Introduction
This chapter and the next seek to warn the reader about anti-Judaism that exists today at a scholarly level within conservative Christianity, especially that which is Reformed in character, in the United States and the United Kingdom. My purpose is not to disrupt the unity of the Spirit or to engage in unfruitful “arguments over words” (1 Tim 6:4; cp. 2 Tim 2:14). Rather my goal is “warning and teaching with all wisdom.” With Paul, “I labor for this, striving with His strength that works powerfully in me” (Col 1:28–29). Jesus could not have more strongly urged unity, yet it had to be based on the sanctifying work of the truth of God's word (John 17:11, 17–23). Although Paul adamantly advocated Christian unity (Eph 4:3; Col 3:13–14), he was just as zealous in maintaining “the sound teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ...that promotes godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). Therefore while maintaining the “common salvation” that binds us, we must also “contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” (Jude 3).
Albertus Pieters
Albertus Pieters (1897–1987), former Professor of Bible and Missions at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan (Reformed Church in America), is undoubtedly an esteemed and widely quoted representative of classic Reformed theology, especially its European formulation. He is often quoted by Calvinists who espouse an Augustinian eschatology, especially his volume, The Seed of Abraham. The following quotations are mostly drawn from this work and plainly indicate an outspoken, anti-Judaic spirit.
God willed that after the institution of the New Covenant there should no longer be any Jewish people in the world—yet here they are! That is a fact—a very sad fact, brought about by their wicked rebellion against God.1
What a nuisance, what a worldly impediment the Jew currently presents for Pieters! While the centuries-old vitriolic charge that they were “Christ-killers” is not directly expressed, the tone of this racist slander, both here and following, remains. Of course, Gentile guilt need not be mentioned since it is of a far lesser rank!
But is it not monstrous to hold that by reason of this wickedness the said undesired and undesirable group are now heirs to the many exceedingly precious promises of God? Shall we be accused of anti-Semitism, because we speak thus of the Jews? We have not spoken so harshly as the apostle Paul, who knew them intimately and loved them passionately. …[Pieters quotes here 1 Thess 2:14–16]. How is it possible to believe that there are still prophecies of divine grace to be fulfilled in a group upon which the wrath of God has come “to the uttermost”?2
The HCSB better translates v. 16, “They [the Jews] are always adding to the number of their sins, and wrath has overtaken them completely.” The assumption here that such condemnation by Paul was irrevocably applicable to ethnic Israel as a nation, is erroneous. The context, and especially I Thess 2:14, indicate that what the apostle had in mind concerned that distinctive Jewish opposition which he had encountered in Judea, but particularly Jerusalem, and now was reportedly in Thessalonica. When Paul found it necessary to leave Thessalonica due to violent Jewish opposition, after his first visit there, on moving south to Berea he immediately commenced to witness, as was his pattern, at the local synagogue (Acts 17:1–12), hardly evidencing ethnic Jewish abandonment. The same generalization with regard to Israel as a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9) also fails to acknowledge that these charges concerned the localities of Smyrna and Philadelphia rather than a comprehensive ethnic application.3
Some years ago, in a conference, I heard a brother minister say: “God is through with the Jews.” At the time, this statement startled me, and I thought it extreme, but the more I study the Scriptures the more it seems to me he certainly was right. And, after all, was he saying anything more than the Lord Jesus Christ said, addressing the unbelieving Jewish people through the symbolism of the barren fig tree: “Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward forever?” (Matthew 21:19).4
The cursing of the fig tree that had only leaves and no fruit, representative of prospective judgment on Israel (Jer 5:15–17; Joel 1:5–7,12), took place on the Monday morning of Passion Week following Palm Sunday. The curse did not point to the nation itself as a total ethnic entity, but to the present and subsequent corrupt generations, as Matt 21:42–43 confirms. In Matt 23:37–39 Jesus indicates that an eventual change of heart will come to Jerusalem, hence national Israel. The same point is made in Deut 31:14–22 and Josh 23:16 concerning Israel's future disobedience and dispersal in judgment. Yet Deut 30:1–10 gives assurance that after this dispersal the Lord will bring about Israel's return to the land and regeneration.
There are at present people in the world who are called, and who call themselves, “The Jews”. They claim that they are the continuation of ancient Israel, and are the “Seed of Abraham” to whom the divine promises were made, and to whom they are to be fulfilled. The claim is conceded by many earnest Christian people who believe that they find in the Bible very important prophecies that must some day be fulfilled in this company who are called “The Jews”, who worship in the synagogue and adhere to the Talmud. … How could the Jews be held together and continue to be a “peculiar people” [without a temple, a country, a government]? Only by preserving in all possible rigidity the ordinances handed down from the fathers, with regard to eating and drinking, trimming or shaving the beard, observing fasts and feasts, circumcision, Sabbath keeping on the seventh day of the week, synagogue worship, prohibition of intermarriage, etc., etc. These things must henceforth be their life; for if these were lost all was lost, and they must expect speedily to be absorbed in the mass of the population around them.5
Yet Hosea made it plain that “the Israelites must live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, and without ephod or household idols. Afterwards, the people of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come with awe to the LORD and to His goodness in the last days” (Hos 3:4–5). So as is well confirmed throughout many centuries, stripped of much of their distinctive heritage, the Israelites have remained and will remain as Israelites. However, Pieters continued,
Ignorant that their separateness from the rest of the world was in the divine purpose temporary, they strove to render it permanent. Thus that which had been in itself good and holy became through their error a source of poison in the life of the world; and “The Jew” became the great persistent international problem.6
This is nothing short of despicable language that reflects the anti-Judaic vehemence of shameful, early twentieth-century Europe. There is something fundamentally wrong here with a professed Christian mentality that is so objectionably racist in character. However, this rabid example of replacement theology continues.
The Visible Christian Church being now the New Covenant Israel, those whom we call “The Jews” are outsiders, cut off branches, having no more connection with either promises or prophecies than any Gentile group.7
Those now called “Jews,” …have…no prophetic destiny, except a continuance of their present sad and bitter state, so long as they continue disobedient and unbelieving. They will not always so continue. St. Paul assures us that in time to come they will again be grafted into the olive tree. That, however, will give them no prophetic future as a separate group. They will then also lose their distinct existence by absorption into the Christian Church. The closed book of Israel's history will not be reopened.8
Pieters expresses his belief in the eventual salvation of the Jews, though with the result that all taint of Jewishness will be lost. It is to come about through absorption into the Christian church, the result being the loss of Jewish identity and at the same time purification through Gentile identification. This is not unlike Augustine, Vos, John Murray, and a host of Reformed commentators, all of whom, while deftly describing a mass conversion of the Jews at the climax of the church age, are careful to avoid associating this with the perpetuation of national and territorial Judaism.9 Pieters tolerates a token, nominal individuality while vehemently repudiating ethnic individuality, nationality, and territory in covenantal terms.
How utterly un-Pauline is this theologically anti-Judaic diatribe. It savors of being bitter, not just tart. One almost senses here a degree of delight at the prospect of the alleged coming extinction of Judaism. The whole tone here is so unworthy of any Christian who glories in being saved by a Jew (John 4:22). Can such an obviously so unsavory emphasis be the fruit of a sound eschatology?
Loraine Boettner
Loraine Boettner (1901–1990), a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, was a twentieth-century scholar of classic Reformed convictions. His influential volume, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, has had considerable influence and is an excellent presentation of the doctrines of sovereign grace. His book, The Millennium,10 however, contains not only the most emphatic and categorical expressions of supercessionism, but also declarations on the destiny of the Jews that reflect theological anti-Judaism.
While the Jews no longer occupy a place of special favor in the divine plan, this does not mean that God has cast them off. Nothing has been taken from the Jews as individuals. Only the external forms have been abolished. The blessings and privileges of salvation which they enjoyed during the Old Testament dispensation have been magnified and heightened and extended to all nations and races alike. After the Jews had forfeited their rights as a chosen nation, or, to put it more accurately, after God had completed His purpose with the Jews as a separate people, they continued to have the privileges of full and free salvation individually.11
Franklin Littell expressed considerable dismay about this portion of Boettner's replacement theology:
At first blush, this looks like a simple dehydrated statement of the displacement myth. The revealing phrase is, however, this: “Nothing has been taken from the Jews as individuals.” This formula does not derive from ancient teachers and synods of the church; it is precisely the dogma of the Enlightenment. “Everything to the Jew as an individual; nothing to the Jews as a people.”12
Littell was absolutely correct, but perhaps we might add a modification: “Everything to the Jew as an individual under humiliation; nothing to the Jew with regard to Israel as a territorial nation.” Boettner continued his harangue,
With the establishment of the Christian Church Judaism should have made a smooth and willing transition into Christianity, and should thereby have disappeared as the flower falls away before the developing fruit. Its continued existence as a bitter rival and enemy of the Christian Church after the time of Christ, and particularly its revival after the judgment of God had fallen on it so heavily in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersal of the people in 70 A.D., was sinful.13
The overall tenor here is antithetical to that of Paul. Particularly objectionable is the suggestion, seemingly without compassion, that the Jews were responsible for the misery they have endured over the centuries. One would expect at least mention of widespread anti-Judaism throughout the centuries of the Christian Church and western society that calls for shameful confession. The problem is chiefly that of the Jew; he has become a blot on society. There is even the intimation that Christians in particular were, to a considerable extent, justified in their campaigns of ostracism concerning the perfidious, Christ-killing Jew. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a Jewish Christian, rightly expresses his distress:
According to Boettner, the Jews are totally to blame for their history of persecution. The problem is not with the Gentiles’ attitude toward the Jews, but with the Jews failure to disappear. The solution is that the Jews should cease to be Jews, and by so doing will make a great contribution to the world. It is the Jewish failure to assimilate that has produced tragic results, both for the Jews and “for the world at large.” This is theological anti-Semitism with a vengeance!14
To support his overall contention here concerning Israel, Boettner quoted at length from The Seed of Abraham by Albertus Pieters, previously referenced in this chapter. For a professing Christian, such an attitude is quite outrageous. It is full of Gentile arrogance, namely, that the problems of the suffering Jew are essentially those of his own making. If this deplorable attitude is the fruit of a certain doctrinal system, then there must be something fundamentally wrong with the originating body of teaching.
Boettner's contemptible attitude is further evidenced as follows:
The continuance of this bitterly anti-Christian racial Group has brought no good to themselves, and there has been strife and antagonism in practically every nation where they have gone. They have not been a happy people. One only need think of the pogroms in Russia, the ghettos of eastern Europe, the many restrictions and persecutions that they have suffered in Italy, Spain, Poland, and other countries, and in our own day the campaign of extermination waged against them in Germany by Hitler. At the present time we see this problem in a particularly aggravated form in the Near East, where the recently established nation of Israel has ruthlessly displaced an Arab population and seeks to expand further into surrounding regions, some 900,000 Arabs in refugee camps around the borders of Israel being one of the chief continuing causes of bitterness. …Israel is not a self-sustaining nation, and her existence to date has been heavily subsidized by American money and equipment—much of it undoubtedly having been given for the purpose of influencing the Jewish vote in this country. …The mere fact that these people are Jews does not in itself give them any more moral or legal right to Palestine than to the United States or any other part of the world.15
The language here is loaded with anti-Jewish innuendo. Furthermore, avoidance of mentioning culpability on the part of the Gentiles concerning European persecution is astounding, while the nuanced blame of the Jews for their sufferings is extremely shameful. Hence the Jews have only themselves to blame for their troubles, as well as a hopeless future. Qualification in no way takes away from the essential disparagement.
It may seem harsh to say that, “God is through with the Jews.” But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group. …This does not mean, of course, that the Jews will never go back to Palestine—as indeed some of them have already established the nation of Israel, a little less than 2 million out of an estimated world Jewish population of 12 million now being in that country. But it does mean that as any of them go back they do so entirely on their own, apart from any covenanted purpose to that end and entirely outside of Scripture prophecy. No Scripture blessing is promised for a project of that kind.16
Here then is the unveiling of a common form of duplicity among a number of Reformed Christian scholars, and indeed evangelicals more broadly speaking. On the one hand, they will declare that in this Christian dispensation there is “a remnant according to God's gracious choice” (Rom 11:5), that is, Christians who are to be designated as Jewish, without national and territorial claims. They will also confess that there are individual non-Christians today who are to be designated “Jews” in some worldly social sense. On the other hand, as with Pieters, Boettner, and as we shall also see with Gary Burge, O. Palmer Robertson and the signatories of An Open Letter to Evangelicals, there is yet for these “Jews” no nation, no land, no covenant relationship in any sense that abides according to the original promise made to Abraham. That, they claim, has been permanently done away with. In other words, for authors such as Boettner, the use of the term “Jew” is really a hoax. He is quite frank in this regard, even though he continues to speak of “Jews” in the parlance of modern society.
We should point out further that those who today popularly are called “Jews” are in reality not Jews at all. Legitimate Judaism as it existed in the Old Testament era was of divine origin and had a very definite content of religious and civil laws, priesthood, ritual, sacrifices, temple, Sabbath, etc. But with the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people in A.D. 70, that system was effectively destroyed. It has since not been practiced anywhere in the world.17
There is an honesty here that is breathtaking, even chilling, and unfortunately lacking in the writings of others who obviously hold the same doctrinal convictions that are inherent in replacement theology. In other words, some, like Boettner, confess their belief at this point quite candidly, while many others, in holding an identical point of view, declare it with a more subtle touch. Even so, they are essentially all saying the same thing. We might even ask them if this alleged ethnic deception adds any degree of justification for the mistreatment of the Jews. So I strenuously maintain that this shameful attitude, so blatantly confessed, clearly betrays a most un-Pauline disposition. It also causes us to see this as history tragically repeating itself after centuries of Jewish disqualification by arrogant Gentiles.
Our resultant practical concern here is with regard to the contemporary Jew who is alleged to have no status in the sight of God, that is, according to Pieters and Boettner, apart from the more subtle terminology in the same vein on the part of many others. Consequently, will such a conviction with regard to the “Jew” be productive of a certain biblical ethical behavior toward him, especially if this “Jew” nevertheless claims a national identity that includes an historic claim to Palestine? The answer is obvious, particularly as centuries of church history up to the present have plainly illustrated. The preceding quotations very much parallel that doctrine which resulted in the shameful behavior of the past. The conclusion here is inescapable. Therefore, do devotees of replacement theology, as representatively set forth thus far, enthusiastically involve themselves in distinctive missionary outreach toward the Jews, according to the Pauline model? In witnessing to the “Jew,” would they present to them the declarations of Boettner and Pieters? Further, would they encourage the establishment in Israel of Christian churches that proclaim this teaching concerning the “poisonous” influence of Judaism?
Gary Burge, professor of NT at Wheaton College Graduate School, has aligned himself with the pro-Palestinian and anti-Judaic movement that vociferously opposes the modern State of Israel, derided as unjust, carnal Zionism. Along with Don Wagner and Stephen Sizer, he spoke at the 2004 Friends of Sabeel-North America, Voice of the Palestinian Christians conference (www.fosna.org) having the theme, Challenging Christian Zionism. Liberation theology was dominant, and the presence of terrorist Yasar Arafat was ominous. Burge is also on the board of Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (www.emeu.net), which notwithstanding it name tilts toward non-evangelical ecumenism, especially that which is eastern, supercessionist, and anti-Judaic. On the web site of Challenging Christian Zionism, Christians committed to Biblical Justice (www.christianzionism.org) Burge wrote this comment on Christian Zionism, Evangelicals, and Israel:
But the most important critique—and here I think we discover the Achilles’ heel—is that Christian Zionism is committed to what I term a “territorial religion.” It assumes that God's interests are focused on a land, a locale, a place. From a NT perspective, the land is holy by reference to what transpired there in history. But it no longer has an intrinsic part to play in God's program for the world. This is what Stephen pointed to in his speech in Acts 7. The land and the temple are now secondary. God wishes to reveal himself to the entire world. And this insight cost Stephen his life.18
There may be a tendency here toward a more Gnostic form of spirituality that so abhors the inclusion of materiality and the alleged inferiority of carnal territory. Be this as it may, biblical Christianity and consummate redemption is founded on spiritual materiality in space, time, and history on planet earth (Zech 14:9–11; John 1:14; Acts 3:20–21; 1 John 1:1–3), and Christians rejoice in this divine condescension. Stephen's concern was not the need to “de-materialize,” “spiritualize,” or “universalize” the promise to Abraham concerning the land, but rather to focus on the coming of Messiah whose presence would certainly transcend the interim “holy place and the law;…this place [the Temple] and…the customs that Moses handed down” (Acts 6:13–14). The land and the temple are not abrogated in parallel as Burge suggests. It is the old covenant that Stephen challenged, not the land promise intrinsic to the Abrahamic covenant (see chapter 9 of this book).
Burge's most significant writing concerning the issue at hand is his Whose Land? Whose Promise? What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians. While the style is temperate, the overall thrust is uncompromisingly supercessionist, anti-Judaic, and pro-Palestinian. From a graphic point of view, the front cover photograph says it all. Here is a young Palestinian boy, David-like, about to throw a stone at a gargantuan, Goliath-like Israeli tank that is armed to the teeth. In ignoring centuries of the wandering, down-trodden, despised Jew, the pitiable Palestinians are portrayed as the unjustly treated underdogs in the face of such a rapacious, heartless, and devouring foe. In his preface Burge presents his thesis:
I will argue that even if Christian theologians reject the position that modern Israel inherits the land promised to Abraham (thanks to a new covenant that abrogates the old), this should not diminish the church's respect for Judaism nor the rights of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel.19
Let us look at four aspects of this statement that the subsequent text considers in detail.
Abrogation of the Abrahamic Land Promise
Burge subscribes to the view that although the land was promised to Abraham in such clear, repeated, unilateral, and covenantal terms, the advent of the Christian era means that this truth no longer has any validity. This is a difficult position to maintain in view of the weight of biblical evidence to the contrary. First, there is God's initial promise to Abraham:
The LORD said to Abram: Go out from your land, your relatives, and your father's house to the land that I will show you. … He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated, and the people he had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they came to the land of Canaan, Abram passed through the land to the site of Shechem, at the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “I will give this land to your offspring.” So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him (Gen 12:1,5–7).
Numerous biblical references also incorporate confidence in the inviolate character of the land promise made to Abraham.20 In light of such weighty evidence, Burge's comment concerning Genesis 12:1–3 is astonishing: “Strikingly, this promise fails to mention the land. Virtually every scholar who studies the passage notes that this omission is peculiar.”21 Nevertheless he admits to the clear promise of the land in 13:14–17, then suggests again that the promise is omitted in 15:1–6, and finally affirms that the land is formally covenanted in 15:18–21. Significantly the emphatic unilateral character of this last reference, in which God alone passed between the cut animal pieces while Abraham slept, is totally ignored. According to Burge, however, the fundamental reason for the abrogation of the land covenant with Abraham is its alleged conditionality. There is nothing new here since this is the most common reason given for such land nullification by supercessionists. But it is especially surprising when found in the Calvinist argumentation of Boettner, Fairbairn, Hendriksen, Mauro, Pieters, Riddlebarger and others. Consequently, the inevitable question that must be asked is this: If the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant was conditional (that is, based on an unspecified degree of obedience), then does the same principle of conditionality equally apply to the fulfillment of other aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, and particularly the resultant new covenant? If it is claimed in response that the Abrahamic covenant has distinctive conditional and unconditional elements, I would reply that such an attempted covenantal bifurcation is exegetically untenable, especially where a Calvinist understanding of Scripture is concerned, and indicates a fundamental doctrinal weakness.
Nevertheless Burge claims that in the NT record, the land is to be newly focused through the advent of Jesus, the result being redefinition and reinterpretation.
Christ is the reality behind all earthbound promises. …land is rejected as the aim of faith;…land is spiritualized as meaning something else;…the promise is historicized in Jesus, a man who lives in the land. …Whatever the “land” meant in the Old Testament, whatever the promise contained, this now belongs to Christians. …The land was a metaphor, a symbol of a greater place beyond the soil of Canaan.22
Primary support for this subjective extrapolation is acknowledged to be W. D. Davies, considered in more detail in chapter 9 of this book. However repetition of the following acknowledgment of this author is sufficient to indicate the uncertain ground, especially argument based on alleged silence, which such a speculative edifice rests on. Davies wrote,
Because the logic of Paul's understanding of Abraham and his personalization of the fulfillment of the promise “in Christ” demanded the deterritori-alizing of the promise, salvation was not now bound to the Jewish people centered in the land and living according to the Law: it was “located” not in a place, but in persons in whom grace and faith had their writ. By personalizing the promise “in Christ” Paul universalized it. For Paul, Christ had gathered up the promise into the singularity of his own person. In this way, “the territory” promised was transformed into and fulfilled by the life “in Christ.” All this is not made explicit, because Paul did not directly apply himself to the question of the land, but it is implied [emphasis added]. In the Christological logic of Paul, the land, like the Law, particular and provisional, had become irrelevant.”23
Here is Gentile exegesis come to full bloom that at the same time excludes any Jewish Christian perspective such as is surely inherent in the writings of converted rabbi Paul (Rom 8:18–21; 11:26). Surely this same Jewish Christian perspective was in Peter's mind when he preached eschatologically of the return of Jesus Christ to inaugurate “the times of the restoration of all things, which God spoke about by the mouth of His holy prophets from the beginning” (Acts 3:21). For Davies and Burge, however, belief that the land of Abrahamic Judaism should find recognition in Christianity is demeaned in terms of territorial “irrelevance.” Thus by means of a Gentile, spiritualizing hermeneutic, anti-Judaism is inevitably cultivated in principle, and history has repeatedly, shamefully demonstrated the outworking of this process by means of the disenfranchisement of the Jew. I suggest that for the Apostles, however, especially in consultation at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), such “deterritorialization” was unthinkable. The reason it was not foremost in their writings was preoccupation with a divinely appointed evangelistic mandate within the window of the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).
New Covenant Supplanting the Old
Here Burge makes an assertion with regard to the new covenant that I believe is fundamentally in error. With many theologians he rejects the belief “that modern Israel inherits the land promised to Abraham,” and he bases this on “a new covenant that abrogates the old.” But the new covenant obviously abrogates the old Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic covenant (Jer 31:31–34; Heb 8:7–13). Certainly the Mosaic covenant, as an interim administration, was imposed on the ongoing Abrahamic administration that had already been established for 430 years. Just prior to the institution of the Mosaic covenant, Moses was instructed, “I will bring you to the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD” (Exod 6:8). Until the actual establishment of the Mosaic covenant, including its renewal because of Israel's disobedience, possession of the promised land remained as a certain hope (Exod 12:23–25; 13:11; 20:12; 33:1). With this in mind, Paul affirmed, as a fundamental gospel principle, that “the law, which came 430 years later, does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God and cancel the promise” (Gal 3:17).
An especially egregious example of how this principle of nullification of the Abrahamic covenant plays out in Burge's supercessionism concerns his questioning of Father George Makhlouf, a parish priest of St. George's Greek Orthodox Church in Ramallah, Israel.
I asked…, “How can you argue with the Israeli claim to own this land since God gave it to the Jews in the Old Testament? Israeli Jews have inherited the promises to Abraham, have they not?”…“The church,” he began, “has inherited the promises of Israel. The church is actually the new Israel. What Abraham was promised, Christians now possess because they are Abraham's true spiritual children just as the New Testament teaches.”24
Burge then makes a most revealing comment that appears to be utterly void of a sense of church history, warts and all.
The Greek Orthodox tradition of Father George has been consistent in defending this view throughout the centuries. From the earliest years, the Middle Eastern churches have claimed the promises of the Old Testament for their own. This concept shows up in Orthodox icons. Churches display beautiful pictures (or icons) of Old Testament stories whose truths have now been swept up by the Christian tradition and “baptized” with new meaning.25
What fails to be acknowledged here, in all its shameful ugliness, is that this “sweeping” process involved an Augustinian anti-Judaic heritage that later enveloped both the eastern church and the western church. Such an appeal to church tradition here, as if this might provide added weight of argument, only heightens the degree of disgrace caused by this supercessionist tradition that flowed through subsequent centuries.
One chapter of Burge's book is devoted to twelve biographical vignettes of Palestinian or Arab Christians under the title “Living Stones in the Land.” A number of these individuals align with Eastern Orthodoxy, and there is every indication that all are committed to supercessionist, anti-Judaic theology.
One more instance may be offered of this anti-Judaic spirit that evacuates the Abrahamic covenant of its Jewish essence and works out as a theology of Jewish disenfranchisement:
Jesus’ emphasis on the kingdom of God gave him every opportunity to talk about land and inheritance, but he refused. The kingdom of Israel did not capture his interest [emphasis his]. He preferred to talk about “the kingdom of God” or the “kingdom of heaven.” … [His disciples’] minds were on political restoration, but for Jesus, God's kingdom was fundamentally God's reign over the lives of men and women—not an empire, not a political kingdom with borders and armies. The kingdom was fundamentally a spiritual idea, a spiritual experience that transcended any particular place or time or land. People who took pride in their possession of land or city as the trophy of their spirituality would find themselves in opposition to Jesus’ message.26
While agreeing in principle with the final comment that ignores the biblical concept of spiritual materiality, the simple answer to this overall voiding of Jewish national significance in Jesus’ ministry is a consideration of His most clearly expressed Jewishness (Matt 10:5–7; 15:24; John 4:22). All the exegetical juggling in the world cannot evade the Judeo-centric eschatological significance of Jesus’ words of encouragement to His disciples: “I assure you: In the Messianic age [see Acts 3:20–21],…you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28). The new Jerusalem also upholds this perpetuated Jewishness (Rev 21:10–14).
To also imply, however, that the terms “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” are somehow purposely employed in the NT so as to circumvent consideration of Jewish nationalism is strange indeed, especially if these terms are traced to their OT Hebrew roots. Undoubtedly Jesus repudiated much of the perverse Jewish nationalism of His time. But I reject the suggestion that He also renounced the Jewish eschatological vision of the OT by means of neo-Platonic dualism, reinterpretation, and supercession (see chapter 8 of this book). I agree that the salvation and sanctification of the human soul is more important than the salvation and sanctification of the land of Israel. But on the other hand, the NT emphatically repudiates as heresy the concept that the salvation and sanctification of the soul nullifies the importance of the salvation and sanctification of the human body. Hence we must reject the implied Gnostic spirit whereby the land is regarded as eschatologically insignificant.
Christian Respect for Judaism
In rejecting the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant, somehow Burge wants to soften the clear implications of supercessationism by means of a subtle linguistic accommodation. He maintains that, “this [nullification of the land promise given to Abraham] should not diminish the church's respect for Judaism.” While Burge believes that the land in which Israel presently dwells has no biblical, covenantal significance, he thinks this should not diminish the church's respect for contemporary Judaism, and even its national and territorial manifestation. Of course, the key question here that Burge needs to answer concerns his definition of “Judaism.” And it seems quite clear that for him, being a Jew today is not a genuine, divine, covenantal relationship even in the flesh, but more the employment of accepted social nomenclature that fits within the worldly national parameters of our time. Burge acknowledges on the basis of Rom 11:28–29 that
if Judaism remains—even in its brokenness—a people with a unique future, a people still to be redeemed, then it follows that they currently have a place of honor even in their unbelief. …Judaism has rejected the new covenant. Nevertheless, even in this disobedience, these broken branches still possess an incomparable place in history. …For the sake of their history, for the sake of the promises made to their ancestors [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob], God will retain a place for Jews in history. In their present condition of unbelief, they deserve honor. And when they accept Christ, be it now or in the future, their brokenness will be restored.27
Although this may appear to be a commendable explanation, even Augustine could align himself with such plasticity of expression. Burge's statement of “honor” for Judaism must be interpreted against his belief that the land promise, repeatedly confirmed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has been nullified. Fortunately, he summarizes his actual meaning:
Some Christians think that unbelieving Israel still lives today as heirs to Abraham's promises, that Christ's new covenant did not bring about an epoch-changing shift among God's people. But as we have seen, this view neglects much of Paul's teaching in Galatians and Romans about Christians as Abraham's heirs. …Father George of Ramallah would tell us [see above] that the question “Who owns the land?” is not so simple. The answer is not just a matter of pointing to the promises of Abraham, identifying modern Israel as heirs to those promises, and then theologically justifying the Israeli land claim. On the contrary, Christian theology demands that the true recipients of these promises will be found in the Christian church. Perhaps the church alone receives these promises!28
Here is the reason why it is hardly to be expected that the Jew of today would respond at this juncture, “Thank you very much, Mr. Burge!” The reason is that he would quickly appreciate the shallow patronage that is being employed to obfuscate supercessionist anti-Judaism. This is simply that Augustinian tolerance of the Jew that in reality is a foil for temporal sufferance.
Jewish Rights to the Land of Israel
In the same vein we are told that the Christian church should also uphold “the rights of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel [Palestine].” Hence another vital question arises concerning the exact nature of these stated “rights” that he appears to uphold. In light of the author's confessed belief in the invalidation of the Abrahamic covenant insofar as the land promise is concerned, it can only be concluded that some more secular judicial standard is intended, and not divine decree. He appears to be simply making a concession to the status quo. Should he have written a century ago, there would have been no encouragement whatsoever concerning the Zionist hope of that time concerning a return to the land of Israel. Most likely the United Nations mandate of 1948 is in Burge's mind, and of course the borders stipulated at that time, or perhaps some similar definitions. But there is absolutely no reason for believing that an inviolate biblical covenant is understood to be the basis of such a territorial hope. So the inhabitation of Israel in the land today would simply be at the mercy of worldly pragmatism, the tempestuous forum of the nations, a most ungodly assembly if ever there was one, and not the Word of God. But further, Burge seems to suggest, this agenda ought also to be swayed by the counsel of the mainline Christian churches, hardly a proven ally of the Jews in centuries past!
Surprisingly, on the one hand Burge condescendingly admits, “By comparison with other states in the Middle East,… Israel is an exemplar of moderation, civility, and freedom.” He admits that in comparison with a specific instance of savage Syrian brutality that drew little dissent, “Israel has not participated in this sort of wholesale massacre.”29 Nevertheless, there then follows an extensive litany of accusations against Israel concerning apartheid, discrimination, land and water seizure, village and home destruction, abuse of human rights, and religious compromise. Doubtless some of these charges may be justified, and some may find new light shed on them through explanation by the Israelis. However, there is not the slightest mention here of complicity in the Palestinian cause by the Arab states, so stridently anti-Judaic, nor the vehement Palestinian opposition to Israel's very existence, and even the concerted supercessionism of the mainstream Palestinian Christians. I agree with Burge when he writes:
I am convinced that if the prophets of the Old Testament were to visit Tel Aviv or Jerusalem today, their words would be harsh and unremitting. Strangely enough, just as in the Bible, their authority would likely go unrecognized, and like Jeremiah, they would be imprisoned by the Israeli Defense Forces as a security risk.30
Yes, Christian missionary agencies that focus on the Hebrew people are also well aware of frequent, aggressive opposition by the Jews, even as Paul experienced. However, they also continue to wondrously see the hand of God hovering over this disobedient people and thus agree with the apostle that, notwithstanding centuries of rebellion and related suffering, they remain “loved because of their forefathers” (Rom 11:28). God's present covenantal interest is rooted in the original promise given to Abraham that included the land (Gen 12:1–3,7; 13:14–17; 15:18–21). But in light of Israel's incessant unbelief how could this forbearance of God be possible? The answer is simply in terms of the glorious truth of sovereign covenant grace that Burge, as well as Chapman and Sizer, would doubtless claim for themselves after the manner of Eph 2:8–9, and yet deny for Israel since, as Burge erroneously proposes, “Possession of the land is tied to obedience to the covenant.”31 In other words, Israel lost its inheritance because of disobedience while Christians gain this inheritance, spiritually speaking, strictly by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
This conditional perspective, common among Christian supercessionists, calls for possession of the land based on obedience and dispossession based on disobedience, obviously recalling the Mosaic promise of either blessing or cursing for Israel based on obedience or disobedience to the law (Deut 11:26–28). So Burge references a number of OT passages that certainly detail the promise of severe discipline for Israel, in relation to the land, on account of various forms of ungodliness. He strongly suggests that for these repeated transgressions, Israel has been disinherited from its blessings while the Christian church has inherited these same essential blessings by way of supercession or transference. The only problem here is that so many other passages in the OT promise God's ultimate triumph, through grace, over Israel's sins, even as is the case in the saving of any sinner. So Burge either ignores or minimizes or relegates to past fulfillment these Bible passages. Consider the following Scriptural references that are said to condemn the nation of Israel's present ungodliness, causing it permanently to have become person non grata in God's sight:
Deut 4:25–27—yet reference to vv. 28–31 is omitted.32
Deut 8:17–19—33yet reference to 30:1–14 (esp. v. 6) is omitted.34
Isa 1:16–17; 5:1–7—yet references to 2:2–4; 11:1–16; 27:2–13; 35:1–10;
41:8–16; 43:1–7; 49:14–26; 62:1–5 are omitted.35
Jer 3:19–20; 7:5–7—yet references to 30:1–31:40; 33:1–26; Ezekiel 36–37,
are omitted.36
Hos 9:2–3—yet references to 3:4–5; 11:8–11; 14:1–17 are omitted.37
Amos 4:1–2—yet reference to 9:11–15 is omitted.38
Micah 2:1–3—yet references to 4:1–8; 7:7–20 are omitted.39
The reader is strongly encouraged to read the additional references included here that Burge does not draw attention to in the main. Time after time they indicate the triumph of sovereign grace over the sins of Israel, even as Paul describes with regard to the Christian in Rom 5:20. Yes, the sins of Israel bring severe punishment, but not covenantal abandonment. Ofcourse Burge is all too aware of these references, some of which he merely footnotes.40 However, unlike the prophets who often portray these passages so climactically and triumphantly, he treats them as almost bothersome and outmoded. Notwithstanding the eschatological glory that stands out here, Burge's opinion is that “of course, these predictions did come true.”41 In other words, it is the period of the post-exilic return of Israel to the first coming of Christ that swallows up and nullifies the eschatological glory which appears to be so plain here (see Ezek 36–37; Zech 14).
To sum up then, and with reference to Ezek 47:22–23 where the eschatological temple is concerned, Burge rightly references the necessity here for Israel to provide an inheritance for an alien remnant.42 However, it is clearly and contextually the responsibility of that same alien remnant to acknowledge that the land of Israel does covenantally belong to Israel. If today the Palestinians were to acknowledge this and the Israelis were to hear it and be convinced that it is true, there is every possibility that, upon sitting down in conference, a peaceable resolution to present problems might emerge. Yet even if the Palestinians were genuinely so inclined, is it conceivable that the surrounding Arab/Moslem states would readily invest their cooperation?
O. Palmer Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson is Principal of African Bible College, Uganda, Professor of Theology at African Bible College, Malawi, and Visiting Professor at Knox Theological Seminary, Florida. His significant volume, The Christ of the Covenants, is a contemporary presentation of Reformed covenant theology from a conservative perspective. More recently (2000) he authored The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, which also provides a contemporary Reformed perspective that is essentially updated Augustinianism. While Robertson's tone is to some degree more moderate than that of Pieters and Boettner, nevertheless his overall regard for national Israel could hardly be called friendly, that is in a Pauline manner. Even the tokenism offered is sparse indeed when compared with his more frequent harsh regard for the Jews and the modern State of Israel. For instance, he states, “Clearly the plight of the Jews after the horrors of the Holocaust must be fully appreciated. Yet the tragic circumstances of the residents of the land displaced during the twentieth century must also be appreciated.”43 Then is attached a near half page footnote that focuses on an instance of alleged Jewish brutality toward Palestinians in 1948 according to Naim Ateek in his A Palestinian Theology of Liberation.44 But there is no mention of the savage assault by the surrounding Arab states on Israel the day following the establishment of the State of Israel according to the United Nations charter, also in 1948. The tilt of sympathy, here and elsewhere, cannot be avoided. Further antipathy by this author toward the modern Jewish state and sympathy for the Palestinians are found in a series of depreciative references to Golda Meir, Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, and Joseph Weitz, all drawn from Colin Chapman's anti-Judaic Whose Promised Land?45
The title that Robertson employs, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, is followed by chapter titles that are all prefaced with “The Israel of God.” Hence, like an edifice built on an inverted pyramid, the author indicates that his case is based on one major text, namely Galatians 6:16, for this is the only reference where the expression “Israel of God” is found in the NT. Therefore, Robertson's substantial study of this verse occupies considerably more space than most other Scripture passages referenced in his book46 since it is made to be the essential proof of Robertson's case—that the Christian Church, that is, the NT people of God, are described here as the spiritual “Israel of God.” But if his interpretation is shown to be in error, as I believe it is, then so much of his book is seriously brought into question. Nevertheless, in spite of the contrary opinions of F. F. Bruce, G. C. Berkouwer, Hans Dieter Betz, James Dunn, Ernest De Witt Burton, A. T. Hanson, and others, he bravely states,
The only explanation of Paul's phrase “the Israel of God” that satisfies the context as well as the grammar of the passage [is that it describes]…the new community within humanity brought into existence by the cross of Christ in its uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one new people of God.”47
In response, simply let the reader consider more detailed evidence of the tenuousness of Robertson's opinion as explained in chapter 10 of this book.
On the one hand, the author asserts that the Christian Church is the new spiritual Israel whereby former national and territorial identity, according to covenantal determination, has been eliminated. But on the other hand, he disclaims belief in “replacement theology” when defined as bare substitution with little connectedness.
[Jesus] is not, as some suppose, replacing Israel with the church. But he is reconstituting Israel in a way that makes it suitable for the new covenant. From this point on, it is not that the church takes the place of Israel, but that a renewed Israel of God is being formed by the shaping of the church. This kingdom will reach beyond the limits of the Israel of the old covenant.48
How shall this come about? Concerning national Israel, it occurs as a result of Israel's rejection of the Messiah.
The solemn consequences of this rejection find expression in the words of Jesus: “The kingdom shall be taken away from you and given to a people bearing the fruit of it” (Matt. 21:43). Israel as a nation would no more be able to claim that they possessed the kingdom of God in a way that was distinct from other nations. Yet the people of the new covenant would still be designated as Israel, “the Israel of God.” This new covenant people would be formed around the core of twelve Israelites who were chosen to constitute the ongoing Israel of God.49
How discouraging this is for the inquiring Jew! The Christian Church takes the name of Israel and leaves everything else behind as worthless Jewish fables and shadows. This is not reconstitution; it is the prodigal son attempting to disinherit the elder brother and claim his title. To suggest that old Israel, having Jewish individuality, nationality, and territory is “reconstituted” so that the original distinctive Jewishness is reformed but not replaced, is to play with words while at the same time retaining an eliminationist agenda. It is to subtly deal with the “Jewish problem,” even as Napoleon suggested, through “the abolition of Jewry by dissolving it into Christianity” (see chapter 2 of this book). The reality is that such absorption into a homogenous body in fact results in the elimination of distinctive Jewish individuality, nationality, and territory. That this is so is proved by Robertson's dismissive attitude when he gets down to the reality concerning the Jew, the nation, and the land of Israel today. For instance, he states,
Only two references to “Jews” and three references to “Israel” are found in the book of Revelation. Though few in number, these references shed some light on the role of Israel in the coming of the kingdom. …This absence of a distinctive role for Israel in the coming of the consummate kingdom of Messiah characterizes the whole book of Revelation. Nowhere in this book are the Jewish people described as having a distinctive part in this kingdom. …The land of the Bible…is not to be regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model. … The future manifestations of the messianic kingdom of Christ cannot include a distinctively Jewish aspect that would distinguish the peoples and practices of Jewish believers from their Gentile counterparts. …The future messianic kingdom will embrace equally the whole of the newly created cosmos, and will not experience a special manifestation of any sort in the region of the “promised land.” …[A] day should not be anticipated in which Christ's kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives either by its location in “the land,” or by its constituency, or by its distinctively Jewish practices.50
Robertson's repudiation of replacement theology is not believable, while a simmering anti-Judaism is quite apparent. With due regard for the absurdity of the above comment concerning Revelation, how strange it is that the new Jerusalem descending from heaven gives prominent recognition to 24 descendants of Abraham, “the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel” and “the Lamb's 12 apostles” (Rev 21:2,12,14)!
Nevertheless, an area in which I would agree with Robertson concerns his statement that “this new covenant people would be formed around the core of twelve Israelites who were chosen to constitute the ongoing Israel of God.” However, I would also maintain that those twelve apostles, in retaining their historic Jewishness, constituted “a [Jewish] remnant chosen by grace” (Rom 11:5) that passionately anticipated the restoration and regeneration of national Israel. Peter, one of these apostles, declared to the Jewish Sanhedrin and high priest concerning Jesus Christ that “God exalted this man to His right hand as ruler and Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Now the meaning of “Israel” here does not need to be reinterpreted, as C. H. Spurgeon made plain.
Israel as a nation will yet acknowledge her blessed Prince and Savior. During many centuries, the chosen people, who were of old so highly favored above all other nations on the face of the earth, have been scattered and peeled, oppressed and persecuted, until sometimes it seemed as if they must be utterly destroyed; yet they shall be restored to their own land, which again shall be a land flowing with milk and honey. Then, when their hearts are turned to Messiah the Prince, and they look upon him whom they have pierced, and mourn over their sin in so long rejecting him, the fullness of the Gentiles shall also come, and Jew and Gentile alike shall rejoice in Christ their Savior. In taking such a text as this, I think it is right always to give first the actual meaning of the passage before using it in any other way51
How then does Robertson understand national Israel's permanent disqualification from the land? He refers to Christ's words, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit” (Matt 21:43), even though there is no mention here of permanent divine abandonment, as is subsequently proved (Matt 23:37–39). However, Robertson frequently identifies the land with the temporary, conditional old Mosaic covenant and consequently with their mutual abrogation at the advent of the new covenant. Thus he writes,
The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead among the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. Just as the tabernacle was never intended to be a settled item in the plan of redemption but was to point to Christ's tabernacling among his people (cf. John 1:14), and just as the sacrificial system could never atone for sins but could only foreshadow the offering of the Son of God (Heb. 9:23–26), so in a similar manner Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. In this way, the patriarch learned to look forward to “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10).52
Another fundamental error of this author is evidenced here: his incorporation of the land promise into the conditional, temporal Mosaic covenant. There is great confusion here.53 Certainly the whole tabernacle order was merely a temporal shadow of the substance yet to be embodied in Christ. However, the promise of the land was according to the unconditional, everlasting terms of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:1–21) that were revealed 430 years before the giving of the law, and thus cannot be annulled. (Gal 3:17). The land of Israel was not a mere shadow. When Abraham first entered Canaan from Haran, the land was thoroughly pagan. For this reason, his hope was in the cleansing and regeneration of the land that would eventually result when the holiness of heaven would descend on it, including Messiah, subsequent to its possession by the 12 tribes of Israel. For further evidence of the abiding nature of the land, see chapter 9 of this book.
In a concluding summary of Robertson's theology of Israel, 12 propositions are set forth that attempt to repudiate, with considerable emphasis, the common premillennial belief in a distinctive, eschatological future for ethnic and national Israel.54 It will be noted that the wording of these propositions needs careful consideration since often there is a lack of clarification, a subtle turn of expression, as well as the avoidance of some pertinent issues. I select the most significant of these for more detailed analysis.
Proposition #2: “The modern Jewish state is not a part of the messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Even though it may be affirmed that this particular civil government came into being under the sovereignty of the God of the Bible, it would be a denial of Jesus’ affirmation that his kingdom is ‘not of this world order’ (John 18:36) to assert that this government is a part of his messianic kingdom.”
To be honest, this writer knows of few premillennialists who would declare that the modern state of Israel is presently part of the messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ other than in a potential sense. Though they would certainly believe that such a blessed economy will emerge at the second coming of the Son of God. However, there are two related questions that must be faced here. First, is the land of Palestine today still a valid part of God's promise to the national seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, irrespective of present unbelief or whether a number of Jews, large or small, inhabits it? One fundamental reason that this covenant promise abides is Paul's declaration, significantly in the present tense, that “the promises” still belong to the Israelites (Rom 9:4). To suggest that this expression excludes the land would be quite unthinkable according to the apostle's use of accepted Hebrew parlance. Second, does God have any present covenantal regard for unbelieving, carnal, national, ethnic Israel? While a more complete positive answer is given in chapter 11 of this book, it is plain in Rom 11:28 that God continues to have a covenantal interest in unbelieving Israel. Robertson attempts to identify those “loved because of their forefathers” as elect Jews, not unbelieving Israel in a national sense.55 The overwhelming opinion of most commentators, however, is that, as Barrett concluded, “They [Israel] are the race [emphasis added] whom God elected to be his peculiar people, and their election rests in no way on their merits or achievements.”56 Thus, the positive answer to both of the questions raised leads to the conclusion that while there cannot be absolute certainty with regard to eschatological fulfillment in the present, the contemporary state of Israel, and especially its possession of Jerusalem, suggests a high degree of probability that eschatological fulfillment is in process before our very eyes.
Moreover, although Robertson concedes, as a Calvinist, that God's sovereignty was at work in the establishment of the state of Israel, this is obviously an inclusive understanding with regard to His general dominion over all creation; hence this would nevertheless exclude any divine, particular, sovereign, covenantal, national interest. Furthermore, he sees no distinctive divine involvement in the seeming secular process by which the European Zionist movement, along with the encouragement of Great Britain, resulted in the rebirth of the state of Israel since such involvement would violate the principle of John 18:36. Nevertheless, David Larsen's Jews, Gentiles, and the Church documents the historic development of Zionism that was substantially secular but was nevertheless often directed and permeated by Christian sympathy, investment, and biblical presuppositions. Consider that
while doubtless there were complex motives of self-interest on the part of Great Britain, [Chaim] Weizmann stoutly maintained in his memoirs that the sincere Christian beliefs of Balfour, Lloyd-George, and Jan Christian Smuts were more responsible than anything else for the new opening for the Jews in Palestine.57
Concerning the broad principle of John 18:36, where Jesus declared, “My kingdom does not have its origin here,” certainly no premillennialist would assert that the present-day nation of Israel is in fact a manifestation of the kingdom of God.58 Having said this, it ought not to be implied then that, because of the present secularity and unbelief of Israel, therefore God has no vested, particular, covenantal, loving interest in His people, as if a father had given up on his prodigal son. Quite the contrary, in the biblical parable surely the father lovingly followed the course of his son even when he was defiling himself in the far country. In this present age there is abundant evidence of God's dealing with godless mankind according to His prevenient grace whereby He woos and draws with cords of love the particular objects of His elective grace (John 6:44–45; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:1–2). They may appear as thoroughly secular and vehement despisers of Christ, nevertheless the divine pursuit of such renegades is unrelenting until such a time as sovereign grace claims them, as with Jacob (Gen 28:10–22; 32:24–32) and Paul (Acts 7:54–8:3; 9:1–9; Gal 1:15–16). Any Gentile similarly wooed by that same grace will appreciate this point. If so, is it not equally evident that God has also graciously pursued the nation of Israel through the centuries in its unbelief? Then how is it possible to so strenuously deny that God is now, in this twenty-first century, distinctively, covenantally dealing with the nation of Israel, especially since 1948? Indeed it is Romans 11 that so plainly describes this wooing through the centuries, even with the employed strategy of His temporary withdrawal.
Proposition #3: “It cannot be established from Scripture that the birth of the modern state of Israel is a prophetic precursor to the mass conversion of Jewish people.”
Doubtless in absolute terms this is correct even as it cannot be certainly proved that Robertson's denial of such an apocalyptic return and conversion of the Diaspora is correct. With the Word of God concerning eschatological events, at best we are dealing with cautious probability, so let each Christian be persuaded as he carefully studies Scripture. Theoretically, present-day Israel might be so assailed by the Arabs that it finds itself pushed into the Mediterranean Sea. This would in no way invalidate the premillennial hope, such as is portrayed in Ezekiel 36–37. But in such a situation, those of Robertson's convictions would readily confess God's work of judgment on Israel while denying His hand would ever bring consummate national blessing! Nevertheless, C. H. Spurgeon, J. C. Ryle, and Horatius Bonar did have such a premillennial hope concerning national Israel well before there was any aroused prospect in Europe of a possible Jewish state in Israel. In contrast, consider the rather imprudent prognostication of Philip Mauro who wrote that should Jerusalem “come into Jewish hands again” during the “times of the Gentiles,” then “the prophecies would have been falsified and the entire New Testament discredited.”59 The pity is that he is not now able to provide an explanation of present circumstances, though the temper of his writings suggests that like some, he would simply deny any activity or national purpose of God whatsoever in the present state of Israel.
#4: “The land of the Bible served in a typological role as a model of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for his redeemed people that encompasses the whole of the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not to be regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than its function as a teaching model.”
This matter is dealt with more fully in chapter 9 of this book. But consider C. H. Spurgeon's understanding of Ezek 37:1–10. By way of summary, the famous preacher is well aware that
this vision has been used, from the time of Jerome onwards, as a description of the resurrection. … [However] there is no allusion made by Ezekiel to the resurrection, and such topic would have been quite apart from the design of the prophet's speech. I believe he was no more thinking of the resurrection of the dead than of the building of St. Peter's at Rome, or the emigration of the Pilgrim Fathers. That topic is altogether foreign to the subject in hand, and could not by any possibility have crept into the prophet's mind. He was talking about the people of Israel, and prophesying concerning them. … The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality; and then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel.60
In contrast, consider Robertson's explanation of this same passage. His eschatological understanding of Ezekiel, quite apart from any immediate return of Israel after the Babylonian exile, is essentially a revamped interpretation that employs the resurrection motif while categorically excluding national Israel's resurrection to life through regeneration:
This perspective [moving from shadow to reality] provides insight into the return to the land as described by Ezekiel and the other prophets. In the nature of things, these writers could only employ images with which they and their hearers were familiar. So they spoke of a return to the geographical land of Israel. Indeed there was a return to this land, though hardly on the scale prophesied by Ezekiel. But in the context of the realities of the new covenant, this land must be understood in terms of the newly created cosmos about which the apostle Paul speaks in Romans. The whole universe (which is “the land” from a new covenant perspective) groans in travail, waiting for the redemption that will come with the resurrection of the bodies of the redeemed (Rom. 8:22–23). The return to paradise in the framework of the new covenant does not involve merely a return to the shadowy forms of the old covenant. It means the rejuvenation of the entire earth. By this renewal of the entire creation, the old covenant's promise of land finds its new covenant realization.61
Romans 8:22–33 clearly presents a similar prophetic vision that anticipates the future glorious Messianic kingdom which will manifest Christ's reign from Jerusalem over Jew and Gentile. However, I would vigorously disagree with that mystical, indeed contorted incorporation of the land into the new cosmos in such a way that all territorial identity of Israel is lost. Thus we return to two basic problems here. First, there is a seeming unwillingness to accept that in the future blessed state there could possibly be a unity with diversity, that is, regenerate Jews and Gentiles in blissful subjection to the reign of Christ. Second, there is the basic fallacy that the land, as a mere shadow, is rooted in the old or temporal Mosaic covenant. Yet again we have been told that the land represents “a return to the shadowy forms of the old covenant.” But I would strongly reassert that the land is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1,5–7; 13:14–15,17; 15:7–21) and as such is not limited by the temporal character of the Mosaic economy. God's fundamental dealing with Israel after redemption from Egypt continued to be based on the Abrahamic covenant that anticipated its inherent promise of the land (Exod 3:6–8,15–17; 6:1–9; 12:25; 13:5; 32:13–14; 33:1–3; Lev 20:24; 33:1–3; Num 13:27).
Proposition #5: “Rather than understanding predictions about the ‘return’ of ‘Israel’ to the ‘land’ in terms of a geopolitical re-establishment of the state of Israel, these prophecies are more properly interpreted as finding consummate fulfillment at the ‘restoration of all things’ that will accompany the resurrection of believers at the return of Christ (Acts 3:21: Rom. 8:22–23).”
No premillennialist perceives the present “geopolitical re-establishment of the state of Israel” in a consummate sense. It is a precursor of that “restoration” (Acts 3:21) and “redemption” of the created order (Rom 8:22–23) in which saved national Israel will gloriously participate. However, this does not mean that we walk blindly through this world as if historic events have little significance. Surely not only the continued increasing material and military strength of national Israel, obtained in the face of seeming insuperable opposition, but particularly its possession of old Jerusalem after a hiatus of over 1,900 years, has troubled those of Reformed Augustinian convictions. There are published instances of their wrestling with these events since they tend to conflict with standard supercessionist explanations.
Proposition #7: “No worship practices that place Jewish believers in a category different from Gentile believers can be a legitimate worship-form among the redeemed people of God.”
Is this to suggest that the worship of the Gentile church at Antioch had an identical form when compared with that of the mother Jewish church at Jerusalem? If a church that is predominantly Jewish should desire to remember the Lord Jesus by means of a Seder, understood as being complementary to the Lord's Table, while a predominantly Gentile church ignores association of the Lord's Table with the Passover, who is to say that one order is more biblical than the other? If a church that is predominantly Jewish desires to initiate its children of Jewish parents and Jewish converts into Messianic Judaism by means of circumcision, where is the clear teaching in the NT that indicates that such a signification has been voided? How is it possible for the Council of Jerusalem's decision (Acts 15:1–35) to be construed as teaching the abolition of circumcision for the Jewish Christian? Paul later upheld the participation of Jewish Christians in distinctive Jewish practices (Acts 21:17–26).
Proposition #9: “The future manifestation of the messianic kingdom of Christ cannot include a distinctively Jewish aspect that would distinguish the peoples and practices of Jewish believers from their Gentile counterparts.”
This is a purely arbitrary statement that betrays a Gentile mindset. In effect Robertson is saying that the Gentile can worship in a purely Gentile manner, and the inference is that this will be the future messianic standard. But the Jew cannot incorporate distinctive Jewish aspects that are not appropriate for the Gentile. After all, this would be unfair for the Gentile. But how is it fair for the Jew to have to conform to Gentile worship?
An Open Letter to Evangelicals
Theological anti-Judaism, as distinguished from racial anti-Judaism, may be defined as the biblically derived conclusion that contemporary Judaism, especially its national and territorial representations, has no present or future covenantal legitimacy in the mind of God. Whatever present ethnic claims are made concerning Jewishness, such a perspective asserts the disenfranchisement of God's ancient people by means of the superseding new covenant of Heb 8:7–13. Many with Reformed convictions, upon hearing confessions of pro-Judaism, especially sympathy for the modern state of Israel and related eschatological matters, respond with disparaging epithets that at the same time are intended to commend a more enlightened, spiritual, and historic eschatology At worst, such theological anti-Judaism extends to abusive and contemptuous regard for “carnal dispensationalism” and “worldly premillennialism.” It is further protested that present day Judaism, in terms of its political alignment with Zionism, has unjustly oppressed and displaced the Palestinians who have been domiciled in the land “from time immemorial.”62 While theological anti-Judaism is based on biblical and religious convictions about the Jew, and racial anti-Judaism is based on antipathy toward social, cultural and ethnic characteristics inherent in the Jew, it cannot be denied that rabid interest in the former is capable of giving birth to the ethos of the latter. In this regard the legacy of God's servant, Martin Luther, is sufficient proof of this point.63
I readily allow that those committed to the preceding viewpoint demonstrate differing degrees of disapproval concerning national Israel, though the doctrinal underpinning of these expressions is essentially Augustinian. One more recent, definitive expression of the repudiation of distinctive covenantal Jewish identity in the sight of God has been published on the web site of Knox Theological Seminary. On the page headed “The Wittenberg Door,” is featured An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel.64 Here is a contemporary, anti-Judaic portrayal of the status, in fact non-status of Israel and the Jews today. Its denial of individual, national, and territorial Judaism in the sight of God calls for vigorous repudiation on account of explicit theological supercessionism. I conclude this chapter, therefore, with a critique of this “Open Letter” interspersed with quotations from the letter. One wonders if the symbolic panoply employed at this web site, concerning Martin Luther's historic forum of protest being the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg in 1517, is also intended to represent alignment with the German reformer's eschatology, and especially the shameful anti-Judaism that so stained the conclusion of such an eventful and momentous life. No disassociation in this regard appears to be mentioned.
An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel
Recently a number of leaders in the Protestant community of the United States have urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments. To strengthen their endorsement, several of these leaders have also insisted that they speak on behalf of the seventy million people who constitute the American evangelical community.
Since the exact circumstances concerning the claim made by these Protestant leaders is not referenced, it is not possible or really necessary to make further comment. However it is asserted that indeed a large proportion of the American evangelical community would generally agree with the “endorsement,” notwithstanding modern Israel's pervasive unbelief. By way of contrast, this “Open Letter” tends to oppose the people and land of Israel.
It is good and necessary for evangelical leaders to speak out on the great moral issues of our day in obedience to Christ's call for his disciples to be salt and light in the world (Matt. 5:13–16). It is quite another thing, however, when leaders call for commitments that are based upon a serious misreading of Holy Scripture. In such instances, it is good and necessary for other evangelical leaders to speak out as well. We do so here in the hope that we may contribute to the cause of the Lord Christ, apart from whom there can never be true and lasting peace in the world (John 14:27).
Quite the contrary, I believe that the historic, Reformational eschatological repudiation of Israel is based on a Gentile, Augustinian, and Roman Catholic tradition more than clear exegesis, and as such wrongly filters Scripture through this doctrinal grid. In fact, it can hardly be said that the ethical fruit of this eschatology has contributed toward “true and lasting peace in the world.” The record of history shamefully indicates quite the opposite result.
At the heart of the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions. First, some are teaching that God's alleged favor toward Israel today is based upon ethnic descent rather than upon the grace of Christ alone, as proclaimed in the Gospel. Second, others are teaching that the Bible's promises concerning the land are fulfilled in a special political region or “Holy Land,” perpetually set apart by God for one ethnic group alone. As a result of these false claims, large segments of the evangelical community, our fellow citizens, and our government are being misled with regard to the Bible's teachings regarding the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel.
While I heartily agree that God's saving favor is not based on ethnic descent any more than gender or learning, but rather grace through faith alone, I allege that as in the past, so in the future, God does have a distinctive, ongoing, covenantal regard for Israel after the flesh as beloved enemies (Rom 11:28). Reformational exegesis is particularly vulnerable with regard to the present relevance of this climactic verse (see chapter 11 of this book). If God can retain such grace for the nation of Israel, and Paul certainly did to the end of his ministry, then so ought the Gentile, engrafted wild olive branches.
However, the view espoused here in the “Open Letter” is far more representative of arrogant wild olive branches that are the subject of Paul's rebuke (Rom 11:17–20). Of course, as Ezekiel 36–37 plainly indicates, according to the sovereignty of God's covenant grace, national Israel after the flesh will become Israel after the Spirit. And indeed is not this the same essential experience of any Christian in terms of biblical conversion? Yes, as with the persuasion of Jonathan Edwards, Horatius Bonar, J. C. Ryle, and C. H. Spurgeon, I do believe that in grace God covenantally endowed the nation of Israel with the land in perpetuity so that ultimately it will be populated by those Hebrews who have authentically believed in Jesus as their Messiah. As with the aforementioned representatives, I do not believe that such a prospect in any way compromises the purity of the gospel. With both respect and loving regard for our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I believe that the Reformed eschatology of this “Open Letter” is misled with regard to the Bible's teaching, and that its ethical legacy in this matter concerning the Jews, according to Church history, is practical proof that this is so. Both Christians and unbelieving Jews will readily confirm this painfully sad truth.
In what follows, we make our convictions public. We do so acknowledging the genuine evangelical faith of many who will not agree with us. Knowing that we may incur their disfavor, we are nevertheless constrained by Scripture and by conscience to publish the following propositions for the cause of Christ and truth.
It is good and commendable for conscience to be invoked here. Let every believer be guided by this principle, no matter what the cost. But conscience is very much enlivened by knowledge of the truth. So I urge that the history of the doctrine here espoused be studied in depth, especially its ethical outworking, since it is strenuously maintained that the record of Augustinian eschatology over the centuries with regard to Israel is shameful and unworthy of further loyalty. Even the Roman Catholic Church has more recently responded with some expressions of repentance. Nevertheless, historic tradition, however tainted, dies hard, although a return to the priority of fresh exegesis can emancipate. At the Reformation, this principle was certainly proved soteriologically, and to a lesser degree ecclesiologically, but not eschatologically.
1. The Gospel offers eternal life in heaven to Jews and Gentiles alike as a free gift in Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23). Eternal life in heaven is not earned or deserved, nor is it based upon ethnic descent or natural birth (Luke 3:8; Eph. 2:8–9).
To this declaration I give happy yet qualified assent. Eternal life is solely according to God's free grace, that comes to earth from heaven for all who truly believe. Of course, there is eternal life for the inhabitants of heaven, though it will also come to this earth in a consummate eschatological sense, as even Hoekema, Strimple, Venema, and Waldron maintain (see chapter 8).
2. All human beings, Jews and Gentiles alike, are sinners (Rom. 3:22–23), and, as such, they are under God's judgment of death (Rom. 6:23). Because God's standard is perfect obedience and all are sinners, it is impossible for anyone to gain temporal peace or eternal life by his own efforts. Moreover, apart from Christ, there is no special divine favor upon any member of any ethnic group; nor, apart from Christ, is there any divine promise of an earthly land or a heavenly inheritance to anyone, whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 3:9–10). To teach or imply otherwise is nothing less than to compromise the Gospel itself.
Yes, to the Jews Jesus declared that “if you do not believe that I am He [the divine Son of God], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Yes, savingly “apart from Christ, there is no special divine favor on any member of any ethnic group.” However, this in no way invalidates God's present regard for Israel after the flesh that will ultimately result in Israel after the Spirit (Rom 11:12,15,24–28). Paul maintained an evangelistic thrust “first to the Jew, and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16), while also warning of “affliction and distress for every human being who does evil, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek” (Rom 2:9). Here is the incorporation of both priority for the Jew and at the same time impartiality for Jew and Gentile. Similarly with regard to the covenantally promised land, its consummate eschatological realization with regenerate Israel as its holy inhabitant, it will be grounded on the redemption that the holy Seed (Jesus Christ) of Abraham has accomplished. In this regard, this Messianic Savior will reign from Jerusalem over Israel in the land and the surrounding nations (Ezek 37:21–28; Zech 14:4,9–11). Again, in no way is this to suggest that this working of God's saving grace is compromised.
3. God, the Creator of all mankind, is merciful and takes no pleasure in punishing sinners (Ezek. 18:23,32). Yet God is also holy and just and must punish sin (Exod. 34:7). Therefore, to satisfy both his justice and his mercy, God has appointed one way of salvation for all, whether Jew or Gentile, in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).
Without qualification, I join in upholding the glory of God's one gospel that saves both Jew and Gentile according to His elective grace through faith alone. However, just as the saved man and woman retain their gender identity following conversion, so the Jew and Gentile retain their ethnic identity. Absolute homogeneity is not a logical necessity, as distinctive giftedness in the church indicates. The oneness of God incorporates distinctive economic triunity. Even heaven is populated by the redeemed as well as holy angels having various ranks.
4. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man (John 1:1,14), came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). In his death upon the cross, Jesus was the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, of Jew and of Gentile alike. The death of Jesus forever fulfilled and eternally ended the sacrifices of the Jewish temple (Heb. 9:11–12; 10:11–12). All who would worship God, whether Jew or Gentile, must now come to him in spirit and truth through Jesus Christ alone. The worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary. He receives worship only through Jesus Christ, the eternal and heavenly Temple (John 4:21,23; 2:19–21).
The terms of the gospel are well stated here, and with them I am in full agreement. Further, this new covenant established through Jesus Christ's atoning death, in abrogating the Mosaic and Aaronic aspects of worship, specifically the sacrifices such as by the blood of bulls and goats, has primarily been made with Israel, into which stock the Gentiles are engrafted (Jer. 31:27–34; Rom 11:17). While “the worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary” (see John 4:21–24) in the present, this in no way negates the eschatological prospect of Jesus Christ being personally worshipped from Jerusalem, even in association with the temple portrayed in Ezekiel 40–48. Since he is personally and gloriously present in that future kingdom, there is a sense in which such worship will have a local focus, while at the same time being universally spiritual. At that time, worship will not be confined to the heavenly realm; rather true spiritual worship will have come to earth.
5. To as many as receive and rest upon Christ alone through faith alone, to Jews and Gentiles alike, God gives eternal life in his heavenly inheritance (Rom. 1:16; John 1:12–13).
Again I give ready assent to this gospel declaration. Of course, both Jews and Gentiles retain their divinely appointed ethnic distinction even as they individually receive differing spiritual gifts, which diversity is incorporated within the unity of the one people of God. However, their “heavenly inheritance” is not some amorphous, ethereal existence, but rather the visitation of “the Holy City, [the] new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven [to earth] from God” (Rev 5:10; 21:2) in which Jews and Gentiles are destined to participate.
6. The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham's True Seed (Gal. 3:16). These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man's keeping of God's law (Rom. 4:13). Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises (Gal. 3:7,26–29). Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God (Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:7–8). These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group (Gal. 3:22; Matt. 21:43), but to the church of Jesus Christ, the truelsrael (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3). The people of God, whether the church of Israel in the wilderness in the Old Testament (Acts 7:38) or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the New Testament (Gal. 6:16), are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion (Heb. 13:14; Phil. 3:20; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:9–14; Heb. 11:39–40). This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages (Heb. 11:13–16; 12:22–24).
Here we part company in a number of areas, but particularly with some ingenious exposition that seems more doctrinally than textually driven. To begin with consider: “Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel.” While Jesus Christ is never declared to be the mediator of the Abrahamic covenant, let us grant the nuance of the assumption here. Nevertheless, the promise of Gen 12:3 is not made to Christ as the mediator but to Abraham, as this Scripture overwhelmingly affirms. Further, the seed of Abraham has application to Christ according to Gal 3:16, but this in no way invalidates the “seed” of Gen 12:1–3 being the nation of Israel anymore than does “seed” in Gen 13:15; 17:7. The exegetical reason is that God says to Abraham, your “descendants [seed]” shall be as the innumerable stars of heaven (Gen 15:5). These references are to the nation of Israel, not exclusively to Christ as an individual. Paul's employment of midrash (a distinctive Jewish, applicatory interpretation) incorporates Christ as the root of promised blessing without at all denying the obvious promise of national blessing, the plurality of “Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).65 Plainly the terms of the curse/blessing in Gen 12:2–3 principally refer to the national seed here, notwithstanding the attempted textual manipulation which betrays a difficulty that the obvious sense presents. To be sure, Christ is the ground of covenant blessing, but this does not nullify national blessing as is plainly indicated. Further evidence of this fallacious methodology is the desperate attempt here, according to standard Augustinian and Catholic practice, to conclude that “the church of Jesus Christ, [is] the true Israel,” because Jesus said that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit” (Matt 21:43). But here it is “the chief priests and the elders of the people” (Matt 21:23) who were addressed, though not with any indication that permanent disenfranchisement was intended in a national sense, as Matt 23:37–39 and Romans 11 make abundantly clear. Indeed, the twelve pillars of this new “nation producing its fruit” were all Jews, even as the new first church of Jerusalem was Jewish (see chapter 10 of this book).
7. Jesus taught that his resurrection was the raising of the True Temple of Israel (John 2:19–21). He has replaced the priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary of Israel by fulfilling them in his own glorious priestly ministry and by offering, once and for all, his sacrifice for the world, that is, for both Jew and Gentile (Heb. 8:1–6; cf. 4:15–5:10; 6:13–10:18). Believers from all nations are now being built up through him into this Third Temple (Eph. 2:19–22; I Pet. 2:4–6), the church that Jesus promised to build (Matt. 16:18; Heb. 3:5–6).
That the priesthood of Jesus has gloriously superseded the Aaronic priesthood incorporated within the Mosaic covenant is unquestionably true. However, this in no way has eliminated the essential character of distinctive Jewishness since, as Jer 31:27–34 indicates, the “new covenant,” while abrogating the old covenant that was added following Israel's redemption out of Egypt, is made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” not the church. Further, Jesus as the superseding, incarnate spiritual “Temple” in no way negates the spiritual materiality of the eschatological temple from which Jesus Christ will reign (Isa 2:2–4; 56:6–7; Ezek 40–43; Mic 4:1–5; Zech 6:12–15), unless one understands this prospect in purely abstract, ethereal terms that a number of more recent amillennialists have rejected. Thus Ezekiel was told concerning a future temple into which “the glory of the LORD entered,… ‘Son of man, this [temple] is the place of My throne and the place for the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the Israelites forever’” (Ezek 43:4,7). I believe this future temple, situated in Jerusalem, will accommodate the enthroned temple Jesus.66
8. Simon Peter spoke of the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus in conjunction with the final judgment and the punishment of sinners (II Pet. 3:10–13). Instructively, this same Simon Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7), says nothing about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel in the land of Palestine (cf. Acts 1:6–7). Instead, as his readers contemplate the promise of Jesus’ Second Coming, he fixes their hope upon the new heavens and the new earth, in which righteousness dwells (II Pet. 3:13).
Undoubtedly it is right to presume that Peter was at the forefront of the question raised by the eleven disciples, “Lord, at this time are You restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). The restoration of Israel as declared by the prophets, which concept here surely incorporates the land, is a given that Jesus does not contradict; His concern is chiefly a matter of timing. As to Peter's understanding of 2 Pet 3:13, which is a quotation of Isa 65:17; 66:22, I believe the language here parallels “the restoration of all things, which God spoke about by the mouth of His holy prophets from the beginning” (Acts 3:21). When this kingdom of Messiah is consummated, then “all your people [Israel] will be righteous; they will possess the land forever” (Isa 60:21). Not for a moment would the mother church in Jerusalem have understood this promise in some esoteric sense.
9. The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the “Holy Land” cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua (Josh. 21:43–45). The New Testament speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:1–2; cf. Mark 13:1–2; Luke 21:20–24). No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. (Luke 21:24). Moreover, the land promises of the Old Covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus (Exod. 20:12; Eph. 6:2–3; Gen. 12:1, cf. Rom. 4:13; Ps. 37:11; Matt. 5:5; Ps. 2:7–8), who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the Gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion (Acts 2:29–32).
While presumably the signatories would believe in Israel's past entitlement to the holy land according to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant as indicated in the OT, we assume they are here referring to the modern day territorial possession of the State of Israel. However, I do not believe that the preceding promise in Isa 60:21, among numerous other instances, has been abrogated, any more than the preceding glorious pledges of Isa 60:15–20. Joshua 21:43–45 does not in any way speak of temporal possession. However, if, as seems to be claimed here, possession of the land relates to the time of Joshua, then why do we find so many of the prophets describing a future possession of the land in most concrete terms? Typical Gentile, exclusionary, either/or exegesis of Exod 20:12 and Eph 6:2–3 wrongly assumes that Paul's applicatory, more general reference to the Fifth Commandment nullifies the specific land reference (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16). I have dealt elsewhere with the Hebrew Christian's free use of the OT, such as in Hebrews, that in no way invalidates the literal meaning of the text. The same point applies to the quotation of Ps 37:11, where the literal promise concerning the land still stands, yet in Matt 5:5 this truth is quoted in a more applicatory sense (see chapter 7 of this book).67 It is incorrect to suggest from Gen 12:1 and Rom 4:13 that “the land promises of the old covenant are consistently and deliberately expanded in the New Testament to show the universal dominion of Jesus.” That Abraham would be “the heir of the world” was not the expansion but the fulfillment of that which was originally promised, namely that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3). Yet again, this unity with the Lord Jesus reigning over all does not exclude the diversity of Israel and the nations being under His dominion, as the original promise plainly distinguishes. In the same vein, concerning Ps 2:7–8, the fact that the Father declares to the Lord Jesus that to Him will be given “the nations for your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for your possession,” in no way invalidates the diversity that this future holy ecumenicity will incorporate.
10. Bad Christian theology regarding the “Holy Land” contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual “Canaanites” (Deut. 20:16–18; cf. Lev. 27:28–29). This doctrine is both contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and a violation of the Gospel mandate (Matt. 28:19). In addition, this theology puts those Christians who are urging the violent seizure and occupation of Palestinian land in moral jeopardy of their own bloodguiltiness. Are we as Christians not called to pray for and work for peace, warning both parties to this conflict that those who live by the sword will die by the sword? (Matt. 26:52). Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can bring both temporal reconciliation and the hope of an eternal and heavenly inheritance to the Israeli and the Palestinian. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know peace on earth.
When one considers what the Crusades in the Middle Ages were about, it becomes quite astonishing that such an argument as this is offered. To begin with, it was the “bad Christian theology” of establishment Gentile Christianity that moved the armies of Western Europe to attempt a military recovery from Islam of the land of Israel, more familiarly regarded as the Christian holy land. We can be sure that there was no intent here to enable the dispersed Jews to return to their land; such a concept was unthinkable. Moreover, how disgraceful was the resultant persecution of the Jews by crusader bands traveling through Europe en route to the holy land so as to recapture Christian holy sites. “The leader of the First Crusade, Godfrey Bouillon, who had sworn to avenge the blood of Christ on Israel and ‘leave no single member of the Jewish race alive’, burnt the synagogue of Jerusalem to the ground, with all the Jews inside.”68 Here was the outworking of supercessionist theology that is rightly to be associated more with essential Augustinian, Medieval, and Reformed eschatology. There is simply no connection between the fundamental idea of the Crusades and the subsequent belief, especially resurrected during the seventeenth century, concerning the Jews’ present and future covenantal claims to the promised land involving ultimate inhabitation by regenerated national Israel under Christ. This latter mentioned hope is the consummation of the “gospel mandate,” not its violation.
Contrary to what the “Open Letter” suggests, in 1948 the State of Israel was reestablished through international assignment, not “conquest.” However, particularly objectionable at this juncture is the obvious further bias that excoriates Israel's treatment of the pitiful, down-trodden, deprived Palestinians, the “violent seizure and occupation of Palestinian land,” as if it were, in OT terms, heartlessly attempting to eliminate the Canaanites. The bias here is unabashed, though nonetheless offensive. Here is abhorrent theological anti-Judaism that is void of sympathy for the Jews, who presently occupy less than one percent of the middle-eastern Arab world, which at the same time is so obviously un-Pauline. Further in this regard, Joan Peters wrote, “There have been as many Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from the Arab countries as there are Arab refugees from Israel, and that the Jews left of necessity and in flight from danger. … The Jews who fled Arab countries left assets behind in the Arab world greater than those the Arabs left in Israel.”69 This “Open Letter” plainly reveals the accusatory attitude, born of an Augustinian heritage similarly associated with the aforementioned anti-Judaic Crusades, that at the same time is presently represented in Reformed supercessionism. Yes, beyond question, “Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know peace on earth.” But when an eschatology is centered, according to historic confession, in this same Christ and yet is productive of centuries of scandalous behavior and demeaning attitudes toward the Jews, even as is here reflected in the “Open Letter,” then there needs to be further “Reformation” among many who so fervently proclaim their indebtedness to Reformed eschatology.
The promised Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ has been inaugurated. Its advent marks the focal point of human history. This kingdom of the Messiah is continuing to realize its fullness as believing Jews and Gentiles are added to the community of the redeemed in every generation. The same kingdom will be manifested in its final and eternal form with the return of Christ the King in all his glory.
I do not disagree with the essential thrust of what is here stated, though Scripture is much more specific concerning these matters. However, it is debatable if the inauguration of Jesus Christ's Messianic kingdom should take primacy over its consummation (1 Cor 15:23–28). Both natural and wild olive branches are being engrafted into the natural, Abrahamic olive tree so as to become partakers of the promise made with “the forefathers” (see Rom 11:5,17–18,28), except that until the conclusion of the times of the Gentiles, Jewish Christians constitute a remnant. But such participation does not eliminate present and future individuality. Then will come for ethnic Israel “their full number,” that is “life from the dead” for Israel, when “all Israel [as a nation] will be saved” (Rom 11:12,15,26) at the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ with great glory. This is basic to the climactic optimism of Romans 11, and not so difficult to comprehend, as most Hebrew Christians will testify, except for the attempt to filter this truth through the presupposition of a Gentilic or an Augustinian grid.
Of all the nations, the Jewish people played the primary role in the coming of the Messianic kingdom. New Testament Scripture declares that to them were given the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises (Rom. 9:3–4). Theirs are the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ (Rom. 9:5). Salvation is, indeed, of the Jews (John 4:22). While affirming the Scriptural teaching that there is no salvation outside of Christ, Christians should acknowledge with heartfelt sorrow and grief the frequent oppression of the Jews in history, sometimes tragically done in the name of the cross.
This token acknowledgment of the significant role of the Jews up to the time of the first coming of Jesus Christ will not suffice. The reason is that while at this juncture there is a perfunctory giving with one hand, there is overall a more vigorous taking away with the other, namely, the denial in perpetuity of Jewish individuality, nationality, and territory. The suggestion here of widespread oppression of the Jews in general that included some modest participation by Christianity is in fact both evasion and distortion of a most unpalatable truth. Since the ascendancy of Gentile dominion within Christianity, this sway has resulted in a major anti-Judaic thrust, born of replacement theology, which has not yet abated (see chapter 2). As a result, much of Christianity has endeavored to justify this Gentilic reign by means of supercessionism, even as is further indicated here by a subtle misuse of Scripture: “Of all the nations, the Jewish people played the primary role in the coming of the Messianic kingdom. New Testament Scripture declares that to them were given the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises (Rom 9:3–4).” Now in Rom 3:2, it is true that the oracles of God were given (aorist) to the Jews. But Rom 9:3–4 does not translate according to the same aoristic sense. Rather, this passage clearly declares that Paul regarded his brethren in the flesh as presently Israelites: “They are Israelites,” hoitines eisin Israelitai, and that presently to them, even in their unbelief, there belongs “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, and the promises.” Tom Schreiner affirms this point: “The present tense verb (eisin, ‘they are’) indicates that the Jews still ‘are’ Israelites and that all the blessings named still belong to them.”70 In other words, Paul here confirms that in the mystery of God's dealings with national Israel in the flesh in unbelief He maintains a present covenant interest in them, even as beloved enemies (Rom 11:28). This being so, it is only right to understand this recognition in individual, national, and territorial terms.
But what are we to make of the unbelief of Israel? Has their unbelief made the faithfulness of God without effect for them? (Rom. 3:1–4). No, God has not completely rejected the people of Israel (Rom. 11:1; cf. Rom. 11:2–10), and we join the apostle Paul in his earnest prayer for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9:1–3). There always has been and always will be a remnant that is saved (Rom. 11:5). While not all Israel will experience the blessing of participation in the Messianic kingdom (Rom. 9:6), yet Jews who do come to faith in Christ will share in his reign throughout the present age and into eternity. In addition, it is not as though the rejection of some in Israel for unbelief serves no purpose. On the contrary, because they were broken off in unbelief, the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles, who now, through faith, partake of the blessings to the fathers and join with believing Jews to constitute the true Israel of God, the church of Jesus Christ (Rom. 11:11–18).
The pejorative, utilitarian, anticlimactic tone here, “God has not completely rejected the people of Israel,” betrays a reluctance to come to grips with Paul's exuberant, climactic expectation of Israel's national conversion in Romans 11, as is the obvious meaning with even a prima facie reading of this passage. How patronizingly gratifying it is to learn that, after all, the Jews have served a useful purpose! To sense the mood of the theological anti-Judaism in the whole of this “Open Letter,” and then read that, nevertheless, “we join the apostle Paul in his earnest prayer for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen according to the flesh,” is not to be impressed since this same prayerful concern was also expressed by Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Luther. Tragically but not surprisingly in view of their deplorable attitudes, their petitions were not answered in a positive and comprehensive sense. However, “to join the apostle Paul” authentically in this matter is surely to imbibe his passionate interest in the Jews, which never flagged. But then what is meant here by the term “Jew,” when it appears to have been evacuated of its obvious biblical meaning, so that only the shell of social convenience remains? Could any of the signatories of this “Open Letter” happily involve themselves in church planting in Israel today while at the same time, without compromise, making plain the gospel and presenting it in the framework of Jewish disqualification here presented? But there is further obfuscation in this regard when it is stated that, “Jews who do come to faith in Christ will share in his reign throughout the present age and into eternity.” Again, what exactly is meant here by the term “Jews”? Is this really an honest declaration, for the teaching of the “Open Letter” is in fact that upon conversion the saved Jew loses his individual, national, and territorial Jewishness; in reality, according to Reformed Augustinianism, Judaism is finished. Some might attempt to avoid this problem by maintaining a temporary, quasi individuality for the Jewish Christian, though the aspects of nationality and territory would nevertheless be strenuously denied. This being the case, the language used here has the character of ambiguity and generality about it that fails to honestly reveal the real eschatological agenda.
The present secular state of Israel, however, is not an authentic or prophetic realization of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in which Christ's kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in “the land,” by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions and practices. Instead, this present age will come to a climactic conclusion with the arrival of the final, eternal phase of the kingdom of the Messiah. At that time, all eyes, even of those who pierced him, will see the King in his glory (Rev. 1:7). Every knee will bow, and every tongue will declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9–11). The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever (Rev. 11:15).
Here is the harsh reality of theological anti-Judaism, the bottom line so to speak. The obvious and unavoidable conclusion then is that the present State of Israel is not of God; rather it is spiritually illegitimate if not fraudulent. Biblical Judaism, covenantally speaking, is passé. But nevertheless, “We love the Jews,” is the hollow cry of the signatories of the “Open Letter.” How strange it is for those of a Reformed persuasion who, while giving considerable place to the movements of God in human history, yet prefer to ignore the remarkable series of events involving significant Christian participation whereby the modern State of Israel came into being. How difficult it must be for these same people to brush aside the remarkable victories of the War of Independence of 1948, the Six Day War of 1967, and especially the reclamation of Old Jerusalem after 1,900 years of being “trampled by the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). However, theological systems, while showing signs of becoming increasingly fractured because of historical enlightenment, nevertheless are not easily surrendered. Granted that Israel remains in unbelief, even so this in no way alters the fundamental issue of the ongoing legitimacy of the land in covenantal terms. Allowing for the worst of all scenarios, should Israel yet again be expelled from the land according to Arab and Gentile hegemony, even so this would in no way effect the abiding legitimacy of the land promise. However, one suspects that those who affirm modern Israel's present illegitimacy in the sight of God would, at such a tragic occasion, more assertively than ever declare this expulsion to be the will of God, with no prospective, covenantal return.
In light of the grand prophetic expectation of the New Testament, we urge our evangelical brothers and sisters to return to the proclamation of the free offer of Christ's grace in the Gospel to all the children of Abraham, to pray for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and to promise all humanitarian sympathy and practical support for those on both sides who are suffering in this current vicious cycle of atrocity and displacement. We also invite those Christian educators and pastors who share our convictions on the people of God, the land of Israel, and the impartiality of the Gospel to join their names with ours as signatories to this open letter.
Advent In the Year of our Lord 2002
Soli Deo Gloria
The inference here that we who are of a pro-Judaic persuasion are distracted from gospel proclamation has no more validity to it than the inference that those who are of a theologically anti-Judaic persuasion are more whole-heartedly committed to the proclamation of the gospel. Let us put aside such empty posturing. However, I do believe that faithful evangelism with regard to the Jews, as well as to the Palestinians, will inevitably have associated with it an ethical quality that commends the truth proclaimed. Further, I am convinced that the manner of our gospel preaching to Jews in particular will have a loving Pauline tone about it, even a special place as was his custom. In these two realms, I believe the evidence is conspicuous with regard to the lack in general that many Christians of Reformed convictions manifest. It may not sit well with those who staunchly identify themselves as Protestants, nevertheless it remains true at the present that, for all of its departure from the essential truth of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church has more recently evidenced certain changes with regard to appreciation of the Jews and Judaism, however imperfectly and of debatable motivation, than those who glory in a Reformed heritage.
1. A. Pieters, The Seed of Abraham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 123.
3.See D. A. Hagner, “Paul's Quarrel with Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity (ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 130–36.
4. Pieters, The Seed of Abraham, 124.
8. A. Pieters, The Ten Tribes in History and Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1934), 109.
9. In John Murray's commentary on Rom 11:11–32, whereas he writes of “ethnic Israel” and “the restoration of Israel” and the “conversion” and “fullness” and “recovery” and “blessing” and “the salvation of Israel” in relation to “the mass of Israel,” he nowhere refers to the “nation of Israel” or the likes of Ezekiel 36–37 since these would then implicate the “land” as being integral to such terminology (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 2.75–103).
10. L. Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958). The author openly upholds his postmillennial views in 103 pages; he critiques amillennialism in 28 pages and premillennialism in 237 pages. The tilt of Boettner's criticism is quite obvious.
12. F. H. Littell, The Crucifixion of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 33.
13. Boettner, The Millennium, 313.
14. A. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology (Tustin, California: Ariel Ministries, 1996), 49. The reference here is to Boettner, Millennium, 315.
15. Boettner, The Millennium, 314.
17. Ibid., 381. Of course Paul continued to maintain his Jewishness (Acts 21:39; 22:3; Rom 11:1), though Boettner might respond that these affirmations were before AD 70. But there is not the slightest indication, as in Luke 21:24, that such a disqualification took place; in fact, Rom 11:25–28 declares quite the opposite on account of the Israelites' “forefathers.”
18. G. Burge, Christian Zionism, Evangelicals and Israel, (www.christian-zionism. org/article-sN.asp); cited May 2007. Further pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel indications concerning Burge are his being on the Advisory Board of The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (www. hcef.org), as well as his favorable review of Sizer's Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon? on Friends of Al-Aqsa, www.aqsa.org.uk.
19. G. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, 2003), xviii.
20. See 13:14–15,17; 15:7,18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3; 28:4,13–15; 35:12; 48:3–4,21; 50:24; Exod 3:15–17; 6:3–4,8; 13:5,11; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11; Deut 1:8,21,35; 4:1; 6:3,10,18,23; 9:5,27–28; 10:11; 11:9,21; 12:1; 19:8; 26:3,15; 27:3; 28:11; 30:5,20; 31:7,20; 34:4; Josh 1:6; 18:3; 21:43–44; Judg 2:1; 1 Kgs 8:34,40,48; 14:15; 1 Chr 16:15–18; 2 Chr 20:7; Neh 9:7–8; Ps 105:8–11,42–44; Ezek 33:24.
21. Ibid., 69. Von Rad is referenced as one example. The fine point being made is that in 12:1 the land is to be “shown” to Abraham, but is not here promised. The Jewish Study Bible does not describe this point as if a curiosity. Rather it comments concerning 12:1–3, “The twin themes of land and progeny inform the rest of the Torah.” Concerning 15:1–6,7–20, “This ch. falls into two sections, the first (vv. 1–6) focused on God's promise to provide Abram with an heir who will be his own son, and the second (vv. 7–20) on God's covenanted pledge to redeem Abram's descendants from enslavement abroad and to give them a land” (New York: Oxford, 2004), 30, 35.
23. W. D. Davies, The Gospel And The Land (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 179.
24. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? 167.
43. O. P. Robertson, The Israel of God (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2000), 27–28.
45. Ibid., 47–48. For further consideration of Chapman in this regard, refer to chapter 4.
49. Ibid., 121. Here is yet another instance of the misuse of Matt 21:43 that ignores Christ's subsequent lament turning to hope (Matt 23:37–39).
50. Ibid., 153, 165, 194, 195.
51. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Royal Savior,” Acts 5:31, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 56:3229, 790–791, Ages Software.
52. Robertson, Israel of God, 13.
53. Robertson makes the same mistake when he writes that circumcision was also “an old covenant institution,” and incorrectly invokes Gal 5:2, which was in fact addressed to Gentile Christians concerning Judaizers, to suggest that what was in reality an Abrahamic covenant rite is now invalid, even for the Jewish Christian. Ibid., 31.
56. C. K. Barrett, Romans (London: A & C Black, 1991), 225. Likewise, Cranfield, Hodge, Moo, Morris, Murray, Shedd, Schreiner.
57. D. L. Larsen, Jews, Gentiles and the Church (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1995), 182; 131–221. Also see the catalog of providential circumstances mentioned in chapter 5 of this book.
58. In John 18:36 where Jesus addresses Pontius Pilate, He is contrasting the holiness of His potential kingdom administration with the pervasive unholiness of the world order in which the Roman legate rules. There is no thought here of the non-material spirituality of Jesus' kingdom.
59. P. Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom, with an Examination of Modern Dispensationalism, chap. 12, (http://www.gospeltruth.net/gospel_of_ the_kingdom/gotk_toc.htm); cited May 2007. In chap. 14, commenting on Zionism up to 1927, Mauro suggests that despite the Balfour Declaration, Zionism is a shabby movement in decline. But how times have changed, and will continue to change.
60. C. H. Spurgeon, The C. H. Spurgeon Collection, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, X, no. 582, 1864 (Albany, Oregon: Ages Software, 1988), 533, 536.
61. Robertson, The Israel Of God, 26.
62. This expression is derived from the acclaimed, controversial study by J. Peters, From Time Immemorial, The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine (Chicago: JKAP, 2002), 4.
63. P. L. Rose, German Question/Jewish Question: Revolutionary Antisemitism from Kant to Wagner (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992).
64. http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/VittenbergDoor/ (cited May 2007). Notable signatories to this “Open Letter” include Richard B. Gaffin, Michael S. Horton, Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., Robert L. Reymond, O. Palmer Robertson, R. C. Sproul, Cornelius P. Venema, and Bruce K. Waltke.
65. D. H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, Maryland: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1999), 549. Difficult as this passage is, few commentators take such a narrow line here whereby unconditional blessing to Israel as a nation is eliminated from the original promise given to Abraham.
66. This raises the question of the interpretation of Ezekiel 40–48. While not denying difficulties here which any interpreter of this passage faces, detailed exegesis does not suit those who merely abstract general principles from the text.
67. Refer to David Stern's enlightening exegesis here from a Hebrew Christian perspective. Jewish New Testament Commentary, 23–24.
68. R. S. Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (New York: Pantheon, 1991), 23–24.
69. Peters, From Time Immemorial, 25.
70. T. R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 485. Similarly D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 560; E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press, 1980), 258. Murray misses the point when he indicates that “they were Israelites'” (The Epistle to the Romans 2.4).