The relationship between Israel and the church in the New Testament is not always easy to discern, but it can be understood if we remember the differences between national Israel and true Israel in both the Old Testament and the New, and if we keep in mind what Paul teaches in Romans 11. 

One of the most common questions asked by students of the Bible concerns the relationship between Israel and the church. We read the Old Testament, and it is evident that most of it concerns the story of Israel. From Jacob to the exile, the people of God is Israel, and Israel is the people of God. Despite the constant sin of king and people leading to the judgment of exile, the prophets look beyond this judgment with hope to a time of restoration for Israel. When we turn to the New Testament, the same story continues, and Israel is still in the picture. Jesus is described as the one who will be given “the throne of his father David” and the one who “will reign over the house of Jacob [Israel] forever” (Luke 1:32–33). He is presented as the One the prophets foresaw.
The first to believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah are Israelites—Andrew, Peter, James, John. But in the Gospels, we also hear Jesus speak of building His church, and we see growing hostility between the leaders of Israel and Jesus. We hear Jesus speak of destroying the tenants of the vineyard and giving it to others (Luke 20:9–18). In the book of Acts, the spread of the gospel to the Samaritans and gentiles leads to even more conflict with the religious leaders of Israel. So, is Israel cast aside and replaced by this new entity known as the “church”?
There are those who would say yes, but the answer is not that simple, for we also run across hints that God is not finished with the nation of Israel. At the end of His declaration of woes on the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says, “You will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23:39). In the Olivet Discourse, He speaks of Jerusalem being trampled underfoot “until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). In Acts, Peter says to a Jewish audience:
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.Acts 3:19—21
Finally, Paul says things about Israel that seem to preclude total rejection. Speaking of Israel, he writes, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (Rom. 11:1).
In order to understand the relationship between Israel and the church as described in the New Testament, we will need to look at the question in the context of the different answers Christians have given over the years. The traditional dispensationalist view maintains that God has not replaced Israel with the church but that God has two programs in history, one for the church and one for Israel. Traditional dispensationalism also maintains that the church consists only of believers saved between Pentecost and the rapture. The church as the body of Christ does not include Old Testament believers. Progressive dispensationalism has modified some of these views, but the traditional dispensationalist view remains very popular. Some covenant theologians have adopted a view that many dispensationalists describe as “replacement theology.” This is the idea that the church has completely replaced Israel. Jews may still be saved on an individual basis by coming to Christ, but the nation of Israel and the Jews as a people no longer have any part to play in redemptive history.
A careful study of the New Testament reveals that both of these interpretations of the relationship between Israel and the church are wanting. The relationship between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament is better described in terms of an organic development rather than either separation or replacement. During most of the Old Testament era, there were essentially three groups of people: the gentile nations, national Israel, and true Israel (the faithful remnant). Although the nation of Israel was often involved in idolatry, apostasy, and rebellion, God always kept for Himself a faithful remnant—those who trusted in Him and who would not bow the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18). This remnant, this true Israel, included men such as David, Joash, Isaiah, and Daniel, as well as women such as Sarah, Deborah, and Hannah. There were those who were circumcised in the flesh and a smaller number who had their hearts circumcised as well. So, even in the Old Testament, not all were Israel who were descended from Israel (Rom. 9:6).
At the time of Jesus’ birth, the faithful remnant (true Israel) included believers such as Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:25–38). During Jesus’ adult ministry, true Israel was most visible in those Jewish disciples who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Those who rejected Jesus were not true Israel, regardless of their race. This included many of the scribes and Pharisees. Though they were physically Jews, they were not true Israel (Rom. 2:28–29). True Israel became def ined by union with the true Israelite—Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16, 29).
On the day of Pentecost, the true Israel, Jewish believers in Jesus, was taken by the Holy Spirit and formed into the nucleus of the New Testament church (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit was poured out on the true Israel, and the same men and women who were part of this true Israel were now the true new covenant church. Soon after, gentiles began to become a part of this small group.
This is an extremely important point to grasp because it explains why there is so much confusion regarding the relationship between the church and Israel. The answer depends on whether we are talking about national Israel or true Israel. The church is distinct from national Israel, just as the true Israel in the Old Testament was distinct from national Israel even while being part of national Israel. The remnant group was part of the whole but could also be distinguished from the whole by its faith.
However, if we are talking about true Israel, there really is no distinction. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the true church on the day of Pentecost. Here the analogy of the olive tree that Paul uses in Romans 11 is instructive. The tree represents the covenant people of God—Israel. Paul compares unbelieving Israel to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (Rom. 11:17a). Believing gentiles are compared to branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted in to the cultivated olive tree (Rom. 11:17b–19). The important point to notice is that God does not cut the old tree down and plant a new one (replacement theology). Neither does God plant a second new tree alongside the old tree and then graft branches from the old tree into the new tree (traditional dispensationalism). Instead, the same tree exists across the divide between Old and New Testaments. That which remains after the dead branches are removed is the true Israel. Gentile believers are now grafted into this already existing old tree (true Israel/the true church). There is only one good olive tree, and the same olive tree exists across the covenantal divide.
Read More
Related Posts:

God showed us His desire to be with us in the greatest possible way. He came to us in the person of His Son. He gave this promise of His coming decades before it happened so people would know He was coming—the Messiah, the Deliverer—and they would be assured that He intended to be with them. He gave a promise to King Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah when His enemies besieged him. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

The central theme of the Bible is the relational presence of God. God intends to be with us in real intimacy and vibrant, daily fellowship. This began in the Garden and will be consummated at the end of time with a “new heaven and new earth,” where the Garden will be restored, and those who know Him by faith will live with Him forever. “With you” is the consistent and glorious promise of God to man.

 
The Promise Until Then

All along the way in human history, God has made ways for us to be with Him, and He with us. He came to the Patriarchs and spoke through the Prophets, calling us back to Himself. The building of a tabernacle, a “tent of meeting,” was a sign that He was present, as was the temple in Jerusalem, filled with the Holy of Holies. Through a great sacrifice, He will be with us.

Immanuel

God showed us His desire to be with us in the greatest possible way. He came to us in the person of His Son. He gave this promise of His coming decades before it happened so people would know He was coming—the Messiah, the Deliverer—and they would be assured that He intended to be with them.

He gave a promise to King Ahaz through the prophet Isaiah when His enemies besieged him.

Related Posts:

Generally, from then to now, Protestants resist concurrence with this, and when confronted with undeniable evidence, attempt to moderate it. Protestants read this article and think to themselves that I have an anger problem, or that I was abused and have a grudge or something. I don’t, and have no personal sexual history of abuse by a priest or a nun.

On February 28, 2022 Aquila Report an article appeared by Joseph Sciambra which outlined his frustration and disappointment with Roman Catholic Bishops. Apparently, he received “his worst opposition” from them in his efforts to “save Gays from Sin.” He tells us that Roman Catholic priests had encouraged him down this sexual path personally as well, in his youth.
When I read his article, I was somewhat shocked. I was shocked that he was shocked at this behaviour by RC priests. Let me explain.
About 20 years ago a history of my family was put together that went back almost 400 years. When a family-tree goes back that far, you have a lot of relatives. The book includes almost everyone, and its thickness shows it.
I point this out to say this: Everyone was Roman Catholic. Everyone. When the Lord brought me to faith in Christ, at 13-years-old, I didn’t even know what a Protestant was. I asked the priest one day, and he simply responded, “You don’t want to know.” I didn’t know I had become one. I just read the Bible, and came to faith that Christ died to take away all my sins, that I should read the Bible to know Him better. But, from that day forward I was ostracized from my family, without explanation. As the oldest grandson, I was expected to become a priest. My grandfather was furious.
Because of this background I think I can respond to Joseph Sciambra’s shock with insight I know few Protestants can. My goal being, first, to speak to Joseph. But also, indirectly, to the large swath of Protestants who are unaware of real Roman Catholicism in this matter; not the view the priest piously attempts to present in “dialoguing” with others. I want to confirm the Roman Catholicism that you hear hints of but ignore.
Welcome to Reality
Joe, you suffer, and seem to be recovering from, what more and more Roman Catholics are recovering from, especially since the 1970s. In the last 25-50 years there has been a virtual tidal wave of exodus from Romanism. Official Rome is not changing, no matter what it says. People are changing; access to information is changing. The courts are changing, slowly, when dealing with the formerly taboo subject of prosecuting the immorality of RC priests. Rome has been conniving to create a secular society in historically Protestant nations, and that society is turning on it.
What you are seeing, Joseph, is the truth; a reality which has existed for a very long time.
You say the RC priests encouraged you in this life-style. Of course, they did. The vast majority of them are homosexual. Not all, but the vast majority. My cousin went away to be a priest at their school in Toronto. He formerly lived as the son of a dairy farmer. Fairly isolated. But there he learned something, and the result was that about 90% of his class left after two years. They formed a homosexual “church” in the city. The priests in my home parish, in the RC High School, many of the nuns, the chaplain in my son’s school were all homosexual (at best). The town where I first served as a (Protestant) pastor was an isolated community, and was the hub for the priests to meet on Sunday nights. A carpenter told me he walked in on the scene one Monday morning (he had left some tools there on Friday from a job). Liquor bottles were not the only thing that were scattered all over the floor and furniture, naked. More than 20 years later a RC priest, when he heard I had once been a pastor in that town, unashamedly said to me, “We used to have such parties in that town, years ago!” Yes, they did.
The president of the Philippines, Duterte, after he became president began to talk about his experiences growing up in a RC school; “Me, and all the boys in my grade, in the grade before me, and in the one after me, were all abused by the priests.”
Now Joe, I could go on about this. If you are following the news, even a little bit, you know what I am talking about. Last year in France alone, 330,000 cases of abused children were brought to light, and 3,000 priests were accused. In Australia, South America, Canada (the Residential Schools), the USA, Central America, Ireland and Africa, the same stories keep coming up in large numbers.
But for some reason, Roman Catholicism is able to present itself as this organization which is concerned about family and piety; about Christianity. For some reason people believe what they say, regardless of what they actually do. How is it that Rome can still maintain the myth that it is concerned with even a whisper of godliness?
When I was in seminary, one of the most conservative Protestant seminaries I knew of, I walked into the lounge where a somewhat large group of students were engaged in a fairly heated debate. In the middle of the room were two students, arguing with about 30 other seminary students.
The argument was about Rome’s ethical honesty, especially in this area. The two in the middle were not backing down, and they were heatedly trying to get through to the rest about the duplicity of Rome. At first, I did not get involved, so that I could be sure I understood the debate.
Finally, I spoke up. I simply asked a couple questions for clarity’s sake. I asked the students around the outside if any of them were raised RC. None were. The two in the middle said they were raised RC. I asked my second question: How is it that those who were not raised RC think they know more about Romanism that those who were raised within it?
It did not end the debate, but it did make something clear; it is truly bewildering that Romanism can have the history it does and still be considered in any way, Christian. If any other organization, institution or religion had a history 10% as bad as they do, maybe 1% as bad, they would be opposed by the whole world. But Rome gets away with it. How? It is a mystery religion.
This, Joe, is the reality, and multitudes are blinded by it. Rome’s Inquisition made it “drunk with the blood of the saints” (Rev.17:6). Its capitol is filled with the idols of so many pagan religions, especially Babylon and Egypt. Yet so many Protestants feel that criticizing her is taboo. So many seem, as the Bible says, “intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.” (Rev.17:2) When God allowed the Apostle John to look at her in the future, this is what he wrote; “When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.” (Rev.17:6)
Nothing New
The behaviour you witnessed by the Bishops, Joe, is not even close to a recent phenomenon. My family’s history can attest to that. Over a 400-year period there have been plenty priests and Nuns, and many cover-ups.
But simply looking at Rome’s history shows that this has been going on throughout it’s second thousand-year reign as the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806). Look at the lives of just the Popes. Luther visited Rome in the early 16th century, only to discover that it was a virtual cesspool of immorality. The Pope of the time, Leo X, received a huge birthday cake—out of which sprang a bunch of naked little boys (his present?). Many of the Popes have been accused of the same preferences.
John Calvin was one of the godliest men to ever live. In the Institutes of the Christian Religion, written almost 500 years ago, he wrote some brief lines about the complete immorality of the bishops and priests;
There is scarcely a bishop, and not one in a hundred parish priests, who, if his conduct were to be judged according to the ancient canons [of the Early Church], would be the subject of either excommunication or at least to deposition from office. I seem to be saying something unbelievable…but this is entirely so. (IV.V.14)
Of the morality of Rome’s leadership, he writes;
Yet because they themselves, together with their household, with almost the whole college of cardinals, and with the whole flock of the clergy, have been prostituted to all wickedness, filthiness, and uncleanness, and to all kinds of crimes and misdeeds, so that they resemble monsters rather than men…” (IV.VIII.29)
When it comes to the monasteries Calvin is as discrete as he could be;
This is clear: that no order of men is more polluted by all sorts of foul vices; nowhere do factions, hatreds, party zeal, and intrigue burn more fiercely. Indeed, in a few monasteries men live chastely, if one must call it chastity where lust is suppressed to the point of not being openly infamous. Yet you will scarcely find one in ten which is not a brothel rather than a sanctuary of chastity. (IV.XIII.15)
You see, Rome’s second thousand-year-reign perpetuated its first (509-476 A.D.) thousand-year reign’s immorality. Of the Roman Empire’s first 15 Emperors, 14 were Gay.
What you, Joe, as a Roman Catholic, need to come to grips with is that you, like myself, were born into something unimaginably morally corrupt. And it has been for over 2,500 years.
The Modern Promoter
Joe, what you need to understand, and what the vast majority of Protestants need to put together, is that what Rome promoted in your life, is what they do perpetually, and in the society in general. The morality of the priests—sexually promiscuous but never marrying, which is the other meaning of the word “celibate” in Latin—is their true moral emblem. The priesthood is their ultimate moral ideal, and they wanted you to acquiesce.
Calvin supposed above that this seems, “something unbelievable”. Generally, from then to now, Protestants resist concurrence with this, and when confronted with undeniable evidence, attempt to moderate it. Protestants read this article and think to themselves that I have an anger problem, or that I was abused and have a grudge or something. I don’t, and have no personal sexual history of abuse by a priest or a nun. Neither did Calvin. His generation simply cited the prediction in 2Thess.2 as having become true.
But I know history, have seen others around me be abused, and I know enough of what is going on in the world today to know that what I have written here is not even the full tip of the iceberg.
The week before I sent this article in, I was having lunch with a group of Pastors. One surprised us by pointing out that he was a former RC priest. When asked why he left, he said he “did not want to be a hypocrite.” “What do you mean?” someone asked. A rather shy man, he stated that he was not comfortable with the sexual practices of the profession. He went on to say that, while it is not applicable to all, the vast majority are homosexual, involved with minors (trips to Africa, or Cuba, he said), have mistresses—or all of the above.
I have seen enough to know for certain that the modern crisis with regard to the LGTBQ agenda is being blown along by winds emanating out of Romanism (Did you know that the letters they intend to join to this acronym is MAP? = Minor Attracted Persons). In my circles I have seen this agenda promoted by them, over and over again. Rome’s priests are always the cheerleaders for being “understanding” toward this cause, openly and behind the scenes. They have convinced others to join them, painting the sidewalks multicolor.
Canada’s RC PM is trying to make it against the law to speak against the practice, carrying up to a five-year jail term! He is calling Canadians to “ally” against those who are “Homophobic”; who believe in patriarchy (meaning; a biblical family). The RC owned Canadian MSM cannot support him enough. Here, our RC President (supported by a host of other “good Catholics”; Pelosi, Schumer, Fouchi etc. etc.) is trying to enforce the introduction of it to every grade level in school. Obama, a devotee of the Pope, had rainbow spotlights on the Whitehouse. Finally, our military officers are having to regularly take courses which attempt to desensitize them, and this is going on in Canada, too.
Do you remember in June 2016 when the Pope made his apology to the Gay community? In fact, he said that “all Christians” should apologize to them. Why would he do this? He was telling them where to find a home and ally.
Until recently, Rome has always played both sides of the fence here: both condemning it and practicing it. They do this all the time. They say they believe in the Trinity, and yet say that they worship the same god as Islam—which condemns the doctrine of the Trinity! (See their catechism) This is just one example.
So, you can see, Joe, that your assumption that this is merely naïveté about what it means to be “Gay” within Roman leadership, is just that. They are its cheerleaders. Not the Laity, usually; it’s the priests and up. It is their conversion strategy for the Democracies.
Therefore, the best thing you can do is look for a Bible-believing church in your area, and go there. You will have to be careful though—be sure it accepts Reformed theology—and doesn’t just have it in its name. You will discover that some historically Bible-believing churches, such as the Reformed Church in America (RCA), Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and United Church of Christ (UCC), have also been “dialoguing” with Roman priests since Vatican II, and now their denominations are tumultuously reeling with this issue; just like you.
Charles d’Espeville is a Minister in the Reformed Church in America.
Related Posts: