1
Introduction
Every biblical debate will be, at times, contentious. Each individual must always
remember that they are representing Christ, and to sacrifice on virtue just to get a point across is
to lose the argument. With this in mind, this writer believes there is an important and clear
distinction between the present church and Israel. Not only is there a clear contrast, but both still
have active roles to play in God’s redemptive plan going forward. Both peoples are very similar
and benefit from some of the same promises, but there is enough contrast made in the New
Testament to confidently say they are not the same body of individuals. Biblical considerations,
theological considerations, and historical considerations must be fairly made in order to hope to
produce some reasonable argument for any stance on this complex relationship, and this writer
does not believe any widespread system of thought on this particular subject is completely
accurate; although each certainly hold to fundamental truths that cannot be dismissed.
Biblical Considerations
No analysis of any biblical topic could be considered worthy of consideration or merit
without examining what the Bible has to say about it. If the people Israel are to be considered
separate from the present church, then there ought to be a biblical timeline from Genesis to
Revelation that supports this distinction. Starting in Genesis, readers will see the foundation of
Israel and its promised inheritance. “Now the LORD said to Abram … I will make you a great
nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will
bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of
the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3, New American Standard Bible). Genesis would
eventually detail the birth of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was this nation that God had
chosen to be His people. (Genesis 29:31-35; 30:1-24; 35:16-18). This commitment from God
2
would not depend upon their ability to keep up their end, but rather on God’s faithfulness (1
Samuel 12:22). Zachariah 12:10-14 details Israel’s eventual recognition of what their people had
done to their Messiah and therefore God, and it shows that there is still a final deliverance of
Israel to spiritual salvation to occur. Perhaps no other New Testament passage clarifies the
contrasts between Israel and the church better than Romans 11:1-24, which details Israel’s
temporary blindness to the truth until the end times where they will see themselves in yet another
distinguished role (Revelation 7:4-8). While the church and Israel share many attributes, they are
not identical entities, and there differences are enough to set them apart as two unique peoples.
Theological Considerations
There are three primary views on the relationship between Israel and the church that need
to be briefly explained. First, supersessionism or replacement theology holds that ethnic Israel
has no place left in God’s plan, but rather the church is now considered “spiritual” Israel and will
inherit the unfulfilled promises of Israel. Erickson writes, “the church is the new Israel. It
occupies the place in the new covenant that Israel occupied in the Old … There is a special
future coming for national Israel, however, through large-scale conversion to Christ and entry
into the church.”1 Ephesians 2:11-22 would seem to support this notion. Most often, those who
hold to this position believe, as Sproul states, “the way of salvation in the Old Testament is
substantially the same as in the New Testament. Redemption is always through grace by faith.”2
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the idea of dispensationalism. This system states that not
only are Israel and the church separate, but so is the manner in which God has acted and revealed
Himself throughout history; there are typically seven dispensations. Dispensationalists claim to
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 963.
2 R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1997), 114.
3
have the most literal interpretation of the Bible. There is also somewhat of a middle-ground.
While there is no official label for this belief, it holds to a literal interpretation of the Bible while
also recognizing the Bible as a whole. According to this view, Israel and the church remain
distinguished, as they are in the New Testament, but God has never changed His ways. Salvation
is through faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone, and Hebrews 11 supports this idea in the
Old Testament as well. Classic dispensationalism holds to many distinctions and administrations,
but this third view, of which this writer holds to, would align with almost every teaching of
reformed theology with the exception that it would make a clear difference between the church
and Israel.
Historical Considerations
The local church of which this writer attends teaches a separation of the church and the
people Israel. Its teachings on this subject are rooted in dispensationalism, but the church would
have difficulty agreeing with many of the classical doctrines. The church teaches that God has
been and will forever be consistently the same, and that because God is the same, His covenants
will remain until they are completed. The church would agree with Steinmann, who writes,
“God’s commitment to his promise overrides human weakness. The promise to Abram will be
repeated in similar terms to Isaac and then to Jacob. Ultimately, the story of Abram and his
descendants is not about their transgressions, but about God’s grace.”3 Due to the church’s belief
in sovereign election and Israel being considered a chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), the church
must maintain that Israel could never be replaced due to their wicked ways and lack of righteous
works. The church would argue that if God’s election were based on works, then no generation
in this age could maintain a holy standard worthy of God’s grace and, consequently, the church
3 Andrew E. Steinmann, Genesis, vol.1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2019), 153.
4
would be replaced by the next entity just as Israel was. Due to the widespread idea of
dispensationalism being somewhat recent (and the fact that this particular local church would not
affirm every aspect of it), there is a short list of prominent preachers and teachers who would
teach this point of view. Among this list is Steve Lawson, Todd Friel, and John MacArthur. A
search for historical evidence would immediately lead a person to Israel’s official return to their
land and recognition as a sovereign state in 1948, all of which occurred under God’s providence.
Most importantly, the church desires to apply symbolic and metaphorical interpretations as little
as possible in teaching the Scriptures, and the church believes its stance is proper given this
method of interpretation.
Summary and Application
According to MacArthur and Mayhue, “Because the New Testament distinguishes
between the church and Israel, it is necessary for believers to maintain that same distinction.
Conflating the two can lead to significant hermeneutical and interpretive problems, in which
promises and directives given specially to the nation of Israel are spiritualized and allegorized.”4
Furthermore, “The salvation of a future generation of Israelites, like the salvation of sinners in
any age, is entirely God’s doing … Yahweh will save Israel by His Spirit regenerating the
nation.”5 In this author’s opinion, the church and Israel are similar but separate peoples with
unique purposes and inheritances. While there may seem to be a lack of consequences for
misinterpreting this relationship, there certainly is not. Beyond the eschatological falsities that
would be taught, there would also be numerous misinterpretations of Scripture where the present
church is inserted every time the name Israel appears. A proper understanding of the separation
4 John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Biblical Truth
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 749.
5 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Old Testament Commentary (Los Angeles, CA: The Master’s Press,
2023), 352.
6
Bibliography
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Old Testament Commentary: Zechariah. Los Angeles, CA:
The Master’s Press, 2023.
MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible
Truth. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.
Sproul, R. C. What is Reformed Theology: Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1997.
Steinmann, Andrew E. Genesis. Vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2019.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
