I said in section #3 I would deal with the term “elect” here in section 5. As with our previous focus word it’s often helpful to look get to the Greek and to other places it is used to get a handle on this term. The term is eklektous and is defined as “chosen”. In Colossians 3:12 Paul is speaking to the church and states this. (KJV) “Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved …” Essentially, he’s calling the church the elect. So, looking back to Matt 24:31 you could substitute that word in and read it like this “…and they shall gather together His eklektous (chosen or church) from the four winds, …”
So why do I take such liberty to substitute the word “church” I there? Let’s take a look at how we got the word “church” in the first place. Jesus declares in Matt 16:18 he will build his church and Matthew uses the Greek word he Ekklesia which gets translated as “church” but the word “church” is really the Greek word kyriakos anglicized where it literally means “Belonging to the Lord.” We just accept it as common usage though and nobody splits hairs about it. Be that as it may, I contend, I am not alone, that the ekklesia or kyriakos as it’s known existed long before Pentecost.
In Stephen’s address to the Sanhedrin he speaks of the ekklesia in the wilderness here I will include the text Acts 7:37-38 (KJV)
“This is 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. 38 This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina…..”
Furthermore consider Hebrews 2:12 where the writer quotes Psalm 22:22 (KJV) “Saying I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee”
Ekklesia is simply those who are “called out” of the world unto God. Clearly that’s not only a post Pentecost occurrence. So Peter, James, John and all the disciples except Judas as a pretender were already the church.
Saint is the next term whose meaning gets convoluted by some teachers who teach that saints means something different when it comes to the book of Revelation as opposed to the rest of the new testament. They claim that since that word church is not used after chapter 3 and saints only is used after that point that it designates the church is gone afterwards. Hog wash! The usage of the word church in the first 3 chapters is because John is referring to a specific group of saints in a particular city. Afterwards he is referring to all called out believers alive and not just saints in a particular city. Consider for example Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church in chapter 1 verse 2. (KJV) “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth , to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Christ Jesus…” That’s just one of many examples of the church being called saints.
Now for the next term to address is Israel
Who and/or what is Israel? The way you interpret the eschatologically related passages in the bible will likely be adjusted or contrived based on how you define this term. I know it can be difficult to ascertain whether Paul is using the term theologically or ethnically, especially in the critical texts of Romans 9, 10 and 11. I will try make it a understandable as I can, God willing, and if I don’t succeed please forgive me. I’m not a linguist but a just plain old Bible student desiring to learn and share.
The letter to the Romans is crucial to the understanding of the term Israel, yet, I don’t believe is the best place to start. When reading Paul’s letter to the church of Ephesians, many people seem only to come away with predestination, saved by grace, and the armor of God… but miss something hugely important. Well, I consider it important. The unity of the Jews and the Gentiles who are in the Commonwealth of Israel It’s in the section right after the “saved by grace” section at the end of Chapter 2. In Verse 12, Paul uses a very interesting term – “commonwealth of Israel”. Then Paul goes through a diligent explanation of how the members of the church at Ephesus who are part of the “church” have at the same time became part of Israel. Let’s read the passages.
Eph 2:14-15 (KJV): “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.”
Broken down the wall! It seems to me that Darby (courtesy of Schofield) has done his best to reconstruct that wall with his dispensationalist doctrine. He seems to count on us having amnesia when defining Israel differently when it comes to eschatology.
Also, if God’s children are one new body from the two, why do some people teach that one part of the body is resurrected 7 years before the other part? Why two different salvation plans because your parents were from different ethnic groups? And what about the rapture/resurrection of messianic Jews? Which dispensational rapture do they get resurrected in if they are in both groups? Do they have to hang around 7 more years and go through tribulation because they have Jewish blood? Do they stop being Israel and become the church because they believe in Jesus who is “Israel” (“…out of Egypt I have called my Son” Matt 2:15, Hosea 11:1 ) God is not the author of confusion! Paul goes on further from there.
Eph 2:19-20 (KJV): “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God: 20 and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.”
Now we take what Paul says in Ephesians 2 and we pair it with concepts from Romans 2, Romans 9 and even Hebrews 8 and that all funnels into our understanding of Romans 11 where Paul finishes the chain of logic.
From Romans 2, we learn how Paul defines who a spiritual Jew is.
Rom 2:28-29(KJV): “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
So Paul defines an “inward Jew” spiritually, not ethnically. He says something very similar in Romans 9.
Rom 9:6-8: “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. 7 Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
Paul goes on further in verse 9:27 concerning Israel quoting Isaiah 10:22 (KJV) “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.”
Please don’t forget Romans 9:6 and 27 when you read Romans 11. In this section Paul defines Israel as the children of promise. Not by bloodline. Do you count on His promises?
But wait, there’s more in chapter 9 we can draw from. Listen to how he addresses his audience.
Rom 9:24 (KJV) “24 Even us whom he has called, not only from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
Notice that Paul is saying to the church in Rome that the ethnic Jewish believers who are called out of the Jews are part of the church as much as called out Gentiles believers who are called out of the Gentiles are part of the church. There is no “us and them”, there is only “us”
The Hebrew word for Gentile in the old testament is goy and is often translated as nations or heathen and in the new testament Gentile is from the Greek word ethnos which is also translated as nation. God has only one church who are people called out from every nation. There is not a separate Gentile church. Go back to Ephesians 2:14-15 if you need a reminder.
In 1 Cor 10:32 (KJV) “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.”
Here Paul is splitting people into 3 camps. Gentiles, Jews, and Church who are a people he defined as “Israel” back in Romans 9:6-8 – a theological distinction – the children of promise, the ones who have been called out of the nations. This is the whole history of Israel. Abraham was called out of pagan Chaldea and the true Israel continues to be a people “called out” of the world who trust in his promises.
Drawing back from Romans chapter 2, Paul is talking about the “outward Jew” or ethnic Jews here in Chapter 9, verse 24. The “inward Jew” he has equated with the church as well.
Again, now in Romans Chapter 11 we see a unity of believers. Paul gives the picture of the vine and the branches in Rom 11:16-24 that demonstrates the relationship we have with the one vine, that is, Christ or Israel. I’m sure you can find many teachings on Christ’s name as Israel so I won’t expound on that. Now when Paul states in 11:26 (KJV), “And so all Israel shall be saved,” you understand he is not speaking of unbelieving Jews (the branches broken off and not grafted back in), but all those believing who are called out. This is not replacement theology but it is “remnant” theology. The branches which are broken off may be grafted back in if they believe.
When reading Romans 11 (remembering Rom 9:6) when Paul says in Rom 11:29 that his gifts and calling are “without repentance” (irrevocable) this is true for Israel but not for the unbelieving Jews who have lost their citizenship and continue in unbelief. Now when the “fullness of the Gentiles comes in” God will open their eyes with his parousia. Zechariah describes it this way.
Zech 12:10 (KJV) “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications: they will look upon me whom they have pierced and mourn for him …”
Then they will repent and be grafted back in after their partial and temporary blinding. Yet, two thirds of geographical Israel will die in the process of that happening. (Zech 13:8)
Paul’s use of the phrase “comes in” in Rom 11:25 is consistent with what he has just been teaching as more Gentiles are being “grafted in” the vine or citizenship of Israel. Why would he say the Gentiles are “coming in” if the Gentile church were just to be “raptured out” before the full reconciliation of his people at the parousia as some teach?
In light of what has been presented, I hope you don’t think that the apparent gap in Daniel’s 70 weeks is dealing with a whole completely different group of people. He is dealing with Israel all along. The combination of ethnic Gentile Israel and ethnic Jewish Israel. There is a fabricated line of distinction inserted by John Nelson Darby to create a disunity in the people of whom Jesus died for to unite and redeem under himself. (Eph 2:14)
Also consider Jeramiah 31:31-34 (Hebrews 8:8-10) (KJV) “ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house (commonwealth) of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:”
That’s what happened at Pentecost! God the Father didn’t stop dealing with Israel, he expanded Israel. It was really Peter’s baptism of Cornelius was the first official construction project of the non ethnic Jewish addition on to the house of Israel.
Are you a believer in the Lord’s promises? Has that covenant been made with you? Has the Holy Spirit written the law in your heart?
If you (assuming you are a believer) believe you are not part of Israel, then you can’t say that promise belongs to you because it is written only to ethnic Israel in Darby’s paradigm.
True believers who are called out of both the ethnic Gentiles and the ethnic Jews are Israel. Plain and simple.
___________________________________________
While on the topic of Jews, Gentiles, Church and Israel I would be amiss if I didn’t comment on John’s uses of the word “Jew” in Rev. 2:9 and 3:9. John not only said they were fake Jews but were actually the “Synagogue of Satan”. It obviously could be asserted that John didn’t regard them as spiritual Israel or “inward Jews” but is he saying more than that? Are they not even ethnic Jews? You might look up the name Ashkenaz in Genesis 10 (Table of nations )and then in an internet search engine. Then add an “i” to the end of the name and search again. I could say a whole lot more about these people who hold the Talmud and Kabbalah higher that the Torah but your research will probably say enough. I might but I’m not sure if I will. Depends on if the Holy spirit moves me.
As a foot note for this section there are other people who have done more extensive teachings on this topic of the interrelationship between Israel and the church. One good one that I found was by John Parsons on his website hebrew4christians.com