The true Israel

To contact us Click HERE
1) It’scommon for some Reformed amils to make the following two claims:
i) The church is the newIsrael
ii) Christ is the true Israel
But if you combine bothclaims, that will yield a third claim:
iii) Christ is the truechurch
Clearly, though, that showsthe need to qualify our usage. It doesn’t make much sense to say that Jesustakes the place of the church.
1) There’s a seriousexegetical argument to be made for (i). However, that’s somewhat ambiguous,depending on how we define the key terms.
2) Concerning (ii), this onlymakes sense if we use it as a shorthand expression for corporate solidarity orfederal headship. Christ is the true Israel in the sense that Christ representsIsrael, not that Christ is identical with Israel.
By the same token, Christacts on behalf of his people (“the church”). To some degree he acts in theirstead, as their redeemer (i.e. vicarious atonement, penal substitution).
However, it’s not anantithetical relationship, as if Jesus supplants the church.