Foundational to dispensationalist teaching is the idea that Israel and the church are two distinct entities.

L.S. Chafer wrote:

‘God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.’

Ryrie concurs:

‘A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct…This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. . . . The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.’

It will be noted that, according to dispensationalism, Israel has an earthly destiny, whereas the church has a heavenly destiny.

According to dispensationalism, all Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel apply to Israel alone, and not to the Church.  Those Scriptures that apply to Israel are to be interpreted literally, whereas those that apply to the Church may be interpreted symbolically.

Indeed, God’s primary purposes are with Israel.  Donaldson summarises the dispensationalist position:

‘However, due to the Jews’ rejection of an earthly kingdom offer by Jesus at his first coming, the fulfillment of prophecy (i.e., the kingdom) was postponed until the millennial period. Consequently, the Christian church era that emerged as an outcome of this rejection is considered a parenthesis, or more accurately, an intercalation—a time period completely undisclosed in the Old Testament—in God’s program for Israel.’  (The Last Days of Dispensationalism)

As Donaldson notes, this suggests a raft of questions:

‘Is there to be, in Jerusalem, a one-thousand-year period of Christ’s earthly rule (the millennium) after his return and before the eternal state and in which Israel will play a predominant role?

‘Will there be during these one thousand years a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem in which, as Thomas Ice asserts, “all that was prescribed and initiated in the Old Testament ceremonial and ritual activities will come to completion and find their fullest meaning?”

‘Does God have a future special purpose for Israel as a nation as distinct from his purposes for the church? If so, what does this mean for both the present and future of the Christian church? Is the church to be at-any-moment raptured out of the earth in order for God’s purpose for Israel to resume?’

(Paragraphing added)

The question ‘Who is Israel?’ has present, as well as future implications.  American support for Israel is significantly influenced by Dispensational beliefs.  For example, President Clinton declared in 1994:

‘If you abandon Israel, God will never forgive you. . . . it is God’s will that Israel, the biblical home of the people of Israel, continue forever and ever,” and “your [Israel’s] journey is our journey, and America will stand with you now and always.’

John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, claimed:

‘For twenty-five, almost twenty-six years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. And if a Christian admits, “I believe the Bible,” I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel you might say.’

Given dispensationalists’ commitment to biblical literalism, it is not surprising that, for them, ‘Israel always means Israel’ in the Bible.

The church, on the other hand, is completely distinct.

This Israel/church dichotomy can be dated back to J. N. Darby (1800–1882).  Darby pointed to two Bible passages in particular.  Crenshaw and Gunn write:

‘During a period of convalescence in 1827, Darby meditated on the fact that the true Christian through the baptizing work of the Spirit is in union with Christ and therefore is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:4–7). With this in mind, Darby read Isaiah 32:15–20 about a prophesied outpouring of the Spirit on Israel that would bring earthly blessings on the people of God. Darby took this Scriptural data and concluded that the passages implied a strong contrast between earthly blessings prophesied for Israel and heavenly blessings promised to the Christian in the New Testament. From this Darby developed his theory that God has two peoples, an earthly people and a heavenly people.’

According to Ryrie:

‘The church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel. . . . The church age is not seen in God’s program for Israel. It is an intercalation. . . . The church is a mystery in the sense that it was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament and now revealed in the New Testament.’

Some dispensationalists agree with Jack Van Impe:

‘The restoration of Israel in 1948 is positive proof that we are living in the end times, and that the return of the Lord is at hand.’

Similarly, Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice state:

‘As with the church and the nations, God is moving his chosen people—Israel—into place for the future fulfillment of His prophecies relating to the nation. He has already brought the Jewish people back to their land (1948) and has given them Jerusalem (1967)…If you want to know where history is headed, simply keep your eye on what God is doing in Israel.’

The response of historic Christian theology

The premillenialism of the early church did not entail an Israel/church dichotomy.  Rather, they saw the church as the continuation of Israel as God’s chosen people.  For instance, Jusin Martyr repeatedly averred that Christians ‘are the true Israelite race’.

So also with modern postmillenialists such as Keith A. Mathison:

‘As Christians we have no choice but to reject it [the dispensational Israel-church distinction] and affirm the oneness of the true church and the true Israel.’

Kim Riddlebarger, an amillennialist, agrees:

‘The Bible everywhere supports the idea of an organic unity of the people of God, despite the fact that these people are citizens of national Israel in the Old Testament and members of Christ’s church in the New. . . . the organic unity of God’s redemptive purpose is clearly evident. . . . Therefore it is quite wrong-headed to interpret a distinction made in the Scriptures between the church and Israel. . . . In Christ, God takes the two peoples and makes them one’

But we are not primarily interested in the names of a doctrine’s advocates, nor its antiquity, but its scriptural support.

Gen 12:1-3 – The creation of a people for Abraham was in order that all peoples might be blessed.  The descendants of Abraham would mediate the restoration of people from all nations.

Gen 17:12f – From the beginning, Israel could and did include those not of natural Israelite birth.

Deut 30:1-3 – The covenat promises given to Israel were conditional upon their faithfulness and obedience.

Isa 10:20-23 – Because of Israel’s disobedience, a remnant – but only a remnant – would be saved.  (Also Amos 9; Micah 7:18).

Matthew’s Gospel – Of all the canonical Gospels, it is Matthew who most clearly presents Jesus as the new and true Israel.  Two Josephs have dreams and go to Egypt.  Both Moses and Jesus as infants are under threat from kings who feel threatened by them; both are spared.  In contrast to Israel’s exodus from Egypt, Jesus goes to Egypt, and from there he would return to accomplish a new exodus through the cross.  Hos 11:1 looks both backwards, to the first exodus, and forward, to the new exodus.

The old Israel, as God’s son (Ex 4:22) was tested in the wilderness, but failed.  Jesus was also tested in the wilderness, but remained faithful.  Dispensationalists insist that God’s promises to and purposes for Israel must be fulfilled in Israel.  For the New Testament, they are fulfilled in Christ.  He is the new Israel.

As Israel went into the wilderness post-exodus, Jesus also went into the wilderness, where, like Israel, his obedience was tested according to covenant faithfulness.80 Israel as Son of God (Exod 4:22) failed. Jesus, pronounced by God at his pre-temptation baptism as “Son of God” (Matt 3:17), did not fail—he did what Israel was not able to do.81 He remained faithful to God and the covenant.82 Of this Wohlberg writes, What does this mean? It means that in Matthew’s book, Jesus is repeating the history of Israel, point by point, and is overcoming where they failed. He is becoming the new Israel.

Mt 1 – Matthew’s genealogy, including as it does Tamar and Rahab the Canaanites, Ruth the Moabite, and Bathsheba the wife of a Hittite, indicates that the descendants of Abraham are not characterised by purity of blood descent.

This genealogy declares Jesus to be the son of Abraham, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 12 concerning nationhood, land and universal blessing.  He is also the son of David, fulfilling 2 Sam 7 and the Davidic covenant of eternal sonship.  He is the true and representative embodiment of Israel.

Mt 3:9 – John the Baptist declares that descent from Abraham does not make a person a true child of God.  God could, if he wishes, raise up descendants from the very rocks.  Holwera comments:

‘God’s promises are for Israel, but [the identity of] Israel is not established simply by birthright. The blessings are not automatically guaranteed by preserving the purity of an Israelite gene pool or an impeccable family tree. Much more is involved.’

Mt 5:6 – The inheritance of the land depends not on ethnicity, but on meekness.

Mt 12:18-21 – Isaiah is quoted and the servant imagery applied to Jesus.  The relevant OT passages (Isa 42, 44, 45, 48, 53) sometimes identify God’s servant as an individual, and sometimes as the nation.  This prompts us to see Jesus the man and also Jesus the new Israel as the fulfilment of these scriptures.

Lk 24:27 – The entire OT, the story of and the promises to Israel, point to Jesus and are fulfilled in him.  Jesus the Messiah completes all that Israel was put into the world to do.  For dispensationalists to see in modern Israel a resurrection of ancient Israel is, tragically, to bypass Christ.  Israel is restored not by a latter-day return to the land; rather, she is restored in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jn 15:1 – Jesus is ‘the true vine’, in contrast to Israel, who had repeatedly failed to bear fruit (Deut 28:63f; Hos 10:1).  He is, in effect, saying, “I am the true Israel”.  But Jesus also says that the fruit-bearing branches represent those who abide in him.  They are attached to him, and also to one another as the great community of the people of God.  The true Israel, then, is Christ and those who belong to Christ and remain in him.  To belong to Christ is to belong to Israel.

Acts 3:22f – Peter, quoting Moses, indicates that followers of Christ are not less, but more, Jewish than their compatriots who do not follow the Saviour.

Donaldson comments:

‘The implication of this…is that non-Messianic Jews are therefore less Jewish and that traditional parentage or conversion criteria, while important to some, are nonetheless inadequate for defining who is truly Jewish. According to Peter’s statement, by not acknowledging and listening to Christ, some are actually “cut off” from God’s people. Restated conversely, to remain being part of the covenant people one must listen to the words of Jesus as the Messiah and fulfiller of Israel’s hopes.’

Jn 8:12 – When Jesus declares, “I am the light of the world”, this recollects Israel’s calling in the OT to be a light to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:1–3) – a task in which she often failed.  This image is extended to Jesus’ followers, Mt 5:14.

Jn 8:39,44 – Jesus declares that Abraham’s true descendants are characterised not by their parentage, but by their actions: by doing what Abraham did.

Acts – The speeches of Peter, Stephen, Paul and Philip retrace Israel’s history, showing that its terminus was in the pouring our of the Spirit on all flesh (Jews, Acts 2; Samaritans, Acts 8; God-fearing Gentiles, Acts 10; and Gentiles, Acts 19).  This is the continuation and fulfilment of God’s purposes for Israel, not a separate and distinct programme.

Acts 2:39 – The promise of Joel 2, although originally addressed to Israel, now applies to Israel and to all who are far away (Gentiles).  Donaldson comments:

‘The church, far from being a separate people with a separate destiny, is a God-intended continuation and expansion of the believing Jewish remnant as Gentiles come in to share in the same promise. Believing Gentiles along with believing Jews together constitute true Israel by being in Christ.’

Acts 13 – Paul includes the Gentiles in promises originally made to Israel (vv16, 26, 32, 33, 48).

Paul’s writings.  This apostle refers to the OT scriptures some 93 times.  This is not so much to buttress his arguments but rather to show that the church of Christ is in direct continuity with the Israel of the OT.  The church is the true israel of God.

Rom 2:25-29 – Unrighteousness can invalidate a claim to be God’s people.  A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, as a matter of the heart, not outwardly as a matter of the physical body.

Rom 8:19-23 – Rather than being focussed on a single nation, God’s redemptive purposes extend to the restoration of an entire cursed creation.

Rom 11:17–24 – The inclusion of Gentile believers along with Jewish believers is developed in the form of an extended metaphor.  Donaldson comments:

‘In this metaphor, natural Israel is pictured as an olive tree (another Old Testament metaphor for Israel, cf. Jer 11:16; 17:4–6) made up of believing and unbelieving Jews. From this tree the unbelieving Jews are said to be cut off, leaving only believing Jews113—the true Israel within Israel (cf. Rom 9:6, “not all Israelites truly belong to Israel”). From another tree, a “wild olive shoot,” Gentiles who believe are grafted into the very same tree from which the unbelieving Jews were removed, and now together with believing Jews these believing Gentiles share in its richness. This single tree is not a different tree, a brand-new tree called the church. Rather, it is the same tree being Israel now composed of believers from both Jew and Gentile peoples.’

As Dunn remarks, the theme here is not ‘Israel and the church’, but simply, ‘Israel’:

‘Paul, himself an Israelite (11:1), seeks to understand his heritage as an Israelite and to claim a place for Gentiles within that heritage.’

2 Cor 1:20 – All of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ.

Gal  3:6-9 – All who are in Christ are children of Abraham.

Gal 3:16 – God’s promises were made to Abraham and his offspring (singular) – that is, to one man, Christ.

Gal 3:29 – Those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise.  To be in Christ, therefore, is to be in Israel.

Gal 6:16 – Abraham’s descendants by faith constitute ‘the Israel of God’, who put no confidence in the flesh (i.e. their Jewishness).  This is contrasted with ‘Israel according to the flesh’, Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 10:18.

Strimple, then, writes that Christians

‘are the Israel of God, Abraham’s seed, and heirs of the promises, only because by God’s grace we are united to him who is alone the true Israel, Abraham’s one seed.’

Eph 2:11-22 – Through the cross of Christ God has created a single people, made up of Jewish and Gentile believers.  In Christ, Gentile believers are included in the commonwealth of Israel, and heirs of the covenant of promise.  So much for Gentile Christians being a separate and distinct people!

Donaldson comments:

‘Paul, in light of the Christ event in history, considered the church of both Jewish and Gentile believers to be the one body of people who are together the dwelling place of God and heirs of his covenant promises. He believed that Gentile Christians are incorporated in the commonwealth of Israel as co-citizens and co-heirs of the promises—not a distinct and separate people. They belong to the Israel of God in the same manner as do believing Jews and together they share the same hope. To deny this reality is to deny much of what Christ died to accomplish.’

Eph 3:11 – Jesus completes the eternal purposes of God.  Those who come to faith in him belong to him, who is the true Israel.

Phil 3:3 – We (writes Paul to mainly Gentile believers) are the (true) circumcision, ‘who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh’.  (‘Circumcision’ is a metonym for ‘Israel’, as in Gal 6:15.)

Waldron notes that an array of identity markers tie together ‘old Israel’ and ‘new Israel’.  These include:

1. Saints (Num 16:3; Deut 33:3/(Eph 1:1; Rom 1:7)
2. Elect (Deut 7:6, 7; 14:2)/(Col 3:12; Tit 1:1)
3. Flock (Ezek 34; Ps 77:20)/(Luke 12:32; 1 Pet 5:2)
4. Holy Nation (Exod 19:5, 6)/(1 Pet 2:9)
5. Kingdom of Priests (Exod 19:5, 6)/(1 Pet 2:9)
6. God’s People (Hos 1:9, 10)/God’s People (1 Pet 2:10)
7. Holy People (Deut 7:6)/Holy People (1 Pet 1:15,16)
8. God’s Tabernacle in Israel (Lev 26:11)/God’s Tabernacle in Church (John 1:14)
9. God walks among them (Lev 26:12)/God walks among them (2 Cor 6:16–18)
10. Twelve Patriarchs/Twelve Apostles

These common identity markers strongly suggest that the two groups are in fact one, together constituting the people of God.

Donaldson concludes that belonging to Israel:

• cannot be determined from natural descent;
• cannot be determined by conversion to Judaism;
• is not exclusive of those of Gentile origin; and
• is not without conditions, that is, obedience, faithfulness, justice, and an acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ (Acts 3:22–23).

To state the matter more positively:

‘Jesus is true Israel, Israel-in-person. Further, the church, by being “in Christ” who is Israel-in-person, is incorporated into and assumes the identity and mission of true Israel. The church as the Israel of God is a continuation of the believing remnant of Old Testament Israel, having been grafted into her to share in her life source—the covenants of promise.’

It follows that:

‘The church as the body of Christ for whom he died is not a parenthesis, a plan B in the purposes of God brought about solely due to ethnic Israel’s rejection of Christ. Rather the church of Christian believers, both Jew and Gentile, is the focus of God’s love and the focus of God’s redeeming plan through the ages. This should in turn cause the church to respond by living up to God’s calling for his people in the present, by being a light to the nations of our world.’

Based on part of ch. 3 of:

Donaldson (2010) The Last Days of Dispensationalism.  Wipf and Stock.