MODERN ISRAEL & THE CHURCH

One of the more controversial topics within Christianity today is modern Israel's relationship to the Church. This subject also holds significant implications for how we interpret Scripture, especially in connection to Bible prophecy and the end times. So what is the role of modern Israel and the Jewish people in God’s prophetic timeline, and more importantly, how does it relate to the Church? 

Many Christians turn to dispensationalism for the answers. Originating with John Nelson Darby in 1827, dispensationalism divides the Bible into different dispensations or time periods, each marked by God's covenants. It also maintains a strict distinction between Israel and the Church by suggesting that God deals with them separately in terms of prophecy and salvation. But is dispensationalism correct or is there an alternative view that's more faithful to Scripture? 

​

It's important to note that for 1800 years prior to Darby, most Christians would have held to a very different understanding of this subject. The purpose of this writing, therefore, is to explore how early Christians would have viewed the relationship between Israel and the Church, and the prophecies relating to them. What we may soon discover is an uninterrupted continuum between God's remnant people in the Old Testament and their New Testament counterpart, the Church.

​

The Church and Israel

When reading the Old Testament, it is evident that most of it concerns the story of Israel. From Jacob, the patriarch, to the Jewish exiles, the people of Israel take center stage throughout its pages. Despite the continual sin of Israel's kings and God's recurring judgements, the prophets look beyond this with hope to a time of restoration. Clearly, God’s primary concern was tied to His chosen people and their spiritual well-being. But this leads us to wonder about the Church's role in Old Testament prophecy. While it may seem as though God had completely overlooked the Church, such disregard does not agree with either His character or the Scripture's testimony. For example, God has promised "to do nothing at all without first revealing it to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). So could it be that God failed to disclose His plans for the Church to His prophets? Certainly not. In fact, the apostle Peter affirms otherwise:

"It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you ..." (1 Pet 1:12).

This suggests that the dispensational understanding of Israel might be flawed. And perhaps "Israel" is more than just a physical nation comprised of Jewish people. This possibility seems much more plausible when examining the original covenant that God made with Abraham, also known as the Abrahamic covenant:

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice" (Gen 22:17-18).

Based on Genesis 22, Abraham’s “seed” was to inherit special promises or blessings. At a casual glance, it may be assumed that the “seed” here strictly refers to Abraham's physical descendants, the Israelites. However, when examining Paul's teaching on this matter, it sheds more light into how we should interpret these covenantal promises. Notice:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal 3:16).

According to Paul, God’s promises applied to only one of Abraham's descendants (a single “seed”), NOT the whole nation descended from him. Paul further revealed that this Seed is Jesus Christ. Therefore, if all of the Abrahamic promises and blessings apply to Christ, then we are not so far removed from Israel:

"That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph 3:6).

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect" (Rom 4:13-14).  

​

These verses easily disprove the popular notion that physical Israel is the sole recipient of all of God’s promises, further closing the gap between Israel and the Church. But more can be said here. For instance, few realize that a typological Church has always existed, even in the Old Testament period. The Old Testament Church or Congregation was first revealed in Exodus. It was initially comprised of the faithful few who through faith and perseverance inherited the physical promises. They entered Canon—the land of promise—while the vast majority fell short of it and perished in the wilderness (Heb 3:17). Who were these faithful few? They were the second generation to come out of Egypt, including Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:21-24). Eventually, they would come to be known as the “remnant” (Romans 11:14), and God would preserve for Himself a faithful remnant from every subsequent generation of Israel.

We may be certain, therefore, that the Abrahamic blessings and promises pertain to Christ. And as heir, Christ has enrolled the Church, comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, to inherit them with Him. Moreover, the Church is not merely a New Testament creation; it has existed throughout redemptive history in the form of a faithful remnant. Paul affirms this truth by drawing from the example of Elijah’s day:

​

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace... I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
(Rom 11:4-5)

​

Paul further distinguishes this point by clarifying that not all who descend from Israel are counted as God’s true people:

​

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children... That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:6-8)

So this is the view that was held by the early Church, preceding dispensationalism by many centuries. Sadly, it is now rejected as an anti-Semitic teaching and given the pejorative name of “replacement theology”, which is the idea that the Church replaced Israel. But such a label is highly misleading. The early Church viewed itself as a continuation of Israel, developing out of it like new growth on a tree (Rom 11:18-21), rather than Israel's replacement. For this reason, those who adhere to the classic view reject the false notion that God maintains two programs side by side (Israel and the Church) and affirm that His Old Testament dealings have always proven otherwise.

R.C. Sproul offers a clear and compelling explanation of the relationship between Israel and the Church in his teaching on the subject. To help illuminate this connection, I’ve included an excerpt from his teaching below:

In Romans 11, Paul uses a highly instructive analogy of the olive tree. The tree represents Israel—the covenant people of God. Paul compares the unbelieving Israelites to branches that have been broken off from the olive tree (v. 17a). Believing Gentiles are compared to branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted onto the cultivated olive tree (cf. 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 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.

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 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 defined 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. What does this mean for our understanding of the relationship between the Church and Israel? It means that when true Israel was baptized by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, true Israel became the New Testament Church. Thus, there is continuity between true Israel and the Church. Yet there is discontinuity between the church and national Israel as well, just as there was discontinuity between the faithful remnant and apostate Israel in the Old Testament.

​

So is God finished with Israel in a covenantal sense? In order to answer this question, we must turn to Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11. Remember that in Romans 1–8, Paul denied that Jews were guaranteed salvation on the basis of their distinctive privileges as Jews. Faith was the key, not ethnicity or any kind of works. Paul argued that all who believe in Jesus are children of Abraham. He also argued that none of God’s promises would fail. All of this would raise serious questions in the minds of his readers. What about Israel? What has become of God’s promises to her in light of her rejection of the Messiah? Has the faithlessness of Israel negated God’s promises? Has Israel been disinherited? Has the plan of God revealed throughout the Old Testament been derailed or set aside? Paul answers these questions in Romans 9–11.

Paul begins Romans 9 with a lament for Israel—his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (v. 3). He then recounts all the privileges that still belong to Israel—including the adoption, the covenants, and the promises (vv. 4–5). In verses 6–29, Paul defends the proposition he states in verse 6a, namely, that the promise of God has not failed. In verses 6–13, he explains that the corporate election of Israel never meant the salvation of every biological descendant of Abraham: “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (v. 6b). In verses 14–23, Paul expands on this, explaining that salvation was never a birthright based on biological descent. It has always been a gift based on God’s sovereign election.

In Romans 9:30–10:21, Paul elaborates on the turn that redemptive history has taken, namely, that while Israel has stumbled over Jesus, Gentiles are now streaming into the kingdom. It is important to observe that in Romans 10:1, Paul writes, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.” He’s talking about Israel. The very fact that Paul can continue to pray for the salvation of unbelieving Israel indicates that he believes salvation is possible for them.

What Paul has said thus far raises the big question, which he now states: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (11:1a). This is the basic theme of chapter 11. In verses 1– 10, Paul demonstrates that God has not rejected Israel by distinguishing between the “remnant” and the “hardened.” Building on what he has already said in 9:6–13 and 9:27, Paul indicates that just as in the days of Elijah, there is also now a believing remnant (11:2–5). In contrast with the remnant, chosen by grace (v. 5), is “the rest,” the nation of Israel as a whole, which has been “hardened” (v. 7). God has dulled the spiritual senses of Israel (v. 8), and they have stumbled (vv. 9–10).

Paul then asks, “Did they stumble in order that they might fall?” (11:11a). What is his answer? “By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous” (v. 11b). What is the present significance of Israel’s stumbling? Paul explains that it has happened as a means to bring a multitude of Gentiles into the kingdom. The hardening of Israel is serving God’s purpose. Their trespass has served as the occasion for the granting of salvation to the Gentiles. Paul states, “Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (v. 12, emphasis mine).

In verses 11–12, Paul mentions three events: the trespass (or “failure”) of Israel, the salvation of the Gentiles, and the full inclusion of Israel. The first of these leads to the second, and the second leads to the third. Israel’s trespass, in other words, started a process that will ultimately lead back to Israel’s restoration, a remnant being saved even out of the national whole earlier rejected. This is the first of five places in this short passage where Paul explains the purpose and future of Israel in terms of three stages. Douglas Moo provides a helpful summary:

vv. 11–12: “trespass of Israel”— “salvation for the Gentiles”— “their fullness”

v. 15: “their rejection”— “reconciliation of the world”— “their acceptance”

vv. 17–23: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”—“natural branches” grafted back in

vv. 25–26: “hardening of Israel”—“fullness of Gentiles”— “all Israel will be saved”

vv. 30–31: disobedience of Israel—mercy for Gentiles— mercy to Israel

The repeated occurrence of this “three-stage” process reinforces the idea that Paul is looking forward to a future restoration of Israel. Israel’s present condition is described as “failure” and as “rejection.” Paul characterizes the future condition of Israel in terms of “full inclusion” and as “acceptance.” Israel is not simultaneously in the condition of “failure” and “full inclusion,” of “rejection” and “acceptance.” The “full inclusion” will follow the “failure.” The “acceptance” will follow the “rejection.”

Paul anticipates a potential problem in verses 13–24. Gentile believers who had been taught that they were now God’s people could be easily misled into thinking that this was cause for boasting against the Jews. In these verses, Paul warns against such arrogance. In 11:16–24, Paul explains the development of redemptive history and the place of Israel within it by using the olive tree analogy that we discussed above. Here again, Paul points to three stages in redemptive history: “natural branches broken off”—“wild shoots grafted in”— “natural branches” grafted back in.

Paul’s teaching in verses 25–27 has been at the center of the debate concerning the proper interpretation of chapter 11. Paul writes in verse 25: “Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Here Paul is still speaking directly to the Gentiles (see v. 13). He wants them to understand a “mystery.” In this context, the mystery involves the reversal of Jewish expectations concerning the sequence of end-time events. The “mystery” is that the restoration of Israel follows the salvation of the Gentiles.

In verse 26, Paul continues the sentence begun in verse 25: “And in this way all Israel will be saved.” The biggest debate here is the meaning of “all Israel.” Charles Cranfield lists the four main views that have been suggested: (1) all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles; (2) all the elect of the nation Israel; (3) the whole nation Israel, including every individual member; and (4) the nation Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member. Since Paul repeatedly denies the salvation of every single Israelite, we can set aside option (3).

John Calvin understood “all Israel” in verse 26 to mean all the elect (remnant), both Jews and Gentiles. Paul does use this language in other places in his writings. The problem with understanding “all Israel” in 11:26 in this sense is the context. Throughout verses 11–25, Paul has consistently distinguished between Jews and Gentiles. We also have to remember that Paul’s concern in these chapters is for his kinsmen according to the flesh (9:1–5). His prayer in this context is for the salvation of unbelieving Israel (10:1). In Romans 11:26, Paul is revealing that the prayer of 10:1 will be answered once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Other Reformed theologians, such as O. Palmer Robertson and Herman Ridderbos, have argued that “all Israel” refers to all the elect of the nation of Israel throughout the present age. As with the view that understands “all Israel” to be the church, there is truth in this interpretation. The Jews who are being saved in the present age are not any different from the Jews who are to be saved in the future. The problem with this interpretation, as with the previous one, is that it conflicts with the immediate context. As John Murray observes, “While it is true that all the elect of Israel, the true Israel, will be saved, this is so necessary and patent a truth that to assert the same here would have no particular relevance to what is the apostle’s governing interest in this section of the epistle.” Paul is not in anguish over the salvation of the remnant. They are already saved. He is in anguish over unbelieving Israel. It is this “Israel” for whose salvation he prays (10:1), and it is this Israel that he says will be saved in verse 26.

The interpretation of “all Israel” that best fits the immediate context is that which understands “all Israel” as the nation of Israel as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member of ethnic Israel. Paul consistently contrasts Gentiles and Israel throughout this chapter, and he continues to do so in the first half of the sentence we are examining (v. 25). There is no contextual reason to assume that Paul changes the meaning of the term Israel in mid-sentence here. The “Israel” that will be saved (v. 26) is the “Israel” that has been partially hardened (v. 25). This partially hardened Israel is distinct from the Gentiles (v. 25) and is also distinct from the present remnant of believing Jews, who are not hardened (v. 7).

​

...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. Israel’s present hardening has a purpose in God’s plan, but this hardening is not permanent. The future restoration of the nation of Israel will involve their re-grafting into the olive tree, the one people of God. The restoration of Israel will mean their becoming part of the “true Israel” by faith in Jesus Christ the Messiah."

In summary, I find Sproul's view to be biblically sound and wholeheartedly agree with it. It precisely identifies the prevailing errors espoused by many teachers today regarding Israel and the Church. On one extreme, some have swung entirely toward an anti-Israel bias, adopting replacement theology. Conversely, others have become so inclusive that they embrace even those Jews who have rebelled against God, mistakenly qualifying them as true Israel solely based on ethnicity. Yet, Paul distinctly delineates spiritual (true) Israel from physical Israel, asserting: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:28-29).

​

It is evident, then, that not all of national or physical Israel constitutes spiritual Israel—God’s elect. Yet God, in His mercy, desires to include as many as possible from physical Israel within His spiritual remnant. To this end, He continues to chasten national Israel, that through hardship and failure, an increasing number of the hardened may be drawn into covenant with Him. In this way, the promise that “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26) may be understood to refer to both the elect remnant and a portion of the hardened, brought into repentance and faith. It is possible that a greater fulfillment of this promise still awaits us in the days ahead.

​

The manner of this future fulfillment is vividly portrayed in Ezekiel 20. According to this prophecy, God will one day bring Israel into the “wilderness of the people”—a place of divine confrontation—and plead with them face to face. I believe this wilderness refers symbolically to the modern regathering of Israel to the land in 1948, a return not unto blessing, but unto judgment and repentance. It is here, on their own soil, that God will engage with them in a profound way that leads to covenantal restoration:

Christ’s Redefinition of the Kingdom

So how did Christ bring an end to the original national role of Israel? According to His own words, Jesus replaced the political component with a spiritual one:

​

“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight... but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
(Jn 18:36)

​

It is essential to recognize the implications of this statement. Either God continues to maintain an earthly kingdom called national Israel, or He does not. According to Christ, He does not. Until His second coming, no theocratic nation exists under God's rule. Therefore, as a theocracy, national Israel has ceased to exist and no longer holds a central role in God's redemptive plan. It does not enjoy His blessing, approval, or protection, for those who have rejected the Messiah remain under divine judgment (Deut 30:19; Mat 21:19, 43).

​

Instead, Israel’s calling has been inherited by the true Israel of God—the Church, the elect remnant of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. This is the Kingdom Jesus spoke of in John 18, a Kingdom not rooted in nationalism, geography, or ethnicity, but in spiritual rebirth and obedience to the Gospel.

​

For this reason, I urge great caution toward those who unconditionally support modern national Israel or publicly wave its flag in Christian gatherings. Christ has decisively separated His people from earthly political loyalties, including allegiance to national Israel. To promote political Zionism as if it carries divine sanction is to undermine the teachings of Christ and perpetuate the two-kingdom error of dispensationalism, which wrongly asserts that God has two distinct covenant peoples—Israel and the Church—functioning side by side.

The Error of “Two Kingdom” Theology

Thus far, we’ve laid important groundwork concerning the biblical relationship between Israel and the Church. Considering Paul's teachings on the present and future condition of Israel, it becomes evident that dispensationalism errs in maintaining a two-kingdom distinction. But it's important to grasp the main arguments behind this "two kingdom model" in order to avoid misunderstanding Scripture, especially when studying prophecies about Israel's future in the millennium. To help with this, here are the key arguments that are central to dispensational thinking:

​

(i) Ethnic Israel may participate in the Church but remains bound by the Mosaic Law, including circumcision, dietary laws, and the civic and ceremonial requirements once the new temple is erected.

​

(ii) Ethnic Jews, whether Christian or not, are encouraged to inhabit the land of Israel and maintain their Jewish identity.

​

(iii) The Church is to provide political support for the nation of Israel.

​

(iv) National Israel possesses an unconditional right to their homeland.

​

My objections to these assertions are as follows:

​

(i) Misapplication of Acts 15 and the Mosaic Law

The notion that ethnic Israel is still obligated to observe the Mosaic Law while the Gentile Church is exempt is deeply troubling to many Jewish believers in Christ. This concept arises primarily from a misinterpretation of Acts 15:20. However, a closer reading of Acts 15 reveals a very different message. What we find instead is that certain Jewish believers insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised and adhere to the Law of Moses. This led to a significant dispute among the apostles, culminating in the Jerusalem Council. The council decisively concluded that Gentiles are saved in the same manner as Jews—by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 15:9–11). As Peter affirmed, “He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Furthermore, verse 10 emphasizes that neither the apostles nor their forefathers could bear the burden of the Law, signaling that the Law’s ceremonial aspects were fulfilled in Christ and no longer applied.

​

Ultimately, verse 20 outlines four essential prohibitions for Gentile believers: (1) abstain from idolatry, (2) from fornication, (3) from eating things strangled, and (4) from blood. These are not exhaustive laws but foundational principles for spiritual maturity. The rest of God's moral instruction would be taught over time, as noted in verse 21: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him.”

​

(ii) The Call to Return to the Land

The belief that Jews must return to the land of Israel to preserve their identity is rooted in Old Testament thought and is absent from the New Testament. Nowhere in the travels of the apostles among the Jewish diaspora do we see a call for Jews to repatriate to their homeland. Yet, many modern Christians promote this idea, encouraging Jewish people to "go back" to Israel in fulfillment of prophecy. This teaching, however, lacks New Testament support.

​

Scripture teaches the opposite. In Ephesians 2:11–14, Paul writes that Gentiles who were once strangers are now brought near, and that Christ has broken down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. In Colossians 3:11, he declares that “there is neither Greek nor Jew.” And in John 4:21–23, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that neither Jerusalem nor Mount Gerizim holds sacred status anymore. Worship is no longer tied to geography, but to spirit and truth.

​

In light of this, the Church now carries the spiritual identity and mission that Israel once bore. Gentile believers are not outsiders—they are grafted into the olive tree and called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). The Church has inherited Israel’s national symbols—government, priesthood, temple—in a spiritualized form, as Peter declares: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation...” (1 Pet 2:9). This calling was once Israel’s, but due to their rejection, it now belongs to the Church, through the blood of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

​

(iii) Support for the Modern State of Israel

Should churches today lend their support to national Israel? The New Testament provides no command or precedent from the apostles for political alignment with the land of Israel or for fundraising on behalf of its government. These practices are modern inventions, gaining popularity in many evangelical circles, yet lacking biblical basis.

I raise this not from resentment—I truly don’t care whether one sends financial aid to Afghanistan or Israel—but because these actions must be tested against Scripture. If they are inconsistent with apostolic teaching, they must be reconsidered.

​

(iv) Do Jews Have an Unconditional Right to the Land?

Before addressing this point, let me be clear: I am not speaking from a place of anti-Semitism or bitterness. I am a natural-born Jew and citizen of Israel. My goal is to bring clarity, not condemnation.

​

According to Deuteronomy 28:1–68, Israel’s right to the land is conditional upon obedience. The blessings of national prosperity and land possession hinge on their faithfulness. But Moses also gave severe warnings: disobedience would result in exile, scattering, oppression, and ruin. And as history shows, national Israel has not collectively returned to the Lord, nor accepted the Messiah they crucified.

​

Jesus confirmed this in His curse upon the fig tree, representing Israel’s barrenness (Mat 21:18–19), and in His parable of the vineyard tenants (Mat 21:33–46), where the kingdom is taken from them and given to a fruitful nation. The Jewish leaders themselves sealed their fate by declaring, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Mat 27:25).

Even the modern flag of Israel, marked by the hexagram, often called the “Star of David,” carries troubling implications. The hexagram is not a biblical symbol of Israel; rather, the only God-ordained emblems are the Menorah, pomegranate, olive branch, and Lion of Judah. The widespread use of the hexagram, even in churches, should prompt believers to reconsider what they are endorsing.

​

Conclusion

The goal of this study has been to reaffirm the centrality of the Church in God’s redemptive plan. Contrary to dispensational claims, the Church is not a “parenthesis” in God’s timeline but the very fulfillment of His covenantal promises. Satan has deceived many into exalting national Israel—a political entity—over Israel the Elect, the Church of Jesus Christ.

​

Let me be clear: this is not an attack on the Jewish people. Like Paul, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved (Rom 10:1). Our posture must always be one of love, compassion, and hope for their future redemption.

​

Yet we must also reflect on the warnings of Scripture. If God did not spare the natural branches, we must not presume upon grace (Rom 11:21). If ancient Israel forfeited their inheritance through unbelief, how much more must we, as the grafted-in branches, remain faithful to the covenant sealed by the blood of Christ?

​

May this teaching awaken a deeper reverence for God’s redemptive work and a renewed commitment to the mission entrusted to His Church.