Question for the scholars - re prophesies of the Church Age

Can anyone give me some Old Testament references directly speaking of the coming Church Age? I know that there are prophesies about the coming Christ, and the coming Holy Spirit, and eternity, but what about the Church?Diane

Consider these Pauline texts:Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began ... by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Taco

Can anyone give me some Old Testament references directly speaking of the coming Church Age? I know that there are prophesies about the coming Christ, and the coming Holy Spirit, and eternity, but what about the Church?It is an axiom among pretrib dispensationalists that there is no mention of the church 'age' in the OT. It is essential for them to have this axiom in order to justify their view that the clock of Daniel's 70 weeks stopped and will restart at a future time. The dispensationalists regard Daniel's weeks as having suffered an hiatus or to use their usual phrase "the church age is a parenthesis" which is unrecorded in OT prophecy. Their view is that it did not hit the radar of the Old Covenant dispensation.You refer to 'direct prophecies'. An orthodox Jew would see none of our 'direct prophecies' as pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth, so in that sense all prophecy demands interpretation and application. One pretty 'direct' prophecy which comes to mind is Psa. 22:22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. The book of Hebrews certainly seems to apply this passage to the current 'church' age when it quotes it “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”(Heb. 2:11-12, KJVS)I am not a pretrib dispensationalist, so they may want to correct my interpretation of their view. :-)

Some general prophecies speaking of the current age can be found in Genesis 22:18, Isaiah 2:1-4/Micah 4:1-8, Isaiah 19:18-25, Daniel 2:44-45, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Joel 2:28-32, Hosea 2:23, Psalm 87. Such are just some prophecies that come to mind off the top of my head about the age we currently live in.

By the way, if anybody attempts to confuse you about OT bible prophecy regarding the Church age, specifically concerning "the mystery" hidden, the Scriptures say exactly what this mystery was that was hidden. This age itself was not a surprise to the prophets, some hidden paranthesis in God's plan, rather, the mystery is plainly this according to Paul:Ephesians 3:4 By refering to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.According to Paul, this is the only thing you will not find prophesied of in the Old Testament. However, that is not to say this age we are living in is not prophesied of. Such is the error of classical dispensationalism thinking. Psalm 110 is another prophecy of this age, specifically, Psalm 110:1. This is a prophecy quoted in the NT to prove the ascension of Christ to heaven being prophesied of. If Christ is in heaven sitting at the right hand of God, then logic says He is not currently on earth. Thus, He must have asscended there. Which, would leave us with the current age.

It is an axiom among pretrib dispensationalists that there is no mention of the church 'age' in the OT.Hi Ron,I'm one of those pre-tribbers, but I'm not aware of any such axiom :-) .

Thanks for these references and thoughts. I am not finished meditating on them yet – but have a few thoughts so far:In the Old Testament prophetic writings, the space of time between Christ’s first and second advent seems hazy. Maybe that’s because the prophets saw right through into eternity – not bound by finite time and space. I wonder if their clearest vision regarding the church was of its eternal destiny - heaven – the New Jerusalem – New heaven and earth. After all, prophetic insight is spiritual insight – given in the spirit, by the Spirit.It is obvious that the prophets never envisioned the church as we see it today – but as a spiritual government – reigning within hearts, and as an eternal kingdom. Jesus said, “The kingdom is within you.” It also seems to be a conquering body – defeating the enemy (Satan). I wonder if that refers to salvation – rescuing souls from hell. I don't think it referred to the Crusades - ancient or modern. I fear that the real Church is still "in 'parenthesis'” in the minds of most because they are carnal minded, spiritually blind, and don’t have eternity on their hearts. As a result spiritual realities regarding the church register as a blank in their minds. They produce a lot of interpretations that are bound by finite time and space and make sense to a natural, unspiritual mind – but are not explicitly stated anywhere in Scripture.MYSTERYJews and Gentiles become one through redemption. .. neither Jew nor Greek....Why was it a mystery? To whom was it a mystery? MY CONCERN:Error in interpreting prophesies regarding the Church/Kingdom will cause countless to follow the beast (natural, political, religious ruler) when they think they are following Christ and are part of his Church. In the end, error makes a difference between hell and heaven. Diane

I'm one of those pre-tribbers, but I'm not aware of any such axiomJeremy.Sorry, a generalisation. The early brethren who specialised in the Scofield view of things would often use the creation narrative as their model. They identified the different days with different dispensations, and in particular the fourth day “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” Gen. 1:14-18,) with the era of the church, saying that in that dispensation God's work was not concerning earthly things but the heavenly creation which they identified with the church. In his pretrib period Philip Mauro was a particular exponent of this view.I think the parenthesis view of Daniel's 70 weeks is pretty well established among pretribbers?

o be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.I am certainly no a "pretribber" but as I understand it this (the above) is the essence of the church that Christ is building. A body of jew and gentile with the middle wall being broken down and both being heirs of the promise. I do not believe that this was prophesied is the OT and hence I don't believe that the church per se was revealed.

as I understand it this (the above) is the essence of the church that Christ is building. A body of jew and gentile with the middle wall being broken down and both being heirs of the promise.Ah, 'the essence'... what is the essence of the church? I know this is highly hyperthetical but would there have been no church if no Gentiles had responded?“...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:” (Eph. 3:4-6)Is this saying that the 'mystery' is the church or that the mystery is that Gentiles would be part and parcel of the same body? The church which is His body was already in existence in Acts Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. although at this time, as far we know, there were no Gentiles in it.I do believe the Church is a brand new entity and not just the addition of Gentiles to the old Israel. He made, of himself, (literally 'in Himself') one new man“the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,” (Eph. 2:15, YNG) As soon as the Jew was incorporated into the body (I am choosing my words very carefully here) they constituted the 'new man' that He had made 'in Himself'.I think the two into one, is a consequence of the church, rather than its essence.

Ah, 'the essence'... what is the essence of the church? I know this is highly hyperthetical but would there have been no church if no Gentiles had responded?But when was the wall of separation torn down and the two made one; was it at the cross or Cornellious' house?

I do believe the Church is a brand new entitySo where is this brand new entity prophesied in the OT?The Messiah praising God in the midst of his brehtren does not in and of itself prophesy a new entity surely.

I think the parenthesis view of Daniel's 70 weeks is pretty well established among pretribbers?Yes, this is true.

Were not the OT prophets part of that entity, for surely they were led and taught by the Spirit, and understood their need for redemption. Did they not excercise the same faith that is required of us for a Redeemer? So maybe the Church isn't as "brand new" since Pentacost as we would assume. The difference is that Gentiles were added into it, whereas, in the OT, they were only Israelites (mainly)It seems like the visible church, now and past, has been dwelling in the Old Covenant to a large extent. That "church" would not come under the promises, as it does not count as the church, am I correct? I grew up with some dispensational teachings, and, have since abandoned that, as to me, it is a product of the creative, logical human mind. It also seems to color the perception Christians have of themselves (leads to pride, antinomianism, etc). And it erodes the message of the prophets - which I believe is very relevant today.

tacothese are good and astute questions. The difficulty in answering them lies in the fact that we are dealing with both linear time and eternal states; they seldom mix well. We can see eternal covenants and the great sweep of God's purposes but the 'on earth' outworking of these things had a linear path.My answers to these questions (which I have asked myself) is really to do with the whole manner of interpretation of prophecy. I am often accused of holding 'replacement theology' although that is not the label I would have chosen for my position. As I read the OT prophecies I find some of them fulfilled spiritually in the arrival of the Church of Christ. I distinguish between the Church of Jehovah and the Church of Christ. (let the feeding frenzy begin... :-? )Christ's words in Matthew 16 speak of His Church as being future. Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This is future tense, while Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. would seem to indicate that the Church now existed as people are being added to it. The question then is when did it come into existence. In linear time I would suggest that it could not come into existence until the 'living stone' had been disallowed/ rejected by men but then made 'a chief corner stone'. In other words, in linear time, it came into existence after Calvary and the Resurrection. I would suggest that it could not come into being before Christ's ascension in that otherwise we would have had a physical body and a spiritual body of Christ on earth at the same time.There already was an entity known as the Church before Christ came. The Hebrew word 'qahal' had been translated by 'ekklesia' in the Septuagint. Stephen uses the Greek word 'ekklesia' in to describe this 'entity'; Acts 7:38 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: It came into being at Sinai. The word 'ekklesia' is constantly used in the Septuagint; Deut. 4:10; 9:10; 18:16; 23:1-3,8; 31:30; Josh. 8:35; Judg. 20:2; 21:5,8; 1Sam. 17:47; 19:20; 1Kings 8:14,22,55,65; 1Chr. 13:2,4; 28:2,8; 29:1,10,20; 2Chr. 1:3,5; 6:3,12-13; 7:8; 10:3; 20:5,14; 23:3; 28:14; 29:23,28,31-32; 30:2,4,13,17,23-25; Ezra 2:64; 10:18,12,14; Neh. 5:7,13; 7:66; 8:2,17; 13:1; Job 30:28; Psa. 22:22,25; 26:5,12; 35:18; 40:9; 68:12; 89:5; 107:32; 149:1; Prov. 5:14; Lam. 1:10; Joel 2:16; Mic. 2:5 and the specific phrase 'the church of Jehovah' is used in Num 16:3, 20:4, De 23:1, 2,3, 8, 1Chr 28:8, Mic2:5.while the 'Church of Israel' is referred to in Lev 4:13,16:17; De 31:30; Jos 8:35; 1Kings 8:14,22,55; 12:3; 1Chr 13:2; 28:8; 2Chr 6:3,12,13; 24:6The concept then of 'another' Church, my Church, must have been astonishing for his disciples. Were there 'plain predictions' in the OT? Well, were there plain predictions of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, but they were not plain enough for most to see. I think the Hebrews quotation of Psalm 22 is very significant in the context of Hebrews and the enthroned Christ as High Priest. The writer sees the Ps 22 reference to the 'qahal' or 'ekklesia' as it would have been in the Septuagint as a plain reference to Christ as 'high priest' in the midst of His brethren (us) in the Church. There is plainly a linear path here; “Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”(Heb. 2:17, ASV) In linear time this could not be until He had 'become a merciful and faithful high priest'.

In linear time I would suggest that it could not come into existence until the 'living stone' had been disallowed/ rejected by men but then made 'a chief corner stone'. In other words, in linear time, it came into existence after Calvary and the Resurrection.This is my point precisly. You were pondering (hypohteticaly) on would there be a church if the gentiles never 'joined'. My point is they were joined at calvary not at cornelious house. This was simply the first manifestation of that joining. This is what I was getting at when I used the word essence. Probably the wrong word in hindsight but I see the joining of jew and gentile in Christ as "One new Man" as being very prominent in my understanding of the church.As Peter said; the OT prophecies do speak to us in this time (and about us) and in that sense they speak of the church. But I do not believe that any OT prophets were looking forward to the "ekklesia which is his body" in the same way they were looking forward to the messiah.EDIT:This is the quote I was alluding to from Peter (1Pe 1:10-12) Concerning this salvation, the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching for who or what kind of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, pointed to, when he predicted the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that would follow them. To them it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you, they ministered these things, which now have been announced to you through those who preached the Good News to you by the Holy Spirit sent out from heaven; which things angels desire to look into.

taco writesThis is my point precisly. You were pondering (hypohteticaly) on would there be a church if the gentiles never 'joined'. My point is they were joined at calvary not at cornelious house.This is still comparing apples with oranges. The spiritual consequence of calvary is an eternal state; the household of Cornelius was a linear event. As a principle, from the moment of the Church's institution, the 'new man' was created, but in actual persons some Jews were added in Acts 2, and some Gentiles in Acts 10.

roadsign writesWere not the OT prophets part of that entity, for surely they were led and taught by the Spirit, and understood their need for redemption. Did they not excercise the same faith that is required of us for a Redeemer? So maybe the Church isn't as "brand new" since Pentacost as we would assume. The difference is that Gentiles were added into it, whereas, in the OT, they were only Israelites (mainly)It seems like the visible church, now and past, has been dwelling in the Old Covenant to a large extent. That "church" would not come under the promises, as it does not count as the church, am I correct?we have discussed this point to exhaustion at different times here on the forums. It is linked with whether or not the OT saints were regenerated. The decision taken on that will pretty much set the scene for whether or not people think that 'my church' is a new entity or an old one with some additions.

This is still comparing apples with oranges. The spiritual consequence of calvary is an eternal state; the household of Cornelius was a linear event. As a principle, from the moment of the Church's institution, the 'new man' was created, but in actual persons some Jews were added in Acts 2, and some Gentiles in Acts 10.hmmmmmmmSorry for the confusion (I am not getting what I want to say across very well :-? )This is basicaly the point I have been trying to make- you are saying it better than I could. That the New Man's existence is not dependant on the actual additon of any specific gentiles (or jews for that matter).I have been simply addressing your hypothetical question about gentiles not coming on board. Here is an example - there are no jews in my local assembly but it is still an expression of the one new man. The consequencse of this is that should we see some jews converted we accept them imediatly and not see them as a new "messianic" congregation. If you believe that the one new man was brought into being as a result of the cross/ressurection; that this body is somthing new; that as a distinct entity it was not explicitly prophesied in the OT. Then we are in agreement.Or is there somthing I am missing?

Here is an example - there are no jews in my local assembly but it is still an expression of the one new man.Yes, I think we are doing the math(s) differently but coming to the same answer. However, this phrase quoted above stirs me. Is a local assembly an 'expression of the new man'? I think the 'new man' is much more than a fusion of jew and gentile into a new fellowship. It is a new nature and stands in contrast to the 'old man'; which is not jew and gentile in separate compartments but something much more ominous. Likewise the 'new man' is something much more than the 'two being made one'.I am not sure that a local assembly can ever be a full expression of the 'new man' any more than it can ever be a 'bride'. What do you think?

I believe that if the local church is gathering together truly in the name of Christ and including all of his people in that area (representitavly) then it is an expression of the New Man- it is an expression of Christ. If he is truly there the head then the body is truly manifest.Of course it is more than jew and gentile fused; also more than male and female etc etc. Suppose there were a town with only three christians in it. All three were men. They begin to meet together as the Lord's people in that town. Are they a local assembly? I believe so. Now, another town has also only three christians all men, in it. they decide to come together and meet for fellowship. When they first meet they decide that this will be a mens meeting and stay that way. the first group are expressing the Lord's body. In my opinion, the second group are not. Of course they are in many ways-but not to the same extent. I feel this way about groups that gather around race (black/white churches) theology (pre/post dispensationalist churches etc) or practice (charismatic etc). I have no doubt that God is amongst his people in many forms-but Christ is not to be divided. Such groups are in my opinion (most likely in ignorance) not truly gathering on the ground of the local church (to borrow from nee).Ultimatluy the whole church will be gatherd together into Christ in some greater way than I can imagine. I think though that this is the new Man in its totality not just an expression of it. ( I don't think that I said that the local church was a full expression of the New Man. Perhaps I am using the term in the wrong way, but in my heart I am utterly convinced that Christ will work through any local gathering of his people as his body in a practical way. This is to me, why each city had a church (as oposed to a branch of the church).Anyway thats the best I can do.

Just a quick PS.I have been focusing abit on the whole issue of "the two made one". Whilst I don't believe you can have the church without this I certainly agree that the essence of the New Man is Christ (1 cor 12:12). thats why I said earlier that I was wrong to use the word 'essence'in the context that I did.

Suppose there were a town with only three christians in it. All three were men. They begin to meet together as the Lord's people in that town. Are they a local assembly? I believe so. Now, another town has also only three christians all men, in it. they decide to come together and meet for fellowship. When they first meet they decide that this will be a mens meeting and stay that way. the first group are expressing the Lord's body. In my opinion, the second group are not. Of course they are in many ways-but not to the same extent.Some interesting ideas here. ;-) but it would be a separate thread I think.

I think the 'new man' is much more than a fusion of jew and gentile into a new fellowship. It is a new nature and stands in contrast to the 'old man'I really like this, Philologos. In other words there is a death, whether Jew and Gentile before a new life is formed. Like Paul, who died to his heritage. So the old separations/distinctions don’t mean anything in this new life form. Maybe that’s why genealogies of Israel’s descendants were not continued after Christ. That is not important in the spiritual, eternal perspective. Only being in Christ is. (Rom. 2) If we don’t get this, I believe that we will run into danger of heresies. Re this brand new creature. I see no reason to exclude the OT saints from this, because the new creature (the Bride) is not a phenomena limited by the finite, temporal. Heb. 11:40 “God had planned something better for us so that only ,together with us would they be made perfect.” Is this not saying that through Christ their salvation has been made complete, making us one with them. I am not sure that a local assembly can ever be a full expression of the 'new man' any more than it can ever be a 'bride'. What do you think? As I ponder over the responses, I see the Church pictured as a big puzzle made of thousands of pieces. Many people in the past saw a clear view of a small piece of the puzzle, but not the whole. Still today, I believe that no one can see, or even comprehend the whole. If we accept our limitations, I think that we will avoid trying to make complete puzzles with only a few pieces. Ps 22 is an incredibly explicit empathetic identification with Christ’s suffering - even giving more details than the New Testament offers. I never before viewed :22 as a prophetic reference to the NT church, but it makes sense. Thanks for that. I suspect there is more hidden away in the OT that I, as yet, cannot see. The Prophets did not receive enlightenment through rational process of thought – as we receive most of our information, but through divine revelation, including identification in the midst of intense suffering and persecution. Maybe when we’re in that position, (which may come soon) we’ll understand a whole lot more of the prophetic message in Scripture – and we’ll see better what the OT prophets could see. Were there 'plain predictions' in the OT? Well, were there plain predictions of Jesus of Nazareth? Yes, but they were not plain enough for most to see. Good point, and we should take heed to these words. Are we better than the Pharisees who missed what should have been the obvious? Just maybe we have a certain degree of blindness too. Am I offending anyone by saying that? My point is they were joined at calvary This would be a prophetic picture of the Church – not seen in the natural realm, and meaningless apart from spiritual awareness. I believe this perception deeply affect the way we live our lives. It certainly should help us resist defining ourselves according to church membership, ritual, etc etc . Assembly, company, congregation, multitude Is not the word, eglesia used to define any gathering of people, not merely those who are believers? I think that a key word that defines the Church is: COVENANT. This word puts parameters on the meaning of the true Church - collection of God’s people in light of their relationship with their Creator – through the Spirit. Is 603. And the GENTILES shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. 4. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. I have come to believe that for now, we do not see the real nature of this gathering, but it is happening, nevertheless in Spirit. Here is a small example of a small gathering: I was once in a email discussion forum where someone was moved to pray for me. She did not know anything about me, and was from the other side of the globe. Nevertheless the nature of her prayer, and the timing was perfect. God even gave her my name. Now that was a precious oneness, a unity in Christ, initiated by the Spirit a unity not separated by time and space. At another time I was moved to pray for someone named Suzanne. I knew no “Suzannes”, nevertheless, I prayed as I was prompted. A few weeks later I found out who she was (but never met her) and learned about her crisis. Clearly the Spirit had prompted me regarding her condition. I could give many other examples. Now isn’t that the CHURCH in its true function under the New Covenant – as prophesied in Jer 31. – surpasses time and space through the Spirit. This is the same Spirit who gave revelation to the OT prophets! I believe that if the local church is gathering together truly in the name of Christ and including all of his people in that area (representitavly) then it is an expression of the New Man- it is an expression of Christ. If he is truly there the head then the body is truly manifest. Any church has many unsaved in it (those who say Lord, Lord,), and it’s impossible to separate the wheat from the tares. I do not believe that a local church can attain this ideal expression of the Church, although, some evidence should surely show. Hypocrisy is a very pervasive in our Western society. We have not been purified by fire yet. I suspect that the Is. 60 reference is also referring to the second advent – the full unity in heaven – the bride with Christ. It seems like the prophets could not easily separate the gathering of believers in its earthly existence from it’s eternal existence. Malachi 1:1111. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the GENTILES; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. It seems Malachi is using his frame of reference (Old Covenant worship) to portray an incredible reality – the infiltration of the Good News all over the world - producing worshippers.

roadsignRe this brand new creature. I see no reason to exclude the OT saints from this, because the new creature (the Bride) is not a phenomena limited by the finite, temporal. Heb. 11:40 “God had planned something better for us so that only ,together with us would they be made perfect.” Is this not saying that through Christ their salvation has been made complete, making us one with them. I agree. I see no reason to exclude the OT saints from this, now. But the question is not 'now' but 'then'. If the OT saints were part of the Church 'then' the Gentile ingathering would be an 'addition'. I don't believe the Gentiles are 'added' to an existing entity. I believe a new entity was begun which, from its inception, potentially included 'two into one', not 'one' added to an earlier 'one'.We have to ask the question too, as to whether there was any way out of the 'old man' until the 'new man' was established? I frequently make this point but I make it here again; the phrase is 'our old man' - with a plural possessive pronoun and a singular noun. I do not see that the bible teaches that an individual has their 'individual' old man; our old man is a collective term for the entity that is the human race outside Christ and under the wrong spiritual head. Correspondingly, 'the new man' is the collective term for an entity that is the human race 'in Christ', under the right spiritual head.Is not the word, eglesia used to define any gathering of people, not merely those who are believers? I think that a key word that defines the Church is: COVENANT. This word puts parameters on the meaning of the true Church - collection of God’s people in light of their relationship with their Creator – through the Spirit.'ekklesia' as a Greek word of the time was an 'elected council which represented a city state'. It is used in this sense Acts 19:32 Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly (ekklesia) was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (ekklesia). ...where the word 'ekklesia' has been translated as 'assembly'. Our political use of the word 'election' has links here. Our 'elected' representatives are called out (ek-lected) from the general mass of people to act as that people's representative.However, for the Greek speaking Jew, it had another connotation which is captured in Stephen's address:Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church (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: The phrase 'church in the wilderness' is a reference to Israel the nation becoming 'God's called out people', as you say 'joined to Him (and to each other) by covenant'. I referred to this in an earlier post, they became the 'church of Israel' or the 'church of Jehovah'.The phrase "I will build my church' has a link and a contrast with the 'church in the wilderness'. The Jews of His day saw ominous implications in his teaching which they protested about; "you are his disciples, we are Moses' disciples". The 'church in the wilderness' becomes, like the Old Covenant, a point of comparison and a reference for contrast. As in all instruction we move from the known to the unknown, but once moved we can leave the initial reference point behind.

The phrase "I will build my church' has a link and a contrast with the 'church in the wilderness'.Philologos, your words take some chewing. Our minds have difficulty wrapping around such apparently contradictory truths. Maybe that's where we get in trouble. Philologos, can I ask you a favor: As you see, I am always trying to bring doctinal truths into the reality of our lives. Some time ago I put my thinking into an dramatical allegory. (It was inspired out of frustration.) I wonder if you could respond to this The Divine Performance- esp the third section where I share various applications of Old and New Covenants. Is it an appropriate application of the statement you made above, or am I 'out to lunch'?

Why don't we have a look at a few OT prophecies to see what we can see, with hindsight, as regards the Church? In my own understanding of these things I am somewhat in the middle between the two main views expressed. One view will be that the OT were part of the Church and therefore prophecies regarding the Church can be found throughout the OT. The other view is that the OT and NT are quite separate 'dispensations' and that the Church never comes into view in the OT; it was the 'hidden mystery'. Both these are over simplifications but it is a place to start. “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”(1Pet. 1:10-12, KJVS) This is a fascinating passage of scripture for many reasons. The KJV uses the phrase 'the grace that should come'; this captures well the Greek phrase. The preposition 'eis' often implies the goal or direction of a thing. In this case the destination was 'you' and the subject matter was the 'grace towards you'. (peri t?s eis humas charitos). “Concerning the for you grace” (meant for you). It would seem that we are talking of salvation in all its fulness here. The evangel had reached them in the power of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven.What is clear is that those prophets had a revelation that what they were speaking was for a a future scene. It also shows that they did not understand the implications of their prophetic utterances, but sensed that there was a deeper meaning to their words. Of this passage Wesley writes: Of which salvation - So far beyond all that was experienced under the Jewish dispensation. The very prophets who prophesied long ago of the grace of God toward you - Of his abundant, overflowing grace to be bestowed on believers under the Christian dispensation. Inquired - Were earnestly inquisitive. And searched diligently - Like miners searching after precious ore, after the meaning of the prophecies which they delivered. There was plainly more in those OT prophecies than met the eye of the prophets themselves.Peter summarizes the content of those prophecies in the phrase “the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” (1Pet. 1:11, NKJV) The NKJV correcting the KJV by putting 'glories' into the plural. This is where we are touching linear events and not just eternal truths. This is a good summary of Christ's mission; suffering and the glories that would follow. What were the glories that would follow? They were many, but Paul's word to the Ephesians comes to mind: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5:25-27, KJVS) Surely, His glorious bride, was one of the things for which he travailed. Is. 53:11 "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." This quotation from Isaiah brings us to a powerful example of 'the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow'. Isaiah 53 is one of the most vivid descriptions of the 'sufferings of the Christ'. The passage changes its mood at verse 10 onwards and the change of mood continues into Isaiah 54. (there were no chapter divisions originally)“Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” (Is. 54:1-5, KJVS) This is another amazing passage of scripture; it speaks of some of the glories which follow the suffering. Who is this fecund mother who appears in Isaiah's prophecy? Well Paul has no doubt; “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (Gal. 4:22-28, KJVS) It is the Church.If we read on into the Revelation, we find “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,” (Rev. 21:2,10, KJVS) The connections seem pretty seamless. The fecund mother, is Jerusalem above, and Jerusalem above is the one who is prepared as a bride for her husband. How can we say that the Church does not appear in the OT prophecy in the light of this kind of prophecy?

I wonder if you could respond to this The Divine Performance- esp the third section where I share various applications of Old and New Covenants. Is it an appropriate application of the statement you made above, or am I 'out to lunch'?Sorry, I took a look but couldn't quite get the measure of what I was supposed to be checking.

Thank you for bringing the OT and NT scriptures to gether as you did. Let's not muddy what is a clear revelation of the Church. I think this makes a fitting summery to the topic:The connections seem pretty seamless. The fecund mother, is Jerusalem above, and Jerusalem above is the one who is prepared as a bride for her husband. How can we say that the Church does not appear in the OT prophecy in the light of this kind of prophecy?