a church that is so wrapped up in the physical. That is why amil are wrong. The soon coming, Day of the Lord, is a physical covenant not a spiritual covenant. The church will not be on earth, but in the temple of God, Paradise. The thing about election is you cannot pick and choose which covenant you are under. But no one is forced into nor denied either. All humans have a choice to choose or reject God.

 

[BABerean2]

Both covenants are in effect, but the physical has been put on hold until the time of the Gentiles ( the descendants of Adam ) comes to an end.

Based on Luke 21:24-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to an end at the Second Coming of Christ.


If you think God is going back to the Old Covenant you have cut the following verse out of your Bible.


Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,


.

 

[keras]

The soon coming, Day of the Lord, is a physical covenant not a spiritual covenant. The church will not be on earth, but in the temple of God, Paradise.

Your post was good and Biblically correct, until you said this.
Nowhere does the Bible say the Church will leave the earth.

 

[Timtofly]

Your post was good and Biblically correct, until you said this.
Nowhere does the Bible say the Church will leave the earth.

I guess that depends on how much into Satan's physical deception of what the physical heavens and earth are, one is in.

The earth extends to the waters above the firmament. These waters along with spiritual blindness will be removed. I would think that at that point even angels, whether on God's side or Satans, will be seen walking around as well. The spiritual and physical will no longer be two "unique" conditions.

Paul says we will meet the Lord above the earth. We will remain there next to the throne of God. In glorified form, but it never says we walk back down to earth. Revelation 20 indicates thrones surrounding the earth looking down in judgment on the earth. But is it still considered the earth, because the earth is where all the action is. Even God on the throne can be seen on earth, but the earth is as a footstool, meaning above and not directly on the earth.

 

[keras]

Paul says we will meet the Lord above the earth. We will remain there next to the throne of God. In glorified form, but it never says we walk back down to earth

But Revelation 5:9-10 says the Lords faithful, chosen people will reign with Him on earth.

Who are those that you think will float around in space?

 

[Timtofly]

But Revelation 5:9-10 says the Lords faithful, chosen people will reign with Him on earth.

Who are those that you think will float around in space?

I think you are in a pickle more than i. Two points. The 24 elders are singing this song, yet they are technically "not from every nation". They are repeating the prayers of the saints stored in vials. So what part fits what? The redeemed are from every nation, however the 24 elders will rule over the earth. But what does it mean if their thrones are looking down on the earth, and not actually in a temple on the earth? I asked how are billions of people going to fit in a temple, Jerusalem, or even the area of Palestine with out stepping on toes? What if it is 20 billion? You have never provided an answer. If it is just the living church, why is the living church first, and all the OT saints never brought out of captivity, and where is the current abode of souls, if they are not all under the alter, in Paradise? If they are in Paradise, why are they sleeping?

The other thing is you do not see a bodily resurrection until the GWT. Are you going to change that to more of a pre-trib scenario? Are just the 24 elders the only ones in Jerusalem, sitting in the Temple?

Paradise is not space. It is a square shaped dwelling place for Adam's descendants. We do not know the measurements although a few prophets including John have measured something. Is it as big as the New Jerusalem?