Church and Israel distinctions

The fourth biblical foundation upon which the pre-trib rapture is built is the fact that God has two peoples-Israel and the church. What do we mean by this distinction and how does it impact pretribulationism?

The Distinction Between Israel and the Church "The New Testament consistently differentiates between Israel and the church," claims Arnold Fruchtenbaum.1 Fruchtenbaum supports this conclusion through a powerful twofold argument in which he first demonstrates the biblical view of Israel and secondly, by showing that the church is viewed in the New Testament as a separate entity.

Belief that God's single plan for history includes the two peoples of Israel and the church does not imply that there are thus different ways of salvation. When it comes to the issue of salvation there is only one way, since all peoples down through history descend from a single source-Adam. Christ's saving work is the only way of salvation for anyone, whether they are a member of Israel or the church.

Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc." (113). He notes that national election distinguishes Israel from those peoples who were not chosen that we know as Gentiles (113-14). Fruchtenbaum outlines four reasons for Israel's election: 1) they were "chosen on the basis of God's love . . . to be 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6) . . . to represent the Gentile nations before God." 2) "God chose Israel to be the recipient of His revelation and to record it (Deut. 4:5-8; 6:6-9; Rom. 3:1-2)." 3) Israel "was to propagate the doctrine of the One God (Deut. 6:4)." 4) Israel "was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16-17; 7:13-14) (115)."

No biblically oriented christian would deny these purposes relating to Israel. The differences begins to emerge when we consider Israel in relation to the church. "Some theologians insist," notes Fruchtenbaum "that at some point the church receives the promises given to Israel and thus become the 'New Israel' (known as replacement theology). Some believe the terms church and Israel are used virtually 'interchangeably,' most citing Galatians 6:16 and some Romans 9:6." (116).

However, those commonly known as dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally and thus do not confuse the terms Israel and the church, since there is no basis in the text of any biblical passage for supporting such an approach.

Having noted important aspects of the biblical use of Israel, I will now examine the nature of the church.

Six reasons are given by Fruchtenbaum from the Bible supporting the notion that the church is a distinct work in God's household from His people Israel.

1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.

2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).

3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).

4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."

5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).

Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.

6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty time and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118).3 Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.

If Israel and the church are not distinguished then there is no basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church, as a new and unique people of God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as two, it removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail (Deut. 28:13).

The more that the believer sees a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church, the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is describing a separate destiny and hope for her. The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future includes the seven-year tribulation and then shortly before Christ's return to Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah as the veil is removed and then she looks upon the one Who was pierced and is converted. On the other hand, the distinct hope (the rapture before the 70th week of Daniel) for the church is Christ's any-moment return.

Thus, a distinction between Israel and the church, as taught in the Bible, provides a basis of support for the pre-trib rapture. Those who merge the two programs cannot logically support the biblical arguments for the pre-trib position.

ENDNOTES 1 Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church" in Wesley Willis, John Master, and Charles Ryrie, ed., Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 129. This article by Fruchtenbaum is a highly regarded defense of the Bible's distinction between Israel and the church and should be read by all interacting with this subject. The remaining citations of Fruchtenbaum's article will appear in brackets after a quotation in the rest of this essay.

2 For an extensive and convincing treatment of Galatians 6:16 see Fruchtenbaum's article, 120-26.

3 Fruchtenbaum lists all 73 times Israel is used in the New Testament and demonstrates that Israel always is used to refer to ethnic Jews and never is used of the church (118-20). For an exhaustive and definitive study of the word for church and how it is never merged with Israel in the New Testament, see Earl Radmacher, What the Church is All About (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 366-84, 389-93.

"1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" "

Matt 18
15 Moreover 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.
16 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.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Whoops! There goes that one!

"2) ..."The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117). "

See above. Oh, and btw, Eph 4 does not claim that the church could not "become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts "

"3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). "

The 'mystery' is not 'the church', but the message of the gospel which was hidden but now is revealed! It was the truth of which "Moses and the Prophets" made known (Luke 24:13-27,32)

"4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" "

"5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16"

Paul makes no such distinction! In fact, as I have already pointed out, he ~ELIMINATES~ the distinction (Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)

"6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty time and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" "

Acts 7
37 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.
38 This is he, that was in the church 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:

x, guess what the 'church in the wilderness' is? It's Isreal! Oh, and notice the 'Greek' word used here is 'ekklesia'.

Whoops! There goes that one, too!

Sorry, x, I'm not impressed. I'll stick with the Scriptures!

Jean

Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc. Fruchtenbaum fails to make the elementary but critical distinction between Israelites and Jews. We know that all Jews are Israelites, but the overwhelming majority of Israelites are not Jews. He wants to lump Hebrews, Semites, Israelites and Jews together as one, and that is absurd at even the definitional level. His use of the phrase "Israel is viewed theologically as..." does not effectively mask his illogic and is not helpful to his case.

There is no distinction between the two!

In fact, the Bible calls the 'Jews' in 2Kings 16:6 before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians in Chapter 17.

In 2Ki.18:26, the Jews asked the Assyrians not to speak in the Jewish language.

Did the Northern Kingdom have a language different then the one in the South?

Oh, yes, thats right, the South (Judah) spoke Jewish and the North spoke Hebrew.

http://www.hopeofisrael.net/triblost.htm

>There is no distinction between the two!

How then do you explain this verse, among many which could be quoted to show they are different:

Ezekiel 23:1-4 - Two Harlot Sisters - The Parable of the Two Sisters

       The word of the LORD came again to me, saying:
             "Son of man, there were two women,
             The daughters of one mother.
             They committed harlotry in Egypt,
             They committed harlotry in their youth;
             Their breasts were there embraced,
             Their virgin bosom was there pressed.
             Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister;
             They were Mine,
             And they bore sons and daughters.
             As for their names,
             Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. [Israel, and Judah]

Both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms subsequently received their punishments, including separate captivities and diaspora.

>... the Bible calls the 'Jews' in 2Kings 16:6

2 Kings 16:6 says absolutely nothing about 'Jews'. Where are you getting this fantasy? There were no Jews until ~500 BC.

>In 2 Ki.18:26, the Jews asked the Assyrians not to speak in the Jewish language.

2 Kings 16:6 says absolutely nothing about 'Jews'. Where are you getting this fantasy? There were no Jews until ~500 BC.

>Did the Northern Kingdom have a language different then the one in the South?

There is no reason I know of to believe their language was different at the time of the breakup of the David Kingdom. There is however an abundance of evidence showing the Hebrew roots of the Celtic language(s) of Europe, and America. However, language still remains the weakest of all methods for tracing the movement of peoples.

>Oh, yes, thats right, the South (Judah) spoke Jewish and the North spoke Hebrew.

What exactly is the difference between the "Jewish" and "Hebrew" languages?

>http://www.hopeofisrael.net/triblost.htm

This is not a reliable and bias free site looking for the truth. It is a site dedicated to bashing British Israelism, and by it's use you are trying to attach me to them. That attachment is slanderous. The introduction to my LostTribe Freeper Home page clearly states:

This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical. It is NOT about Christian or Jewish Identity, British Israelism, White Power or anti-Semitism, so if that's what you're looking for, SCRAM! I speak for no one else and no one speaks for me, so WYSIWYG. If you are a serious student of HISTORY, and have an open mind, read on...

There is no distinction between the two! How then do you explain this verse, among many which could be quoted to show they are different: Ezekiel 23:1-4 - Two Harlot Sisters - The Parable of the Two Sisters The word of the LORD came again to me, saying: "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. They committed harlotry in Egypt, They committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed. Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. [Israel, and Judah] Both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms subsequently received their punishments, including separate captivities and diaspora.

So what?

They were a divided kingdom!

Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom and Jerusalem the south.

They and would remain divided until God brought them back together as a nation. It would be like saying 'tell the people of Richmond' (the Conferderate capital) and Washington D.C.(Northern Capital).

Your view that a Jew is different then an Isralite is nonsense.

Notherners in this country are still called Yankees down South.

Does that mean that we are two separate people because the Northeners are called a different 'name' then Southerners.

So, when foreigners told Americans 'Yankee go home' they were really only talking about Northerners!

>... the Bible calls the 'Jews' in 2Kings 16:6 2 Kings 16:6 says absolutely nothing about 'Jews'. Where are you getting this fantasy? There were no Jews until ~500 BC.

In 2Kings 16:6 it says

At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria and drave the Jews from Elath, and dwelt there until this day.

Pick up a Bible and read it!

The Northern Kingdom was destroyed in the next chapter.

>In 2 Ki.18:26, the Jews asked the Assyrians not to speak in the Jewish language. 2 Kings 16:6 says absolutely nothing about 'Jews'. Where are you getting this fantasy? There were no Jews until ~500 BC. >Did the Northern Kingdom have a language different then the one in the South? There is no reason I know of to believe their language was different at the time of the breakup of the David Kingdom. There is however an abundance of evidence showing the Hebrew roots of the Celtic language(s) of Europe, and America. However, language still remains the weakest of all methods for tracing the movement of peoples.

Well, the South had just been destoyed by the Assyrians so there was no time for a new language to develop.

The North and the South (like our North and South) both spoke Jewish-Hebrew. (same language, same people)

>Oh, yes, thats right, the South (Judah) spoke Jewish and the North spoke Hebrew. What exactly is the difference between the "Jewish" and "Hebrew" languages?

There is none, they are just two names for the same thing. >http://www.hopeofisrael.net/triblost.htm This is not a reliable and bias free site looking for the truth. It is a site dedicated to bashing British Israelism, and by it's use you are trying to attach me to them. That attachment is slanderous. The introduction to my LostTribe Freeper Home page clearly states: This site is about HISTORY, both Archeological and Biblical.

If it is so 'biblical' how come you did not know about 2Kings 16:6!

It is NOT about Christian or Jewish Identity, British Israelism, White Power or anti-Semitism, so if that's what you're looking for, SCRAM! I speak for no one else and no one speaks for me, so WYSIWYG. If you are a serious student of HISTORY, and have an open mind, read on...

The Jews have 12 tribes which God knows as shown by Rev.14.

The tribe of Levi was represented in Ezra, so that tribe was known, even if the Northern Kingdom was wiped out.

So, do you consider the Levites 'Jewish' or 'Israelites'

In 2Kings 16:6 it says At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria and drave the Jews from Elath, and dwelt there until this day. You are using the infamous DARBY "translation". That is no Bible, it is a JOKEBOOK! Next you will be quoting from the National Geographic and The Commerce Business Daily. Look at that verse in REAL Bibles and see that they say nothing at all about Jews. You are betting on the wrong horse!

Boy are you cracked in the head!

Everyone who has seen any of my posts on the subject knows I only use the King James.

I did check the NIV and NASB and they don't read Jews!

The King James strikes again!

And the Darby had it also?

Well, he got it right, because he followed the right reading found in the Bible.

I checked to see what other translations had 'Jew'in 2Kings 16:6.

The ASV, WEB, and the YLT all have Jew for 2Kings 16:6.

In Youngs Analytical Concordance of the Bible states,

Jew: a descendent of Judah, in later times also an Isralite. In 2Ki.16:6 this appellation is applied to the two tribes, in later days the twelve tribes.

Just as I gave you the example of 'Yankee'.

Strictly speaking a 'Yankee' is only a Northerner.

And even a stricter meaning is to make it refer to only those from the New England area!

However, the meaning has to come to mean to those who are non-Americans, all Americans.

A 'Jew' strictly speaking meant the tribe of Judah.

The term however has been broadened to mean all of the 12 tribes of Israel.

did check the NIV and NASB and they don't read Jews! The King James strikes again! Yes, this is an excellent example of a problem causing people to disagree unnecessarily, caused by a mistranslation (or by editorial bias) in the original King James Version. "Men of Judah" was not the same as "Jews". There are many such examples of KJV errors. They are well documented. This error and many others were corrected in the NKJV and other later Bibles.

Leaving aside the issue of errors in the King James, other translations did have it as noted in my earlier post (ASV,YLT)

This example points out the need for constant vigilance and reevaluation of what mere men have done before. The word "Jew" was not in the original source documents

Now, that is funny! Even the Septuagint (Origen, 3rd century AD) has 'Jew'

The word in 2Ki.16:6 is not 'men of Judah' as the NIV has, but Jew.

I checked both Hebrew texts and they read the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.