One Church. One Body. One Israel.
by Brian Hennessy
An article by noted author and teacher Derek Prince
appeared in the Spring, 2001 issue of a quarterly newspaper publication called, Christians
For Israel Today. The article was entitled, “Who Is Israel?” and was
taken from a book by Prince written in 1984. I was dumbstruck to see that
Prince, whose teachings I have long admired, could be so mistaken concerning the
identity of Israel – as well as the identity of the Church!
The essence of his teaching, known as “two entities,”
is that the Bible is a book divided into two separate stories about two separate
entities, the Church and Israel. Since I believe the Bible is clearly a
continuous story about the same entity – namely Israel - under different
covenants, I have written this short analysis of Prince’s teaching to show why
it cannot be correct.
In trying to establish his argument that there are “two
separate entities,” Prince listed the 79 verses in the New Testament where the
word “Israel” or “Israelite” is mentioned. He argued that the word
“Israel” found in all these references is used in the exact same way as in
the Old Testament. That is, it’s still talking about the same entity found in
the first half of our Bible. And I couldn’t agree more! But contrary to the
point Prince was trying to make, that argument only confirms that the Israel
mentioned in the NT is indeed the very same Israel found in the OT. It’s just
that Israel in the NT is shown to be in the process of transition from the Old
Covenant – i.e. the law of Moses - to its long awaited New Covenant.
One of the 79 NT Scriptures quoted by Prince, “I will
make a new covenant with the House of Judah and with the House of Israel”
(Heb. 8:8), leaves no doubt that the New Covenant introduced by Jesus is the
very same new covenant promised to OT Israel by the prophet Jeremiah. (Jer.
31:31) And we know that all those who have come into Israel’s new covenant by
faith and been cleansed by the blood of Jesus and received the Holy Spirit are
also called “the Church.”
Therefore, to accept Prince’s argument that the Church and Israel are not the same entity, requires that Jesus become the head of two separate bodies. A gentile Church and a Jewish Church. 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. The very first Israel Scripture on Prince’s list
declares Jesus to be the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy about a “ruler who
will shepherd my people Israel.” (Matt 2:6) He is after all, Israel’s Messiah, the Lion of Judah!
So - if they are the same entity, why does the Bible refer
to the two groups by different names then? It doesn’t. Just as the word
“Israel” is used the same way in both testaments, so is the word that is
translated in the NT as “Church.” That is, the same Greek word, ecclesia,
is found in both testaments describing the same ever-growing, faith-filled
community of God’s people. Although
the OT was originally written in Hebrew, 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 Bible, 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 word church. It is a bad English
translation of ecclesia. Ecclesia,
which literally means “the called-out-ones” would have been better
translated in our Bibles 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 have seen that it is used the exact same way throughout the Bible. 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. (So that there will be no confusion about what I am saying, let
me add also that the Jewish people, even though most have not yet entered into
their promised new covenant, are also considered by God to be Israel. “For the
gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” Rom. 11: 29)
But we don’t even have to depend on the Septuagint to
establish the point that the Church is the 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 calling the
entire family of Abraham in the OT as the “ecclesia.” Our English translators however simply don’t render it as
church as they do everywhere else.
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) Here is a prophetic word by the writer of Hebrews, that when studied in context (v. 11-17), reveals that all those who would form the church/congregation around Jesus would be his flesh-and-blood brethren, the descendants of Abraham. And that His name would be praised in the midst of this “Church.” Obviously, his physical brothers would somehow have to include the Gentiles as well since we too have been gathered into this family. But we miss that subtle but important clue because the translators again avoid using the NT term “Church” when it refers to Israel (It might be a bad translation, but they should be consistent.)
So where are we? It would be perfectly obvious to everyone
that the Church and Israel are the very same entity except for one 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)
Why is it so difficult then to accept that Gentiles could also be accepted into
chosen Israel under the New Covenant? Which is exactly what happened!
The real question that needs to be resolved then is not
“who is Israel?” But who are the Gentile believers in Messiah? Are they part
of this NC Israel as I argue? Or have they been segregated from Israel and
placed in a separate new entity called the Church as Prince argues, while the
believing Jews like Paul and Peter and all the disciples continued to belong to
the congregation known as Israel? Again I say that this position is indefensible
because it creates two Churches of Jesus Christ.
Prince supports this argument forcefully from Romans Nine by pointing out that when Paul says "not all Israel is descended from Israel," he is not suggesting that the entity of Israel be expanded to include Gentiles.
Which leads us to this final enigma. How then can the
Gentiles ever be considered part of this entity 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 riddle asks: “If two Indians are
walking along a trail in the 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. Do you know?
The obvious answer is that the Indian in back is the mother
of the Indian if front, yet most people who hear the riddle are initially
stumped.
Like the word “Indian,” which is automatically assumed
to be male, “Gentile” is automatically assumed to be someone who 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 know for certain that there were hundreds of
thousands of Israelites who were scattered among and absorbed by the Gentile
nations in the 8th century BC after Syria conquered the northern
kingdom of Israel. 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 the 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 was God who chose us in His
Son, not the other way around.
I myself am convinced by faith and by study of the
Scriptures that all true believers, if not Jewish, are then the long lost
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 also 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. The House of Israel is the northern kingdom 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 true Gentiles, that is those who are descended from a
lineage outside the chosen line of Abraham.
If this is so, then the last issue – the
biological-connection – has been satisfied and there is no reason former
Gentiles should not be recognized as part of New Covenant Israel. The mystery is
solved.
I will make one last point. In his teaching, Prince
completely overlooks all the Scriptures that clearly identify the Gentiles as
part of Israel, both physically and spiritually, but don’t actually use the
word “Israel” in the verse. Here are a few 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, 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!”
Romans 11: The whole chapter shows we are grafted into the tree of
Israel.
To conclude, I consider this “two entities” teaching 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 continue unchallenged it will ultimately suffocate the coming reconciliation of Jews and Christians (if that were possible) by not allowing us to become one with our Jewish brothers as they awaken from their long slumber regarding their 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 Jesus Christ. Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ 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)