The Church in the Wilderness

Yesterday morning, as I was reading through Acts 7, I came across a text which, for some reason, was hidden from me before.

I’ve read some material and listened to sermons which deal with dispensationalism, but I cannot ever remember reading or hearing this. I’m convinced I did, but I just never noticed it like I did yesterday.

The scene of Acts 7, brings us to Stephen before the council (Acts 6:12). In his great answer to his accusers, he begins with the conversion of Abraham (Acts 7:2-3)  and accounts an overview of some of God’s dealings with His people. I encourage you to read the whole chapter.

What struck me was this:

“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…” Acts 2:38

Stephen, speaking before Jews, uses the term ‘church’ to describe the people of Israel in the wilderness.

How strange!

Well, strange if you believe that Israel and the Church are separate entities.

Understanding relative terms…

I dealt with the dichotomy of dispensationalism before. I commend it to you for careful reading.

In the case of Acts 2:38, the term ‘church’ is used in the general sense, as often the word Israel is used. General meaning, those spoke of are identified visibly as part of that body. Back then, the males were circumcised to show this identity. Nowadays, they’re baptised.

However, many of those in Israel were not the children of God in the literal sense. They were unrepentant, rebellious and proud. In this case, Rom 2:28-29 applies. Similarly, not everyone baptised is a true child of God, though they may be seen as members of the visible church.

Sometimes, however, the same terms (Israel and Church) are used to describe the true people of God. See Gal 6:16, and Eph 5:25.

The context, as anywhere in scripture, has to be carefully considered.

Irrespective, nothing changes…

Whether you believe in the different ways these terms are used or not, if you believe Israel and the Church are two separate entities whom God deals with differently, then why did Stephen use the term ‘church’ to describe Israel in the wilderness when speaking only to Israelites?

Shouldn’t he have said, “…among the children of Israel in the wilderness…” or something like that?

Furthermore…

To be honest, I get lost amidst dispensational thinking. Perhaps that means I should never comment on it?

I cannot understand what would move someone to interpret the scriptures to see two separate ‘people of God’. To take terms and restrict them to demand this, to me at least, is absurd.

Let’s take this thinking and apply it to the Trinity. If the same thinking was used, at the very least, one would conclude that there are three Gods; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (indeed, you may have more if you take every different title used for each person).

However, one doesn’t come to this conclusion, because of passages like 1 Cor 8:4; James 2:19. There is one God.

In a similar fashion, though there are different terms used to describe God’s people, and His dealings with them, to conclude that there must be two distinct people, is unscriptural.

Sometimes Israel and the Church are not synonymous, i.e. when ‘Israel’ refers to the whole nation, and when ‘Church’ refers to those for whom Christ died.’ But, neither is ‘the church’ and ‘the Church’ synonymous.

Nevertheless, getting back to Acts 7:37-38, the two terms are used synonymously by Stephen. Moses spoke to ‘the children of Israel’ (general) v37, and was in ‘the church’ in the wilderness (general) v38.

Stephen believed in one elect people through all ages. Although the title used for this group in the OT was often Israel, and the title for this group in the NT is often ‘the Church’, yet, it is not the case exclusively.

Want to read other articles? Try these...

• Church Growth Movie
• Our second Sabbath Day
• Top Ten Most Annoying People in Church

Want to pray intelligently for this preacher? Go here to learn more!