Israel in recent history
Israel is the focus of much of the world at the moment. The atrocities inflicted by Hamas and Israel’s response have captured the world’s attention. For some, Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate, while for others it is necessary despite the loss of innocent lives caught up in the war.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire (1922) Palestine was home to both Arabs and Jews. Jews, who had been exiled from their homeland since the end of the first century, were distinctly in the minority. However, continued persecution prompted many Jews to migrate to Palestine. Before and after WW 2 Jews moved to Palestine in large numbers although Arabs remained the majority people group. During this time Palestine saw a large influx of both Jews and Arabs. The number of Jews was probably around a third that of the Arabs. Relations were fraught between Arabs and Jews. The surrounding Arabs dubbed the efforts of Jews to obtain Palestinian land and create a Jewish homeland Zionism. After WW2 the UN agreed the land should be partitioned with both Arabs and Jews apportioned land. The Arabs objected, believing all the land was theirs and civil war broke out. The upshot was that Israel declared itself a nation-state in 1948 and the UN endorsed its declaration. The Palestinians refused to formally accept any land allocated to them since they considered the whole land was theirs; they still do.
Since its declaration and endorsement as a nation state Israel has been embroiled in conflict. The surrounding Arab states and Palestinian Arabs refused for many years to acknowledge Israel’s legitimacy, many/most still do. Onlookers, have been amazed how this small beleaguered nation-state has continued to exist, even flourish, given the forces against her. Others, continue to question her legitimacy believing Israel effectively stole the land from the Palestinian Arabs aided by the UN as they tried to atone for European guilt about the holocaust. Part of Israel’s response is that the land was theirs for many centuries; long before the Ottoman Empire. It was the Romans who expelled Israel from the land creating a Jewish Diaspora that lasted around 900 years. They also point out this diaspora was not absolute. Many Jews continued to live in the land. The Roman attack on Jerusalem was prophesied by Christ. Her exile, according to the Bible, was because she rejected her Messiah (Lk 11:50-52; 19:41-44; 21: 20-24)..
Since 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel Christians have asked if this return to the land is the fulfilment of prophecy. Is the prophetic calendar approaching its end? The recent war has caused a resurgence of these questions. How should we respond?
Israel and the Bible’s Big Story
First of all we should affirm that because Israel is Israel does not mean Christians should approve off all they do. Ironically, while at one time Christians thought Jews could do nothing good, now they think they can do nothing wrong. Both views are mistaken. Israel was constituted as a secular state. Today, Israel is largely an unconverted nation with almost half the population secular and the other half following religions where Christ is rejected. Israel does not consciously act in submission to God. Secondly, in the OT when Israel acted wrongly God held the nation and its leaders accountable. Being God’s chosen people did not excuse them from moral accountability any more than the church is exempt from judgement today. In fact, judgement begins with the house of God (1 Pet 4:17). Our assessment of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs should be according to what is just and not skewed by preference. In fact, God loves both Israel and the Palestinians and reaches out to both in the gospel.
Christians, however, often find it difficult to be impartial believing that Israel is God’s chosen people and that their presence in the land is the fulfilment of prophecy.
What does the Bible have to do say about Israel? What, if anything, is God’s plan for the nation?
These questions can only be answered by grasping the Bible’s big story. The Bible is a story, a true story, the story of God’s activity in history in both salvation and judgement. It is the Bible’s storyline that holds the many books of the Bible together and we can only make sense of parts of the story if we have a handle on the whole story. However, immediately we speak of the Bible’s big story we face the question – what is the Bible’s ‘big story.’ Regrettably Christians are not in total agreement about the contours of this story. The Bible’s story covers many peoples many centuries and synthesising what it teaches into a narrative upon which all agree is challenging.
Versions of the Big Story
Presently, at least five narrative structures vie for evangelical attention. The first is dispensationalism. Arising in the C19, it dominated much of evangelicalism in the C20. Dispensationalism has a couple of important distinctives. The main one is that God has two peoples (Israel and the church) and two separate plans for them (one earthly and the other heavenly). God’s plans to bless Israel went into a hiatus when the nation rejected her Messiah. Presently the nation is under judgement which explains her exile from the land over the centuries and her many persecutions. God’s concern now is the church. The present dispensation will continue until the rapture of the church.. Dispensationalism believes the Second Coming is in two stages. The first stage is when he comes to the air for the church and it is raptured (caught up) to return, dispensationalists say,, with Jesus to heaven. At that point God will recommence his programme for Israel. Israel, the nation, will come under significant attack by the nations and be delivered by the return of Christ (Zech 14; Mat 24). This, in fact, is the second stage of Christ’s coming when he comes to the earth with his church to rescue Israel and judge the world. Dispensationalists traditionally describe these two stages as the rapture and the revelation.
Much evangelical preoccupation with Israel is due to dispensationalism. Many popular dispensationalists believe Israel’s presence in the land today is the fulfilment of OT prophecies promising Israel’s return to the land (this despite the classical dispensational view that OT prophecy does not commence until the church is raptured). However, OT promises of returning to the land are tied to faith in the nation. Israel presently is not a converted nation. Only a remnant, accept Jesus as Messiah. Israel is presently living in the land in unbelief. Moreover, the land promised in the OT does not belong to this age but the age to come. The OT envisages Israel’s return to the land as a redeemed people under the rule of Messiah in a land where the effects of the fall are substantially if not entirely removed (Isa 65 Cf. Ezek 38,39).
It is true that Israel seems to be in the present land and surrounded by hostile nations prior to Jesus’ return (Zech, 12, 14, Matt 24); Ezek 36:24-26. For this to happen she must first be in her ancient land and perhaps Israel’s presence in the land prepares for this prophecy. Her present victories over her enemies may even fulfil Zech 12:2,3. Her presence in the land certainly prepares the setting and climate for the final conflict where it seems both Israel and the church in different ways will experience the wrath of the world (Cf Zech 12,14; Rev 13, Matt 24).
I would argue that dispensationalism’s two peoples and two programmes with two comings is mistaken. It creates an absolute divide between the OT and NT/Israel and the church that the Bible doesn’t support. Ironically if dispensationalism creates virtually an absolute divide between the OT and the NT then its traditionally competing schema, Covenant Theology, does not create a sufficient divide. Covenant Theology is broadly the Reformed version of the Bible’s nor story. It has tended to flatten out the Bible and failed to give sufficient weight to the radical newness of the time of fulfilment. (Over, the years both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology have moderated their positions to some extent as they have grappled with tensions in their schema).
Perceiving the weakness of these two extremes scholars have looked for a middle road. In recent years Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology have attempted to fill this middle ground. Without discussing these, I think, they are both a better synthesis of the biblical data even if neither is entirely satisfying. A fifth synthesis called Partial Preterism. (PP) has gained currency in recent years. While remaining within orthodoxy it differs substantially from the other positions. It believes most Bible prophecies were fulfilled around AD 70. This is especially true of prophecies about Israel whose biblical and prophetic history came to an end for PP in AD 70. Individual Jews find salvation in the church but there is no expectation of any further national trauma or salvation for the nation. (It’s possible PP belongs more in interpretations of Revelation along with futurism, Idealism, Historicism and Dispensationalism – sometimes boundaries cross).
Good summaries of these schemas can be found online. Rather than try to grapple further with them I will attempt to outline the Bible story as I understand it. Of necessity it must be brief and actually will have much in common with all four schemata. It owes much to a consensus found in many current biblical theologies. Biblical theology is the discipline of tracing themes through the bible storyline. It is fruitful as it considers issues both in context and in the sweep of the biblical narrative (arguably the book of Romans is a biblical theology).
The Big Story
My main intention, if I may remind us, is to examine how Israel fits into the Bible story.
The first thing we should observe is that the biblical story is bigger than Israel. Israel is part of the story, an integral part, but not the whole story.
The Bible’s story is nothing less than a movement from creation to new creation. It is the story of the first creation spoiled by sin, restored and significantly enhanced by grace. 1 Cor 15 views the movement between creation and new creation as essentially a movement from the natural to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly. The subject of the chapter is the resurrection of the body but its application seems wider; the resurrection of the body reveals the distinction between two modes of existence. Neither heavenly nor spiritual, of course, mean non-material or non-physical. The Bible does not subscribe to platonic views that denigrate matter. Jesus in resurrection was both heavenly and spiritual but he remained material… a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have. We should add that ‘heavenly’ means from heaven and like heaven but not necessarily in heaven. In the Bible God’s heavenly people, his heavenly country and his heavenly city are located on a renewed earth; the meek inherit the earth (Matt 5). In the eschaton it seems heaven and earth become one as the new Jerusalem comes down to earth out of heaven and the dwelling of God is finally and fully with men (Rev 21). Heaven is indeed a place on earth.
The Bible story is therefore cosmic in scope moving from the initial created heavens and earth to a new heavens and new earth. It would seem that at some of these changes would have taken place even if Adam had not sinned (largely a pointless speculation) nevertheless the Fall further accentuates the differences between the two creations. It is not simply the contrast between the first creation and new creation but between fallen creation and redeemed creation.
In (the first) creation God created man to reflect his image and likeness. Humanity’s task was to represent God (image God) by ruling creation on God’s behalf. He was responsible for the flourishing of creation. Humanity had a kingly role in creation. Adam, bearing God’s image, is God’s ‘son’ (Lk 3). He became, however, a rebellious son and plunged the pristine good creation into darkness and death. Created to be the heir of all things he reached out for a position he had not yet been given and became the prodigal son. Instead of being heir he is cast out of the garden and banished from the immediate presence of God. God, however, is gracious. He did not abandon humanity. The Fall did not take God by surprise. His plan always involved human sin perhaps because against the backdrop of sin his glory is most fully displayed.
If Adam did not reflect God’s glory then God would create another son. And so he brings Israel into being. Israel was intended to image God’s character and bring the message of his saving goodness to the nations. Israel was a uniquely blessed nation (Isa 5; Cf Roms 9:1-5 ) but just as Adam was a rebellious son so too was Israel and as Adam was expelled from the garden so Israel was exiled from the land. Israel’s Davidic kings were intended to function much like Adam. The Davidic king was designated God’s son who reigned on God’s behalf – a reign intended to reach to the ends of the earth. The Davidic king had a special relationship with God. He was his adopted son. The King would be to God a son and God would be to the king, a father. Through this Father/Son relationship God’s rule would extend throughout the world. Yet again, however, the relationship broke down. Many of the Davidic kings were rebellious and none was the son God really intended.
Jesus the true Israel
None, that is, except Jesus. It is against this background of humanity’s continual failure to be the son God intended that Jesus comes into the world. He is the son par excellence. John says, ‘we beheld his glory, the glory of an only son with his Father, full of grace and truth’. Jesus was always the intended Son. The previous sons were really only shadows pointing to him. Here finally was an obedient son who would fulfil God’s creational intentions. Jesus is the true Adam (the last Adam) the firstborn from the dead. He is the son obedient unto death, the Son of Man who by suffering death tasted death for every man who is now crowned with glory and honour (Hebs 2). In him, creation will reach its potential in the regeneration of all things (Matt 19). He is the true Israel (Isa 49:3) who recapitulates the story of Israel in his own life, however, where Israel failed Jesus, the son called out of Egypt, and tempted in the desert did not fail (Isa 42:1-4). He was the beloved son with whom God was delighted not least because he went into exile (the cross) to redeem his people and obey his God (Matt 3:17). He was Israel who would accomplish the mammoth task of gathering Israel back to the Lord, be a light to the gentiles and take God’s salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa 49:5,6). He is the singular offspring of Abraham (Gals 3:15-17). And he is the Davidic king (Matt 1:1), the royal son, who saves his people from their sins and who rules over the kings of the earth. Moreover, the sonship of Jesus is of a different order. He is not a son merely by dint of his humanity. Nor is his sonship nominal and adoptive like that of Israel and the Davidic kings, instead we discover his sonship is ontological. His sonship is essential; he a divine son, the divine son. In Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son, came into the world to accomplish all his Father’s purposes. John’s gospel, in particular, explores the Father/Son relationship that exists between Jesus and God. The Son is the word who was with God and was God (Jn 1).
What is important to grasp is that at the very heart of the Bible story is Jesus, the son of God. The story is really about him. It climaxes in him. God’s plan from eternity was to glorify his Son and be glorified in him. The invisible God is fully revealed in his son who is his image. He is the imprint of the divine essence and in everything God has planned his preeminence. The Fall did not change God’s plan but was integral to it. Christ was chosen from before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:18-20; Rev 13:8) and his people were chosen in him (Eph 1:4). Salvation was planned and promised before time began (Tit 1:1,2) Thankfully with this, all five competing eschatologies agree. No sooner had sin disrupted the whole created order than the announcement was made that the seed of the woman (an unusual expression) would crush and destroy the serpent and his baleful activity. The warrior who will destroy the works of the devil is announced at the very beginning and he is Christ.
The OT is the groundwork for the coming seed of the woman. As history progresses, God reveals through prophecies and patterns the identity of the coming seed while putting in place the framework for his arrival. The seed of the woman it transpires is also the seed of Abraham and the seed of David; he is a Jewish king. The prophets speak of his arrival as ‘the last/latter days’. When humanity was seen to be without strength Christ would die for the ungodly (Roms 5). In the NT the seed arrived and was indeed the seed of the woman. No man played a part in Jesus’ conception. He was supernaturally conceived and was described by the angel as ‘holy’ and ‘the son of God’. A new and different order of humanity had come into the world – not innocent, nor rebellious but holy; it is his life and nature his people receive. The long expected messianic king arrived in Jesus and with him the eschatological kingdom of God. His message to the nation was to repent for the kingdom of God was at hand (Matt 4:17).
Israel rejected
Jesus was a Jew who came firstly to the Jewish people (Matt 15:24). Salvation rightly belonged to the Jews (Jn 4:22). In his miracles and messages Jesus demonstrated all the life of the kingdom to them. He proved he was Messiah. Yet, John tells us, he came to his own but his own did not receive him (Jn 1). When it became clear that the nation rejected him he revealed that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to a nation producing its fruits (Matt 21:43). The kingdom is another title for the anticipated salvation of the last times; it is when God’s rule is once more established in the world under an obedient people and all is renewed. The followers of Jesus are the nation of which he speaks. They include not only Jews but also gentiles. If the invited guests to the heavenly banquet won’t come (the Jewish nation) then people will be brought in from the highways and by-ways to enjoy the banquet (Matt 22). Meanwhile those invited would have their city burned and themselves destroyed; the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is prophesied by Jesus further verifying his messianic credentials (Cf 23:37-39; 24:1-51). And so the ‘sons of the kingdom’ are no longer ethnic Israel (Matt 8:12) but all who receive Christ; they are the good seed who receive the word and produce fruit (Matt 13:38). The eschatological messianic community is those Jesus calls ‘my little flock’. It is to them the father has given the kingdom (Lk 12:32). In John 10, his Jewish disciples (the little flock) are told by Jesus he has other sheep that he also must bring that do not belong to the fold of Israel.. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16. 11:32.) He is referring to the salvation of the gentiles who will have equal status with with Jews in Messiah’s community (Cf Isa 19:23-25; Ps 87). In Matthew, he speaks of his messianic followers. Jew and gentile, as ‘my church’ (Matt 16:18). God’s plan was always that Israel would take God’s salvation to the rest of the world.
The Israel of God
There can be little doubt that the NT church is the eschatological messianic community who inherit the promises. They are the new covenant community in whom the Spirit dwells. Their fellowship meal reveals their participation in the new covenant founded on Christ’s death. The new covenant made with Israel is the fulfilment of the old covenant made at Sinai. It is unsurprising therefore that titles given to OT Israel are in the NT given to the church – they are God’s chosen people, royal priesthood, holy nation, his personal possession (1 Peter 2:9). They are Messiah’s seed, those Messiah has made righteous (Isa 53). They are his gospel witnesses who ask, ‘who has believed our report’ (Isa 53, Jn 12; Roms 10).
In Isaiah, after Messiah the servant suffers for sins in ch 53, the scene shifts in ch 54 to the eschatological Jerusalem. During the exile and under judgement, Jerusalem was desolate, a shadow of its former self. Her vibrancy had gone. In Ch 54, as a result of redemption accomplished, this changes dramatically. Jerusalem is now teeming with life. So many populate the city that it needs to expand in order to contain them. It is populated with Messiah’s offspring (Isa 53). Paul tells us in Galatians 4,
the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
Paul understands ‘the Jerusalem above’, the heavenly Jerusalem, to be the city of which Isaiah spoke. He sees it as the mother/home of all believers, Jew and Gentile, in Galatia and throughout the world; all believers are citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem (Cf Ps 87). Jerusalem needs to expand because of the vast number of Jews and gentiles who will belong to it (messiah’s offspring ). This is one passage among many where OT prophecies are fulfilled in the church, the messianic community. The point to be grasped is that God does not have two separate peoples, rather he has one flock. Christ has made ‘one new man’ (Eph 2). In the OT, his people was Israel but in the NT his people has expanded to include all who believe in Christ, Jew and gentile. Israel has not been supplanted it has been supplemented.
Notice too that the OT earthly Jerusalem of prophecy has become in the NT the heavenly Jerusalem. It is for a heavenly country and a heavenly city that Abraham looked not an earthly one; it was this quest that made him a pilgrim. The movement from earthly to heavenly does not mean that God has two distinct peoples belonging to two different worlds rather it reveals that the OT hope pointed to fulfilment so glorious that the NT reveals it to be heavenly; it takes its character from Messiah who came from heaven and went to heaven (Jn 3:13). And so believers will come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and many others in the heavenly banquet of the kingdom of God while the initial sons of the kingdom are cast out.. In the final kingdom, heaven and earth become one as the New Jerusalem comes down to earth from heaven and the dwelling of God is with man (Rev 21).
In the NT, although many titles of Israel are given to the church, it is only rarely referred to as Israel, probably only once. Sometimes it is referred to as ‘the circumcision’ , an expression very similar conceptually to ‘Israel’ (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11; Roms 2:25-29). The church is the true circumcision in contrast to Jewish Judaizers who wished the church to privilege Jews and impose the mosaic covenant, especially circumcision on gentiles; they wanted to create gentile proselytes. Paul vehemently opposes this. It is not those who trumpet the need for circumcision who are the circumcision, the true Israel, but the believing messianic community whether circumcised Jews or uncircumcised gentiles. In Galatians, he calls the church ‘the Israel of God’ for much the same polemical reason as he elsewhere calls her the circumcision. Who the expression, ‘the Israel of God’ refers to is debated. Some believe that it refers only to Jewish Christians, however, this is unlikely for this would play into the hands of the Judaizers. They wanted to make a distinction between Jew and gentile which Paul will not allow. It is unlikely as he brings his letter to a close that he would suddenly distinguish between Jew and gentile whom he had previously insisted were one. It is much more likely he uses the title as he uses the expression ‘the circumcision’, namely, to stress that the true Israel is not the Jewish Judaizers but the church composed of Jew and gentile. Ephesians 2, comes close to calling the church ‘Israel’.
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Gentiles have come to share in Jewish promises and privilege and are in that sense While the true Israel, Paul avoids ethnic titles and describes the fellowship of Jews and gentiles as ‘one new man’. Jewish legal distinctives no longer count, and Jews and gentiles together share in the covenants of promise and the commonwealth of Israel on an equal footing; there is continuity but there is also discontinuity. In the church something new has come into being. The OT suggests something similar (Isa 2:1-5; 19: 23-25; Lk 24:45-49).
It is probably acceptable to describe the church as the true Israel if we wish to emphasise continuity. However, as we considered earlier it is better to describe Jesus as the true Israel (Isa 49:3). He is the only righteous son. In him Israel was reduced to one person. Thus in Gals 3 Paul says,
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise… 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Jesus is the true seed of Abraham, the true Israel (the true vine that bore fruit for God Jn 15) and the true son – those who are in him, Jew and Gentile, are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to promise. In Christ, the promises of God find their ‘Yes and Amen’. Israel’s identity is not ultimately ethnic but spiritual. That which is natural does not inherit the kingdom of God, only that which is spiritual. In Christ, gentles have an equal status to Jews and an equal share in the promises – a new nation is formed, a habitation of God by the Spirit.
God informed Abraham, after he offered Isaac his son and heir, that in him (Abraham) the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen 22:18)? How is this promise fulfilled? How are the nations blessed? It is fulfilled and they are blessed by becoming the offspring of Abraham in Christ (Gals 3). Since Abraham was willing o give up his only son God blesses him with a vast number of sons, both Jew and gentile. Christ is Abraham’s offspring and in him both Jews and gentiles are Abraham’s sons. Believers in Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.
Israel’s conversion
All agree that only Jews converted to Christ are truly Israel (Roms 9). The Bible storyline is that the OT promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and through Christ. However, what the OT did not anticipate is that the kingdom salvation promised would arrive in two stages. The kingdom would be inaugurated at his first coming and consummated at his second coming. Most scholars today would, I think, agree with this analysis. It is often expressed in the language of paradox – ‘already but not yet’. In this present stage of the kingdom, the already, the kingdom exists in mystery form (Matt 13). Ethnic Israel has rejected her Messiah and been cast off; she is ‘not my people’. Presently it is predominantly gentiles who are embracing the gospel with comparatively few Jews believing. Has ethnic Israel, to whom so much was given, been finally and fully cast off? It is this question that Paul grapples with in Romans 9-11.
Paul argues throughout Roms 9-11 that ethnic Israel will yet be converted. God has not forsaken his people whom he foreknew/fore-loved (Roms 11:2). God was still saving Jews, after all Paul was himself a Jew. Israel has not stumbled beyond recovery. If God grafted in wild branches (gentiles) to the tree of grace he could certainly re-graft the natural branches. He concludes that Israel’s present disobedience is to allow room for he conversion of the gentiles and after God has saved the gentiles he will then save Israel. It seems that Israel’s national conversion comes as they see Jesus at his second coming (Cf Zech 14:1-3); they shall look on him whom they pierced and repent. And so, the first shall be last, and with her 11th hour conversion the final kingdom will arrive. And so Paul foresees Israel’s conversion as a nation (Roms 11:25,26). The gifts and callings of God, he says, are irrevocable (Roms 11:29). Some believe ‘all Israel’ simply refers to the full number of Jews converted throughout history and does not imply a national salvation any time in the future. However this misses an important point. Paul contrasts the present time of Israel’s rejection with the future time of her full acceptance, her inclusion. He depicts two spiritual states of the nation, and two attitudes of God towards them – rejected and accepted. Accepted implies a spiritual revival. Indeed so great will the contrast in Israel’s fortunes be that Israel’s acceptance will spill over into effusive blessing; it will mean ‘life from the dead’; this may refer to resurrection or it may refer to ‘the regeneration of all things’ Matt 19:28). Both, of course ,will be true.
Paul seems to unite Israel’s conversion with the return of Christ. It is when ‘a deliverer will come from/to Zion’ that Israel is converted. The deliverer comes either from the heavenly Zion or to the earthly Zion. Zech 14 envisages a beleaguered Israel looking on Christ,, the one whom they pierced, and mourning/repenting over their sin (Cf Zech 12:2,3). Zechariah envisages Israel’s eschatological salvation which is both spiritual and socio-political. Israel is locked in a desperate battle with the nations of the world only to be rescued by Jesus as he returns again to the Mt of Olives. Such a scenario does not seem far-fetched in today’s world. The opposition to Israel is deep rooted and the accusation of Zionism often seems to be merely another manifestation of antisemitism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Israel’s present war strategy may be, fuelling much of the criticism is a profound hatred of the Jews.
The Second Coming of Christ will of course be a glorious event – every eye will see him. Converted Israel will be grafted into that great body of believers which in this age is the church. Together all believers alive and dead, OT and NT will inherit the kingdom. . This is the fullness of the ‘ingathering’ the OT and NT proclaims. In a renewed world (Matt 19) the kingdom will be established and OT promises as yet unrealised will be fulfilled. King Jesus will reign in righteousness. His kingdom reign and realm will embrace heaven and earth (Eph 1).
Dispensationalism divides the Second Coming of Christ in two. Without, in my view, any real warrant, it believes that Christ will come firstly for his people, the church (this is called ‘the rapture’) and then some seven years later he comes again with his people to judge the world (this is called ‘the revelation’. Much is made of ‘for’ and ‘with’; if there is but one coming how can Christ come both for and with his people is asked? One answer is that Paul’s reference to the rapture of the church employs an image familiar at that time. It was apparently the custom when an important dignitary visited a city for some of the citizens to leave the city to welcome him and then accompany him back to the city (Cf Isa 40:3-8; Matt 21:1-17; Acts 28:14,15). If this is the image employed ‘for’ and ‘with’ can be seen to apply to one coming. Jesus returns as the victorious king and his people go to meet him and welcome him and return with him to earth. Whether the image is implied or not it reveals how for/with can easily be applied to the second coming. Moreover, we are not told that Jesus returns to heaven as the pre-trib rapture assumes. The raptured saints are forever with the Lord, where is in the eternal kingdom.. The divided Second Coming is more a necessity of dispensationalism’s commitment to separate programmes for Israel and the church than the requirement of any NT text
I would argue that one Second Coming is the natural reading of Scripture. The burden of proof surely lies with dispensationalists to prove otherwise. In 2 Thess 1 the salvation of believers and the judgement of unbelievers seem to happen at the same time. The concomitance of salvation and judgement serves to underline God’s justice.
2 Thess 1, it seems, teaches one Second Coming to both deliver and judge. 1 Thess 4:13- 5:11 which dispensationalism argues teaches the rapture as a distinct event seems to me to do precisely the opposite. The passage is a pericope, a self-contained unit (the chapter division is unfortunate) teaching truths that belong to the second coming. It teaches what the Second Coming means for believers both alive and dead, and for unbelievers. The ‘rapture’ (Ch 4) is for Paul ‘the day of the Lord’ (Ch 5). the OT. final day of salvation and judgement. Notice the frequent reference to ‘the Lord’ in 4:12-18 making a natural transition to the OT phrase ‘the Day of the Lord’ in Ch 5. 2 Thess 2 That the whole section is a unit is seen in its concluding remarks which take the reader back to Ch 4, ; ‘whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him‘. Thess 2 treats the coming of ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ as identical. The inclusion of ‘Lord’ in the expression ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’ binds the two expressions. Finally, in 2 Thess 2, it is after the reign of antiChrist that the Lord comes from heaven – the event that the Thessalonians fear has already taken place.
I have written in more detail about the pre-tribulation rapture in other posts here I limit myself to the above comments..
Conclusion
Our aim in this post was to outline Israel’s role in salvation history. We have noted this role belongs to a wider story of salvation history. We have seen that Israel had and has a special place in God’s affections. Israel was God’s chosen son who was to model his character to the nations and bring to them the good news of Yahweh’s saving victory that they had experienced in the Exodus. subsequent conquests and his generous provision for his people in the land. The nation singularly failed in this. It fell into gross sin that led to a period of exile, an exile repeated some 800 years later and which proved to be much more enduring. Meanwhile the prophets who warned of judgement also prophesied of a future when Israel and the nations would both follow the Lord. The End would be a time of both salvation and judgement accomplished by Messiah. At the appointed time Messiah arrived and so began the End of which the OT spoke. The End, it transpired, would cover a much greater span of time than was obvious in the OT. The promised kingdom and its salvation arrived with the first coming of Christ but would not be fully completed until his second coming. Salvation and judgement would mark the whole age until its consummation in the age to come.
In the NT, Israel’s story gets worse before it gets better. Messiah came as God’s son and Israel’s king to Israel but the nation rejected their king and crucified him. In judgement, the kingdom was taken from Israel and given to a nation who produced its fruits. Messiah’s people, the inheritors of the promises, were now composed of of Jew and gentile. The messianic community, the church Christ came to build, the eschatological nation, was international. In this community national distinctions no longer counted.
Israel exiled among the nations because of her rejection of her Messiah suffers all kinds of hostility. Meanwhile the ‘new Israel’ (Jesus’ choice of 12 Jewish disciples seems to be a deliberate reconstituting of Israel) the eschatological community of the new covenant Spirit- birthed at Pentecost takes centre stage and in-dwelt by the Spirit produce godliness carry the good news of Messiah’s victory to the nations. Of course, the professing church has become in many ways like ancient sinful Israel. Israel’s desire was to be like the nations and this is the desire of the modern church. Many who claim to be Christians are not; they have uncircumcised hearts and are devoid of the Spirit. Like unbelieving aoistate Israel they will be finally judged. However, within the professing church is a believing core, a vast number from every tribe and nation. These live humbly and fulfil the commission of the risen Christ to whom all authority is given, namely, to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
In 1948 ethnic Israel became a sovereign state in a part of the land they were once given entirely by God. Since 1948 Israel has faced war and perpetual opposition triumphing against all odds (Zech 12). . As our world becomes increasingly violent and corrupt (like the days preceding the flood) it seems likely that the End is drawing near. The End will be a time of trouble for both ethnic Israel and eschatological Israel, the church. It seems as if the End will fully arrive when spiritual Israel, the church, is all but obliterated and natural Israel, the nation, is about to be extinguished by the armies of the world (Zech 14:1;Matt 24:22). It is in this dark moment that Christ will descend from heaven with a mighty shout and the voice of the archangel. He will rescue his people. Ethnic national Israel will embrace her Messiah who accompanied by the raptured church will judge the world. When the world is in a state of turmoil and men’s hearts are failing them for fear we are to lift up our eyes for our redemption is near (Lk 21:28).
Presently ethnic Israel is in their ancient land but this is not specifically in fulfilment of prophecy (though it is by divine providence). Prophecy envisages a redeemed Israel inheriting the land. At the Second Coming, newly converted Israel now part of the messianic community, the church, will inherit the land. The land, however, like God’s people, is not part of this age but belongs to the age to come. The consummated kingdom of which land is the realm lies beyond the Second Coming. It belongs to ‘the regeneration of all things (Matt 19; Cf Roms 8), a time when the natural is replaced by the spiritual and creation has finally given way to new creation (Matt 19; Roms 8; Hebs 1; 2 Pet 3; Rev 21; Isa 65).
This presents the Biblical picture as I understand it. However, more able and more godly men than I believe otherwise. I grow up in dispensationalism. The dispensational schema was considered virtually fundamental truth. Many were godly men who searched the Scriptures. Many of my friends remain convinced of its veracity (I have had little success in persuading any otherwise). And so it is wise to avoid dogmatism. It is one thing to hold a view with conviction and another to hold it inflexibly and without love. There is certainly much all five schemas share in common. We should bear with each other in the differences as we try piece together the shapeof the Bible’s big story, the drama of salvation. Only as we do so will we be able to see with clarity who Israel is and her role in God’s story.
.
.
Cave Adullam 