Introduction: Did the Church Begin at Pentecost?
Ask most evangelicals when the church began and you will get a confident answer: Pentecost. The day the Holy Spirit descended in Acts 2, the church was born. Before that moment—so the reasoning goes—there was Israel, and after it, there is the church. The two are separate programs, separate peoples, with separate destinies.
This view, popularized by dispensationalism, has profoundly shaped American evangelicalism. But it is not the only perspective, and it is not the historic Reformed position. The Reformed tradition, following covenant theology, has consistently taught that the church did not spring into existence ex nihilo at Pentecost. Rather, the church has its roots deep in the Old Testament—in God's calling of a people for Himself, beginning with Abraham and extending through Israel to its fulfillment in Christ.
This is not merely an academic debate. Whether you see continuity or discontinuity between Israel and the church shapes your understanding of baptism, the sacraments, the covenants, the relationship between the Testaments, and even your eschatology. The question "Is the church in the Old Testament?" is one of the most consequential questions in all of theology.
Covenant theology teaches that God has always had one people, saved by one Savior, through one covenant of grace—though administered differently in different eras. The church is not "Plan B" after Israel failed; it is the continuation and fulfillment of God's covenant purposes from the beginning. This understanding is foundational to the Reformed approach to ecclesiology and will shape much of what follows in this course.
The Seed of the Church: The Protoevangelium
The story of God's gathered people begins not at Sinai, not with Abraham, but in Eden. After the Fall, God spoke the first promise of redemption—what theologians call the protoevangelium (the "first gospel"):
"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
— Genesis 3:15This verse introduces a fundamental division within humanity: there will be two "seeds," two lines, two peoples—the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. From this point forward, the Bible traces the development of a people who belong to God over against those who stand opposed to Him. Cain and Abel, Seth and his descendants, the line that leads through Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—the entire Old Testament narrative is the story of God calling, preserving, and shaping a people for Himself.
In this sense, the "church"—understood as the gathered people of God—exists from the moment God distinguishes His own from the world. It is embryonic, undeveloped, awaiting its full form in Christ, but it is genuinely present. As the Westminster Confession states, the covenant of grace was "differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel" (WCF 7.5), but it is one covenant and one people throughout.
Abraham and the Covenant Community
The calling of Abraham in Genesis 12 is the decisive moment in the formation of God's covenant people. With Abraham, God does something new—not in the sense of starting a different program, but in the sense of giving definite shape to His purposes of redemption:
"Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"
— Genesis 12:1–3Three elements of this covenant are critical for ecclesiology. First, God promises to make Abraham a great nation—a people, a community, not merely an individual. Second, this people will exist for the sake of the world: "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." The covenant community is never an end in itself; it exists for mission. Third, God initiates and sustains this community by His sovereign promise—not by human merit or effort.
Paul explicitly connects the Abrahamic covenant to the church in Galatians 3. The "offspring" promised to Abraham is ultimately Christ (Galatians 3:16), and all who belong to Christ by faith are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:29). The church is not a replacement for Israel; it is the fulfillment of what Israel always pointed toward.
Circumcision as a Sign of the Community
In Genesis 17, God gives Abraham the sign of circumcision as the mark of the covenant community. Every male in Abraham's household—including infants—received this sign, not because they had demonstrated personal faith, but because they belonged to the covenant community. The sign pointed forward to a spiritual reality not yet fully realized.
This is significant for the later debate over baptism. Reformed paedobaptists (those who baptize infants) argue that just as circumcision marked membership in the Old Testament covenant community and was applied to the children of believers, so baptism marks membership in the New Testament covenant community and is rightly applied to believers' children. The sign has changed; the principle of household inclusion has not. This argument, whether one finds it ultimately persuasive or not, demonstrates the deep ecclesiological connection between Old and New Testaments.
Sinai: The Assembly of the LORD
The Exodus and the events at Mount Sinai represent the formal constitution of Israel as a national covenant community. God redeems His people from bondage in Egypt, brings them through the Red Sea, and assembles them at the foot of Sinai to receive His law and enter into covenant relationship with Him.
"Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
— Exodus 19:5–6Notice the language: "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Peter will apply precisely this language to the New Testament church (1 Peter 2:9), demonstrating that the apostles understood the church as the continuation and fulfillment of Israel's calling—not as a replacement entity with no connection to what came before.
Stephen, in his speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7, explicitly calls the gathered people of Israel at Sinai the ekklēsia—the "church" or "congregation in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). This is remarkable. The same word used for the New Testament church is applied retrospectively to Israel assembled at Sinai. The continuity could hardly be stated more clearly.
Stephen's use of ekklēsia to describe Israel at Sinai (Acts 7:38) is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for continuity between Israel and the church. If the church began only at Pentecost, Stephen's language would be nonsensical—he would be applying a term to a reality that did not yet exist. Instead, Stephen's usage demonstrates that the early Christians understood themselves as the continuation of God's covenant assembly, not as a novel institution.
The Prophets and the Faithful Remnant
Throughout Israel's history, the visible covenant community often fell into idolatry and rebellion. The golden calf, the period of the Judges, the divided monarchy, and the exile all demonstrate that membership in the visible community did not guarantee genuine faith. Within the outward nation of Israel, there was always a remnant—a smaller company of those who truly trusted in the LORD.
The prophets articulated this reality with devastating clarity. Elijah believed he was alone, but God had preserved 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). Isaiah named his son Shear-Jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3). Jeremiah spoke of a "new covenant" that God would write on the hearts of His people (Jeremiah 31:31–34). Ezekiel envisioned a valley of dry bones brought to life by the Spirit (Ezekiel 37).
Paul picks up this remnant theology in Romans 9–11 and applies it directly to the question of Israel and the church. Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel (Romans 9:6). God has always saved by grace, not by ethnic identity, and the church is the community of Jew and Gentile alike who are united to Christ by faith. The remnant theology of the Old Testament is the bridge between Israel and the church.
"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace."
— Romans 11:5The New Covenant: Continuity and Fulfillment
The prophets did not merely diagnose Israel's failure; they pointed forward to a glorious future. Jeremiah's promise of a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34) is the hinge on which the entire relationship between the Testaments turns:
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt... For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
— Jeremiah 31:31–32, 34bThe new covenant is new—it is not simply a repetition of Sinai. The law will be written on hearts rather than on stone. Knowledge of God will be universal among the covenant community. Sins will be fully and finally forgiven. But the new covenant is also continuous with what came before—it is made "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah." It is a renewal and fulfillment of God's covenant purposes, not an abandonment of them.
Jesus explicitly claims to inaugurate this new covenant at the Last Supper: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20). The author of Hebrews devotes extensive attention to demonstrating that Jesus is the mediator of this new and better covenant (Hebrews 8–10). The church is the new covenant community—the people of God reconstituted around Christ, incorporating Gentiles alongside believing Jews, fulfilling what the prophets foretold.
The Reformed position is sometimes accused of "replacement theology"—the idea that the church has replaced Israel and that God is finished with ethnic Israel. This is a caricature. The better term is fulfillment theology: the church does not replace Israel but fulfills Israel's calling. The promises made to Abraham find their "Yes" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20), and all who are in Christ—Jew and Gentile alike—are heirs of those promises. God has not broken faith with Israel; He has kept His word in ways more glorious than anyone anticipated.
Conclusion: One People, One Story
The church did not begin at Pentecost. Pentecost was the dramatic empowerment and expansion of a people God had been forming since Eden. The story of the church is the story of Abraham's seed, of the congregation in the wilderness, of the faithful remnant, of the new covenant community gathered around the risen Christ. It is one story, one people, one covenant of grace—administered in different forms across redemptive history but unified in its center, which is Christ.
When a believer walks into a local church on Sunday morning, they are joining a community that stretches back not merely two thousand years to Pentecost, but four thousand years to Abraham—and ultimately to the first promise in Eden. This is a staggering heritage. The church is not a modern invention. It is not a human institution. It is the covenant assembly of the living God, and its roots go deeper than the foundations of the world.
"...even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him."
— Ephesians 1:4Discussion Questions
- Stephen calls Israel at Sinai the 'church in the wilderness' (Acts 7:38), using the same Greek word (ekklēsia) applied to the New Testament church. What does this tell us about the relationship between Israel and the church? How should this continuity affect the way we read the Old Testament?
- Covenant theology teaches that God has one people, saved through one covenant of grace, across the entire Bible. Dispensationalism teaches that Israel and the church are distinct programs with distinct destinies. What are the practical implications of each view for how we understand the church today? Which position do you find more convincing, and why?
- The concept of the 'remnant' — a faithful minority within the larger visible community — runs throughout the Old Testament and into the New. How does remnant theology help us understand the relationship between the visible and invisible church? What comfort and what warning does it offer to the church today?