What is the continuity vs. discontinuity debate in theology?

Answer

The term continuity is defined as “the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.” Its foundation lies in the word continue. Conversely, discontinuity represents the opposite, signifying “a sharp difference of characteristics between parts of something.” In theology, continuity and discontinuity are concepts used to describe the progression of sacred history and God’s overarching purpose.

Christian doctrine asserts that the entire Bible is the flawless Word of God, divided into two sections, the Old and New Testaments. The discussion of continuity versus discontinuity revolves around the relationship between these two sections of the Bible and its implications for present-day Christians. Covenant theology often highlights areas of continuity, while dispensational theology typically emphasizes areas of discontinuity.

Several issues frequently arise in the continuity versus discontinuity discourse:

Is Israel essentially the same entity as the Church, or is Israel distinctly separate from the Church? Advocates of the discontinuity perspective argue that Israel is a distinct entity and view the “church age” as a unique period in which God interacts with the Gentiles. Upon the Church’s removal during the rapture, God will refocus on the salvation of Israel. Conversely, proponents of continuity between Israel and the Church often refer to the “Church in the Old Testament” and apply promises made to Israel to the present-day Church.

If the Church is essentially synonymous with Israel (continuity), then it follows that all the laws given to Israel would be applicable to the Church unless specifically revoked. Conversely, if the Church is a completely new entity (discontinuity), then it would be logical that none of the Old Testament laws would be binding unless explicitly applied to the Church.

The topics addressed in the continuity versus discontinuity debate are intricate, but in practical terms, they have significant implications for theological understanding.In theology, nearly every theological framework (covenant, dispensational, or otherwise) acknowledges some areas of continuity and some areas of discontinuity. Every Evangelical theology would acknowledge that the animal sacrifices have been ceased as the sacrifice of Christ is once for all (Hebrews 10:11-12). Similarly, every Evangelical theology would acknowledge that the moral aspects of the Law continue to be in effect today.

The most appropriate answer appears to be that there are both areas of continuity and discontinuity, and that neither sharp discontinuity nor uniform continuity is justified. Jeremiah 31 mentions a New Covenant with Israel that describes a completely new way (discontinuity) of interacting with Israel (continuity). The New Testament talks about believing Gentiles being incorporated into Israel (Romans 11). This was a novel concept that most would never have thought possible, but it was revealed with the arrival of Christ “that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).

Jesus stated that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17). In other words, He was not teaching something entirely new (discontinuity) but the culmination of what had always been there (continuity). However, Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law contained the seeds of discontinuity, because once the Law had been fulfilled, it was no longer necessary (Galatians 3:24-25). God is unchanging, but the way He interacts with people can change.

It is tempting to adhere to a specific theological system and th

When interpreting the biblical information, avoid filtering it through that framework. It is more beneficial to comprehend the Bible based on its own principles, acknowledging consistency and disparity where applicable.