Who is the True Israel?

I want to share this Utube video with you, because I believe that this man is highlighting some very important facts, directly from Scripture (Our Bible):



The Bible identifies the "true Israel" not as all physical descendants of Jacob, but as the faithful remnant of believers who are children of the promise rather than just children of the flesh. According to Romans 9:6–8, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," meaning physical lineage alone does not define the true people of God; instead, those who are children of promise (like Isaac, not Ishmael) are counted as the true offspring of Abraham. ...

 

[David]

I want to share this Utube video with you, because I believe that this man is highlighting some very important facts, directly from Scripture (Our Bible):

The Bible identifies the "true Israel" not as all physical descendants of Jacob, but as the faithful remnant of believers who are children of the promise rather than just children of the flesh. According to Romans 9:6–8, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel," meaning physical lineage alone does not define the true people of God; instead, those who are children of promise (like Isaac, not Ishmael) are counted as the true offspring of Abraham. ...

The video gets an important point right at the beginning. Salvation is not based on ethnicity, but on faith. Scripture is clear on that. Romans 2:28–29 says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly… But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart.” That is true. Being born Jewish does not save anyone, and it never has.

Romans 11 also teaches that unbelieving Jews are “broken off” because of unbelief. That part is accurate. No one belongs to God’s people apart from Christ. Jesus said plainly, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” ~John 14:6. Up to this point, the teaching lines up with Scripture.

But this is where it begins to go off track. The claim is made that the Church is now “Israel” in a complete replacement sense, and that the modern nation of Israel has no biblical significance at all. That is not what Scripture teaches. Romans 11 cannot be read selectively. Paul asks in Romans 11:1, “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.” That alone shuts down the idea that Israel as a people is finished in God’s plan.

He goes further in Romans 11:25–26 and says, “Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.” That points to a future dealing with Israel, not a total replacement. The attempt to redefine “all Israel” as simply all believers ignores the distinction Paul is clearly making in the same passage between Israel and the Gentiles. You cannot erase that distinction without ignoring the context.

The olive tree illustration in Romans 11 also does not erase Israel. It shows one root of promise, with natural branches representing Israel and wild branches representing Gentiles who are grafted in. But Paul makes a key point that cannot be overlooked. The natural branches can be grafted in again. That means they still have a distinct identity in God’s plan, even while salvation is only through faith in Christ.

Another issue is the claim that there is no future prophetic regathering or significance for Israel. Scripture speaks directly to this. Zechariah 12:10 says, “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him.” That describes a future turning of Israel to Christ. Ezekiel 36:24–27 says, “I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you… Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you… and I will give you a new heart.” That includes both physical regathering and spiritual renewal. The teaching in the video leans on Deuteronomy 30 but ignores these clear promises where God acts for His name’s sake, not merely human obedience.

There is also the claim that there is no biblical basis for a future temple. Scripture again speaks otherwise. Second Thessalonians 2:3–4 says that the man of sin “sitteth in the temple of God,” which points to a future temple. Daniel 9:27 speaks of sacrifices being stopped again, which requires a functioning system. This does not mean God approves of those sacrifices. Hebrews makes it clear that Christ’s sacrifice is final and sufficient. But the existence of a future temple is not unbiblical, because Scripture itself speaks of it.

Another point that needs correcting is the idea that God has only ever had “one people” in a way that removes all distinctions. Scripture teaches unity in salvation, but not the erasing of all distinctions in God’s plan. First Corinthians 10:32 says, “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” That is three groups being distinguished. Ephesians 2 does show that both Jew and Gentile are made one in Christ, but unity does not mean sameness in every role or promise.

The bottom line is simple and needs to stay grounded in what Scripture actually says. Salvation is only through Christ. Jews and Gentiles are one in Him. Unbelief cuts anyone off from God. At the same time, Scripture does not teach that Israel has been completely replaced. It does not say that God is finished with ethnic Israel, and it does not deny that there are future prophetic dealings that involve them.

 

[David]

.
FYI, Scott Ritsema is associated with Seventh-day Adventist circles.
.

 

[Tom Lee]

This does not mean God approves of those sacrifices. Hebrews makes it clear that Christ’s sacrifice is final and sufficient. But the existence of a future temple is not unbiblical, because Scripture itself speaks of it.

David, I appreciate what you posted and agree heartily. It is something that needs to be proclaimed and taught more in the body. My understanding of the future sacrifices differs only slightly, though. I don't believe the sacrifices and offerings that will be made at a future temple will be sin sacrifices, for the reason you mentioned. In Leviticus Christ prescribes a handful of different types of sacrifices and offerings, sin being only one of them. A good example of this is when Saul was searching for his father's lost donkeys in 1Samuel 9. Saul and his servant go to ask Samuel about the donkeys. The description of the sacrifice that Samuel is making that day appears to be anything but a solemn occasion—i.e., not for sin—as guests are invited and he places Saul at a seat reserved for what we would call the guest of honor. The text doesn't say which type of sacrifice this is, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's either a fellowship or thank offering.

 

[David]

David, I appreciate what you posted and agree heartily. It is something that needs to be proclaimed and taught more in the body. My understanding of the future sacrifices differs only slightly, though. I don't believe the sacrifices and offerings that will be made at a future temple will be sin sacrifices, for the reason you mentioned. In Leviticus Christ prescribes a handful of different types of sacrifices and offerings, sin being only one of them. A good example of this is when Saul was searching for his father's lost donkeys in 1Samuel 9. Saul and his servant go to ask Samuel about the donkeys. The description of the sacrifice that Samuel is making that day appears to be anything but a solemn occasion—i.e., not for sin—as guests are invited and he places Saul at a seat reserved for what we would call the guest of honor. The text doesn't say which type of sacrifice this is, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's either a fellowship or thank offering.

Let’s bring this down where it belongs, right under the authority of the Word. You’re right to see that not every sacrifice in Scripture was for sin. Leviticus shows peace offerings and thank offerings, and 1 Samuel 9 has that scene where people sit down and eat before the Lord. That part is true. But you can’t take those pieces out of the system God put them in and make them stand on their own.

That whole system was one package. One priesthood, one altar, one covenant. And God says that whole thing reached its finish line in Christ.

Hebrews doesn’t leave room for a partial carryover. It says, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come…” ~Hebrews 10:1. Then it brings the hammer down: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” ~Hebrews 10:12. And then God shuts the door tight, “there is no more offering for sin” ~Hebrews 10:18.

Now please hear this. A future temple being mentioned does not mean God is rebuilding His approved system of worship. Scripture never says that.

What Scripture does say is that in the last days there will be religious activity wrapped in deception. Paul says the man of sin will sit “in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” ~2 Thessalonians 2:4. That’s not revival. That’s rebellion wearing religious clothes.

Jesus warned the same thing. “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name… and shall deceive many” ~Matthew 24:4–5. Same context. Same warning.

So when you suggest those future sacrifices might be fellowship or thanksgiving offerings that are acceptable before God, that’s where you step off the solid ground of Scripture. You’re filling in a gap God did not fill.

And God warned us not to do that. “That ye might learn… not to think of men above that which is written” ~1 Corinthians 4:6.

Christ is not part of the system. He is the end of it. He is our peace. He is our offering. He is our access to God. You don’t go back to shadows when the substance has already come.

So stay anchored where the Word is clear. Christ finished it. There is no second lane, no backup system, no future set of sacrifices presented as approved worship for those resting in Christ’s finished work.

Anything that suggests otherwise may sound reasonable, but it is not what Scripture actually says.

And anyone today who teaches that sacrifices have a role in approaching God or dealing with sin is teaching something contrary to the gospel. That is not a small error. It strikes at the heart of what Christ accomplished.