Reggie’s article on “One or Two Peoples of God?” (Currently in the “Articles” menu) might be of interest here. I don’t think you’ll get much objection from Reggie on your statement about one people of God, unless the intent is to deny Israel’s future role.

Also, I don’t think you’ll hear us say that the Church is to take a back seat to the glorious promises of Israel in the millenium. There is certainly enough glory to go around. I just read this in Art’s “Apostolic Foundations” today:

“The greatest description of Israel’s millennial glory is probably in the book of Isaiah, and certain of the other prophets. For example, she will be named by a new name. Her people will be called the ministers of the Lord. Nations will come to her. She will be a diadem and crown in the hand of the Lord. The language is lavish to describe what this nation will be in the Millennium, so what then will the Millennium itself be? Restored Israel is not the administrator of that Kingdom, but the subject of it. The risen glorified church administers the Kingdom. It is the church who rule and reign with Christ. Israel will be the subjects of the Kingdom as much as they were under King David. This time they will be subjects under the Greater King David (Jesus), who will be their Prince and Ruler forever. They will make known the Kingdom in the same sense that the church today promulgates the gospel of the Kingdom, but the actual administration, the governing, the establishment of this rule of God in the earth is reserved as a privilege for a church of a particular kind. She has established her claim and credential to be co-rulers, and to rule and reign by virtue of her sacrifice, character and conduct in the earth.”

Those of us who come to Christ before He returns will be enjoying unhindered eternal reward by the time Israel is operating in their millennial blessing. You are right in saying that both sides of the tree are blessed.

A “New” Covenant replaces the “Old” one. I believe this was the message Paul was trying to convey in Romans. If there is no longer an Old Covenant, then what happened to those things promised in the Old Covenant? God does not lie, so they will be fulfilled, but only in the scope of the New Covenant. The New Covenant wasn’t for the Gentiles, but for Israel and only became available to us after Israel rejected Christ. We so often forget that. It is a better covenant than what God had originally made with them and they hoped to see the day that the Messiah came and fulfilled everything.

If the Church shares in Israel’s pain during the tribulation, then why doesn’t the Church share the same blessings and promises made to Israel? I believe under the “New Covenant” we do. I do not think the Church replaces Israel, but rather joins Israel in their blessings and promises since we are both branches of the same tree. I don’t believe you can bless one side of the tree (Israel) without blessing the other side (the Church).

As far as the sacrificial system during the Mill, I do not believe there is room for that under the New Covenant. So there must be some other meaning in my opinion. Paul devoted almost the whole book of Romans on the subject of living under the law and how Christ was the once and for all sacrifice. So why would we, under the reign of Christ go back to what was temporary under the law? Again, I think there has to be some other meaning of Ezekiel’s vision which you reference.

So much of prophecy from the OT can only be seen clearly after its revelation. The Apostles and Jesus both demonstrate this when quoting OT passages and applying them differently than anyone would have thought. I believe this is the case for prophecy of the sacrificial system which would be a slap in the face of Jesus. It would suggest that He alone is not enough for Israel or us for that matter. While I haven’t given it an in-depth study, that is my opinion just from reading your article and what I know of the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant.