I emphasize a continuity between the national Israel and the Church (which delights all covenant theologians and irks some dispensationalists), but I also point out with unshakeable confidence that it does not follow from this fact of continuity that national Israel was the Church (which position delights all dispensationalists and irks most covenant theologians, I guess).
I think we need to be more careful in the systematizing which we do. I specifically believe that we need to appreciate typology more.
National Israel was called the "Church in the wilderness," but I read this as a largely typological statement (very much like "That Rock was Christ")--not a simplistically literal statement. I think the reference to the "Church in the wilderness" presents an important idea, but I maintain that it has to be typological rather than literal.
(Hey, that's the way I read Revelation 20, too!)
And this makes a monumental difference in the overall theology. (Of course, it makes a monumental difference in our interpretation of Revelation 20, too!)
In short, I say that the type and the antitype are CONNECTED in God's progressive revelation. But still, it should be crystal clear that the type is NOT the antitype. (Absalom certainly wasn't Christ! For that matter, Adam was not Christ even though Christ is called the "Second Adam." In fact, the First Adam and the Second Adam are actually antithetical.)