Is God finished with Israel? Should we view the OT promises to Israel as being fulfilled in the church?
If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to get me more fired up than those who apply the word “escapism” to pretribulationism, it is those who deny national Israel has a future in God’s plan in the face of all the biblical evidence for it.
I’ve come to suspect that much of the opposition against dispensationalism, premillennialism and even pretribulationism stems from how some people view Israel. Those who hold to Replacement Theology (or supersessionism) often remark that we show “too much interest” in Israel and prophecy. They say we do so to the detriment of the gospel.
We who look at the prophetic texts and take them at a face-value understanding are passionate about Israel because we are passionate about God. And God is passionate about Israel. It isn’t about idolizing secular Israel as some detractors sometimes like to imply. It is about recognizing God’s faithful promise to one day redeem a recalcitrant nation when it repents (Hos 5:15; Matt 23:39) – just as He did for us.
This is the reassurance of the gospel. That Israel is promised restoration after it repents is comforting because that same God will keep His promises to us. If God can change His mind about Israel then what can we have hope in?
While it’s true that supporters of Israel can sometimes be uncritical, I’m afraid its detractors too often demonstrate a one-sided animosity. Some will side with the Palestinians because – they say – national Israel is unsaved as a whole. One typically then hears a litany of objections against unbelieving Jews and Israel.
When it is pointed out that these same objections also apply to Israel’s neighbors, the argument becomes a heated theological debate. The assumption of the objector revolves around Israel’s covenant promises being fulfilled in Christ or the church.
Many supersessionists claim they don’t hold to Replacement Theology at all. They prefer to call it “Fulfillment Theology” because OT Israel is said to be a picture of the NT church. In that scheme, saved Jews are absorbed into the church and therefore inherit “all things.” This is simply a clever side-stepping of the issues. When national Israel’s unique blessings are either changed or transferred to another group, then that is the same as Replacement Theology.
Dr. Michael Vlach identifies five primary arguments (there are others) used to support Replacement Theology:
1) Matt 21:43 allegedly indicates that national Israel has been permanently rejected as God’s people.
2) The application of OT language to the church supposedly proves that the church is the new Israel (Gal 3:7, 29, 6:16; Rom 2:28-29, 9:6; 1 Peter 2:9-10).
3) The Unity of the Jews and Gentiles (in the church) rules out a future distinct role for national Israel (Eph 2:11-22; Rom 11:17-24).
4) The church’s relationship to the New Covenant shows that it alone inherits the covenants originally promised to national Israel (Heb 8:8-13).
5) That the New Testament is silent on Israel’s restoration is proof that Israel will not be restored.
It’s not possible to fully respond to these and other supersessionist arguments in this column. However, Dr. Vlach does so in his book Has the Church Replaced Israel? Many of these rebuttals may also be accessed at his online resource library. We can make some brief observations, though.
The fifth argument is refuted by Acts 1:6-7. Christ’s response to the disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel indicates that they weren’t to be concerned about the timing, not their primary assumption. Matt Waymeyer deals with this issue HERE.
Other NT passages confirm unbelieving Israel’s standing as a chosen nation (Acts 3:12, 13-15, 25; Rom 11:26-29 etc).
Numbers three and four are false dilemma arguments which assume that, because Jews and Gentiles are One People in Christ in the New Covenant, there is no future for Israel. Not only is that not biblically warranted but Scripture never transfers Israel’s land covenant blessings to the church. The New Covenant simply facilitates a way for national Israel and Gentiles to be redeemed.
In contrast to alleged NT difficulties regarding Israel’s future, the Old Testament is filled with passages which point to Israel’s redemption and restoration as a nation.
Jeremiah 7:7, 25:5 and Amos 9:14-15 declare that God gave the land to Israel as an eternal possession. God told Israel that the enjoyment of the land was contingent to obedience (Lev 26:27-33). However God also told Israel that He would not reject them or break His covenant with them, even when they were scattered in the land of their enemies (Lev 26:44-45).
God told Israel that He would never forget them; He have mercy on them; gather them from the nations; give them a new heart and that they would never cease to be a nation before Him (Deut 4:29-31, 30:2-4; Isaiah 11:11; Jeremiah 31:31-37, 33:25-26; Ezek 36:24-28, 37:1-14; Zechariah 12:10).
When confronted with all this OT evidence, supersessionists take refuge in the concept that the NT allegedly re-interprets the OT. First of all we should observe that they often also re-interpret the NT in cases such as Acts 1:6-7. Sometimes they even argue that the apostles re-interpreted the OT using the NT. Michael Vlach once again comes to our rescue by addressing these arguments in his NT use of the OT series.
One problem with this line of thinking is that the OT Messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally (Luke 24:25-27; Acts 3:18-21). Why should we assume those relating to national Israel be any different? What these people are doing is imposing their doctrinal presuppositions onto these texts.
There are consequences associated with this approach. Dr. Paul Henebury has outlined forty reasons why the NT shouldn’t be used to re-interpret the OT. See our previous article NT Re-interprets the OT? The most serious consequence of employing this interpretive method is that one is making God out to be disingenuous.
God means what He says!
I give the final word to John MacArthur in this short video, Israel and the Church.
Dr. MacArthur nails it down very well.
Sharing is caring!
