The parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11–32 is part of an illustrative trilogy that is based on Jesus Christ's confrontation with complaining Pharisees and scribes. These self-righteous Jewish zealots, having audited Jesus' teaching and social lifestyle, were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!” (Luke 15:1–2). In response, there follow three parables that all depict the Son of God's compassionate interest in the saving of the lost, they being represented by the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Sons. Obviously Jesus is not only justifying his ministry, but also indicating that both the leaders of Israel, as well as his disciples, should have the same merciful attitude. Therefore the interpretation of these three parables should be based on this one underlying theme. When the parable of the Prodigal Son is considered, though it is really concerned with two lost sons, two main approaches have been followed. First, there is simply the representation of God's fatherly love for a wayward member of His human family. Here an earthly father longs for the return of his rebellious son, and with largeness of heart is ready to forgive when eventually confronted with thoroughgoing contrition. But the father's eager desire to joyously celebrate such authentic repentance is especially noted. By way of contrast, the elder brother represents that hard-heartedness which self-righteousness engenders. He lacks God's tender concern for the lost and His readiness to forgive. Second, there is the more intriguing understanding of the prodigal son who, representing the Gentiles, sins with abandon in the world at large. However, the elder brother, depicting the Jews, is indignant that his younger brother's flagrant, persistent decadence should receive such an abundance of grace while he considers himself to have been consistently righteous. This latter view is presented by Richard C. Trench in his classic volume, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord, in which he provides a significant concluding application:
We Gentiles must not forget that at the end of the present dispensation all will be reversed, and that we shall be in danger of playing the part of the elder brother, and shall do so if we grudge at the largeness of the grace bestowed upon the Jew, who is now feeding upon husks, far away from his Father's house.1
How appropriate is this comment in terms of the attitude of many conservative evangelicals today, especially of Reformed convictions, toward the ethnic Jew and national Israel. The disposition of the elder brother was not only one of contempt for his kinsman in the flesh, but he was also of the opinion that his brother was beyond redemption and thus permanently cast aside from his father's home. Certainly the Jews of Jesus' time were contemptuous in their regard for the Gentiles. But how strange it is that today so many Gentile Christians, and hardly any Jewish Christians, are of the opinion that now it is the Jews that are beyond redemption and forever cast aside by the Father in heaven. On the part of some Gentile Christians, their attitude toward ethnic Jews and national Israel is literally disgraceful. Like the elder brother, they are void of grace and full of condemnation toward their kinsmen in a spiritual sense (Gal 3:29), even to the degree where their theological anti-Judaism is in danger of becoming ethnic. As has already been demonstrated, much literature in this realm is, to say the least, offensive and utterly unchristian (see chapters 2, 3, and 4). Other Christians, less animated and vociferous in this regard, are nevertheless indifferent to ethnic Israel. There is no compassionate interest in the plight of the Jews, no inward sympathy for their historic tribulations, no admittance of widespread complicity on the part of Christianity with regard to these sufferings, no special interest in Jewish missions, but only a resignation that the judgment of God is rightly having its unwavering course.
The Admonition of Paul toward the Gentiles
in Romans 11:17–21,31
In Romans 11 as a whole, the main thrust of the apostle's instruction concerning Israel is toward the Gentiles. The Gentile “wild olive branch” has been graciously grafted into “the rich root of the cultivated olive tree” (Rom 11:17) at the expense of disobedient Israel's temporal severance. Consequently the Gentile Christians are exhorted that they “do not brag” (v. 18) because they are better off than the cultivated branches that are presently scattered, that is, the unbelieving Jews as Dispersion. There is no place here for pride or arrogance because “[cultivated Jewish] branches were broken off [by unbelief] so that I [as a Gentile Christian] might be grafted in” (v. 19).2 Commentators generally agree that here the Gentiles are encouraged to be compassionate toward the Jews while dispersed, notwithstanding their entrenched unbelief. So while in v. 30 the Gentile unbeliever has received gospel mercy at the expense of national Israel's unbelief, “now” (v. 31) the Gentile Christian is to show gospel mercy to unbelieving national Israel. However, the context of vv. 17–21 suggests that not only the primacy of evangelistic proclamation toward the Jews is involved, but also a comprehensive, loving attitude. In Rom 15:26–27 Paul encouraged the giving of material support for “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” out of a sense of spiritual indebtedness. This would also suggest the related compassionate interest that Gentile Christians, after the manner of Cornelius (Acts 10:1–2), should spontaneously reflect toward the unbelieving, downtrodden Jews in their universal misery. Hence, although Jewish evangelism is to be of fundamental concern for the Christian, it is not to be at the neglect of material, social, and national support.
The Dilemma that Romans 11 Brings to Anti-Judaism
Is it possible for such compassionate concern about the Jews to be constrained by means of doctrine that regards Jewishness and national Judaism as passé? If a Christian's eschatology leads him to believe that Israel has been divinely, eternally disenfranchised, then is it possible for such teaching to engender a distinctive loving interest in the plight of the Jewish people as they presently exist? In this regard, history sadly witnesses to the fact that, in general, Gentile Christians have responded with shameful disdain that has included contempt, arrogant aloofness and even militant opposition to the Jew. Furthermore, the roots of this disregard for the mandate of Rom 11:17–21,31 have proved to be decidedly doctrinal. Melanie Phillips as a columnist for the London Daily Mail reported opposition to Israel being motivated by anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in Christian replacement theology rather than economic and cultural factors (see appendix D). This is no mere isolated instance of eschatology effecting an unethical response, as Augustine's influence on subsequent centuries so well illustrates.
To clarify again, by “theological anti-Judaism” I mean that understanding of the present NT age in which the Christian Church is now alleged to have superseded or fulfilled the OT people of God. As a result, it is asserted that covenantally, in the sight of God, there is now no such person as a “Jew” or “Hebrew” with distinctive national and territorial identity. This is true for many Christian writers who, while giving token recognition of Jews in contemporary society, as with Burge, Robertson, Chapman, and Sizer, nevertheless censure any who identify contemporary Israel with the biblical nation. Alternative expressions of “transference,” “absorption,” or “fulfillment” concerning Israel's lost national status still result in Jewish nullification. According to this anti-Judaic Augustinian perspective, although there are presently several million “Jews” in Israel—and for practical purposes only they are designated as “Jews,” and we converse with them and witness to them in America and the United Kingdom—in theological reality and according to NT revelation their racial claim has no present or prospective divine validity. Rather, in a shadowy sense only, the Christian Church has inherited this past Jewish legacy including its terminology, so as to become the spiritual New Israel. As a result, every believer in Jesus as the Christ, of whatever nationality, is a spiritual Jew. The people of Christ throughout the world, void of ethnic distinctions, have become His new nation which, in inheriting the whole earth as the fulfilled land, is the truly ecumenical kingdom of God.
Yet how do the proponents of this supercessionist agenda respond toward the modern Jew who, in all honesty, is offended at this denial, indeed usurpation, of his Jewishness? It is rarely with the gracious, eschatological spirit of Paul's exhortation in Romans 11, especially vv. 17–21,31, according to careful, Judeo-centric exegesis which, as previously explained, resulted in a multitude of problems for the modern Augustinian. The humble confession of C. E. B. Cranfield, quoted at the beginning of this work (see “Personal Introduction”) in relation to Romans 11, is especially pertinent here.
The Directional Challenge that Romans 11
Brings to Anti-Judaism
Such is the force of this key passage with regard to the future of Israel that many modern commentators have increasingly come to the opinion that Rom 11:26 does indeed refer to a future conversion of the Jews on a national, or at least a climactic, multitudinous scale.3 Yet others of Reformed convictions have believed that the salvation of Israel here is merely the cumulative saving of a “Jewish” remnant over many centuries, though this interpretation, even if vociferously expressed, has not gained a broad following.4 In this regard, there has also been a turning from Calvin's understanding of both saved Jews and Gentiles within the church who are designated as the “all Israel [that] will be saved” (see chapters 10 and 11 for a more detailed study). Yet having said this, at the same time many sense a dilemma that is not so readily clarified. With regard to Reformed convictions, there is often no indication whether this future en masse conversion of Jews, revealed in Romans 11, will incorporate divinely acknowledged individual, national, and territorial Jewishness. But denial of this is often intimated. Hence there is reluctance to admit that such an awakening will be nationally allied to the inhabitation of the land of Israel. One gains the impression that some scholars, their doctrine excluding the divine recognition of national and territorial Israel in the present or future Christian era, nevertheless sense being eschatologically driven in this direction through the plain meaning of Romans 11. They sense that the tendency here is to lead, as it were, down a slippery slope toward an acknowledgment of a distinct national and territorial destiny for Israel that is inevitably related to much that the OT has specifically promised. Consequently, while some attempt to allow a degree of temporary, vague corporateness in a future conversion of the “Jews,” whatever this term may mean, nevertheless they put the brakes on when national and territorial identity seems to appear on the horizon as an inevitable consequence. And this restraint, I suggest, leads to some difficulty in spontaneous witnessing to Jews. The reason is that though a future climactic conversion of the “Jews” is anticipated, there is obfuscation with regard to affirming any specific eschatological future for the converted Jew, other than vague incorporation into the people of God. And the Jew who knows his OT well cannot be blamed for making reference to the prophets at this juncture. Having accepted the plain fulfillment of the numerous messianic prophecies, he then inquires as to why he ought not similarly accept the plain and obvious meaning of passages such as Ezekiel 36–37 and Zechariah 14 (see Horatius Bonar's response to this inquiry in chapter 8).
The Dynamic Challenge that Romans 11
Brings to Anti-Judaism
For the classic, theologically anti-Judaic Christian who places great store in his allegiance to Augustinianism with regard to the Jews, there is a significant problem which he especially has to face in the light of Romans 11. He is ready to confess his responsibility for proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah, even to those who mistakenly claim divine national identification as a Jew. After all, the exuberance and priority of Paul in this regard is hard to avoid as a model for contemporary Christians. Hence he will even declare that surely God has His people among unbelieving Jews, and in designating them as the remnant of Rom 11:5, he then explains that for this reason there must be evangelism directed toward the Jews. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Luther were of a similar opinion! But in allowing the identification of resultant new converts as Jewish Christians in a nominal sense, he is quick to deny them divine national and territorial recognition. In fact, if pressed, he confesses that this new Jewish Christian really has no distinctive Jewishness whatsoever, at least in connection with divine OT terms.
In other words, this modern Augustinian speaks of these converted Jews in an individual, token sense, but disallows historic Jewish corporate identity. He also believes that the non-Christian Jew has in fact no real Jewishness, even in a carnal sense. Privately he believes that God has abandoned Judaism so as never again to revive it. He is convinced that the contemporary Jew is deceived, being a racial anachronism, though for witnessing purposes, and at a strictly secular or social level, he ought to be addressed as a “Jew.” With this attitude in mind, the question then arises as to what degree he really has a distinct passion for Jewish missions like that of Paul (Rom 9:1–5; 10:1–2), who continued to identify himself, quite unambiguously, as an Israelite (Acts 21:39; 22:3; Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22)? In fact, when it comes to a history of distinctive Jewish missions over the last two hundred years, it stands out most plainly that agency after agency has always doctrinally presupposed ongoing and eschatological Jewish national, territorial identity according to God's covenant faithfulness. But where has there been a similar burgeoning of evangelistic outreach toward the Jews based on that contrasting Augustinian doctrine which upholds Jewishness as a mere shadow that has been superseded by the substance of Christianity? And which of these missionary scenarios most closely mirrors the missionary priority of Paul?5 Of course there may be the response by the Augustinian Christian that while he is second to none in concern for evangelistic outreach, yet he believes it should be non-discriminatory—to both Jew and Gentile without distinction. We would inquire what explanation is to be given for the fact that Paul's evangelistic thrust, Gentile by divine vocation, was always prioritized in terms of being “first to the Jew” (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10; see Acts 9:15)?6
As a representation of this problem with regard to formal expressions of interest in Jewish evangelism, consider the comments of Marten Woudstra of Calvin Theological Seminary who, in upholding continuity with regard to Israel and the subsequent Christian church, makes a number of comments that are quite representative of Augustinian, supercessionist eschatology. His words also reflect an essential detachment from divinely acknowledged, contemporary Jewishness. In consideration of Rom 11:25–26, he concluded,
The apostle's emphasis is not upon some later point in time when there will be a reversal in the hardening in part of the Jews. Rather, the emphasis is upon the word “so” or “thus,” “in this way.” All Israel [the accumulating remnant] will be saved in the way of the bringing in of the fullness of the Gentiles. …As the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and “until” this is finished, so, in this manner, “all Israel” [an accumulating remnant] will be saved. …There will be one body of the redeemed, Christ's flock, known to him by name and distinguished from those who are not his sheep. …The saving of “all Israel” is still going on, for the fullness of the Gentiles is also still being brought in. But at all events some of the Jews who are now hardened in part will be grafted into the one olive tree. They will not form a separate program or a separate entity next to the church.
The question whether it is more proper to speak of a replacement of the Jews by the Christian church or of an extension (continuation) of the OT people of God into that of the NT church is variously answered. …What should be stated clearly, however, is that the idea of the church replacing Israel is not to be understood as a form of advanced anti-Semitism, as is done by some.7
There seems to be an underlying concern in Woudstra's final comment that betrays an inherent weakness of the doctrine being proposed. It could never be said that Paul's eschatological teaching in Romans concerning Israel might be misunderstood as having an anti-Judaic tone. Quite the contrary. Of course what Woudstra failed to make clear is the status of unbelieving Jews at the present time; one suspects it is not the covenantal regard of Rom 11:28 that inevitably calls for national and territorial recognition, even in unbelief. This being the case, any talk concerning “Jews” is simply with regard to a convenient term that in fact has no divine specificity or authentication. So the Jew, having become converted, loses all his Jewishness. Yet at the end of his explanation, Woudstra made a plea for Jewish evangelism: “The church-and-Israel question presents all evangelicals, regardless of where they stand with respect to any of the above questions, with the challenge to preach the gospel to the Jews.”8
But is this expression driven by the same pro-Judaic passion of Paul, or a cool acknowledgment of the broad need of Jews and Gentiles to hear the gospel? What exactly, eschatologically and evangelistically, is Woudstra's meaning of “Jews” here? At best it would seem to have mere nominal, token meaning. His approach suggests that in witnessing to Jews, it is a most vital matter whether we tell them of the “good news” that they, in becoming a Christian, will lose their distinct Jewish identity, or whether we direct them to the King of the Jews as “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). We suggest that the former approach will not gain much of a hearing, to say the least. But the latter method, far more akin to the eagerness of Paul in his missionary visits to innumerable synagogues, is much more likely to result in a respectful audience.
Two Analogies concerning Gentile Interest
in the Unbelieving Jew
It is common for the Augustinian Christian to critically respond that the pro-Judaic Christian aligns himself with those who, in their “carnal Zionist zeal,” neglect evangelism due to a preoccupation with Middle Eastern political affairs and prophetic speculation. After all, the Jew, in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, is, according to that same Messiah, consigned to certain judgment (Luke 23:28). It was indeed Jesus who solemnly declared to the Jews of His day, “Unless you believe that I am [the Messiah/Son of God], you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). The Jew has to be warned concerning the grave danger that confronts his soul, and with this no evangelistic outreach worthy of the qualifying title of “Jewish” would disagree. But as Gentiles, how do we fulfill the burden of this responsibility for Jewish missions? Is it with the constraint of gratitude for the legacy that the Jew represents (Rom 9:4–5)? Is it with appreciation that the Savior is fully Jewish? Is it with respect for the truth that the Christian Bible is mostly Jewish? Or is it with a more dispassionate attitude that merely includes “Jewishness” as a temporary accommodating term within one's Augustinian eschatology?
The Analogy of the Christian and the Family Unbeliever
By way of illustration, suppose as a Christian we have unbelieving loved ones and family members to whom we have witnessed on numerous occasions. Our soul aches with concern for a mother, father, sister, or brother who with stubborn unbelief does not hesitate to scoff at our faith, caricaturing it as a religious crutch and an anachronism. Such reproach within the family circle may persist for many years. Do we likewise believe in this situation that such relatives will “die in their sins” if they don't believe that Jesus Christ is their Savior? Yes, we do believe this with both love and fear. But how do we continue to relate to these beloved relatives? After such a long time of rejection, is it with eventual abandonment since they have become so hard-hearted? Having prayed for them, do we then eventually give up on them before God's throne of grace? No, such a limitation of our patience is unthinkable when we contemplate God's great forbearance toward us. While we have life in our bodies, we will continue to hope and pray for our loved ones, and at the same time take every opportunity to reflect graciousness through life and lip in the face of unremitting hard-heartedness. It is the fact that we are related through the flesh to our loved ones that constrains us to persevere with renewed effort, endeavoring to commend Christ by a godly lifestyle, even while our verbal witness continues to be spurned. In the same vein then, ought we not also lovingly persevere in witnessing to the Jewish people, our relatives through saving faith in the God of Abraham?
To take the analogy further, is our witness to unsaved loved ones strictly in the realm of literature distribution, conversation about the Bible, and invitations to hear the gospel preached? Surely not! There is also enjoyable social intercourse, sharing on a host of topics, genuine interest when family difficulties arise, and a readiness to offer practical help whenever trouble looms on the horizon. Then how is it that some convey the idea that to help the Jew is simply to expose him to the gospel, but any other more secular assistance is to be discarded as carnal, even inappropriate Zionism? Surely such an attitude is to be thoroughly condemned. The Christian should be concerned for the Jew in matters individual, national, and territorial. Yes, he should be, like Paul, enthusiastically pro-Judaic, ever supportive of the cause of Israel, its great failings and carnality notwithstanding.
Hence our attitude toward the Jew to whom, through faith in Christ, we are related according to the flesh (Gal 3:29), should be one of loving, unfailing, apostolic persistence (Rom 9:3). And this same undying concern is precisely what Paul seems to have in mind in Rom 11:17–21,31 with regard to the proper attitude of Gentile Christians toward unbelieving Jews. The fact that the apostle exhorts us to have this loving family regard is surely further proof that the Jewish ethnic status he wrote about is not null and void. Rather, it will eventually blossom into a “full number” of unimaginable proportions for the glory of God (Rom. 11:12,33–36).
The Analogy of Ruth and Orpah concerning Naomi
In Dan Gruber's book, The Church and The Jews, he makes an application from the book of Ruth. He contrasts the Gentile attitudes of Ruth and Orpah with the Jewishness of Naomi so as to illustrate how a Gentile Christian should respond to the Jews. Then he makes a parallel application concerning Cornelius in the NT.
While both Ruth and Orpah were Gentile Moabites, there was a stark contrast between their attitudes as widows toward their widowed and deprived Jewish mother-in-law, Naomi. Returning from desolate Moab to Bethlehem, Naomi believed herself to be oppressed by the Lord, as was the case with the Jews down through the centuries. However,
God was not against Naomi, Job, or Paul. Despite what people think, God is not against the Jewish people. God intends to do something more wonderful for all Israel than what He did for Naomi, Job, or Paul. Though His hand may sometimes be against His first-born son, His heart never is. Naomi is a type of the Jewish people. She was bereaved, bitter, and angry at God. She had no hope. In that condition, she came back to her own land. Ruth saw that, but she saw something more. There was something that she had seen in her mother-in-law and in her own [late] husband, that was more precious to her than life. She saw something invisible that Orpah could not see.
“But Ruth said [to Naomi], ‘Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God’” (Ruth 1:16). Ruth said, “I will be joined to the Jewish people, and I will serve the God of Israel.” She knew that He, and He alone, is the only God. She made that choice before she ever met Boaz.
Ruth made the same choice that Abraham made. She left her family, her people, and her land behind. She lost her life in order to find it. Orpah said good-bye to Naomi and then went to reclaim her old life. She found her life in order to lose it. Naomi's Gentile daughter-in-law, Ruth, was to be the means of her greatest blessing. God planned it that way. Ruth embraced the Jewish people, and God blessed her eternally.
What did Cornelius see? He was a military man, and Rome ruled over Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself, as a city of the first-century world, could not compare to “the glory that was Rome.” Cornelius was assigned to a backward, troublesome, superstitious province and people. At least that was the Roman view. They believed that Rome had better ways, more might, and greater gods. What did Cornelius see in Israel that is described in the gospels? He saw everything. He saw the corruption, the legalism, the brutality, and the hypocrisy. But he also saw the invisible hand of God, the only God, upon His people Israel.
Cornelius made a choice which would have made him the laughingstock of all his family, friends, and neighbors back home. He started to pray to the God of Israel, and he started to give his money to help the Jewish people. He made that choice before he ever met Peter. And the angel said, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). Cornelius embraced the Jewish people, and God blessed him eternally. “Now faith is…the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Gentiles who are believers need to look at the Jewish people and see the invisible. They need to choose as Ruth and Cornelius did: “Your people will be my people; your God will be my God.”9
The Discouragement of Jewish Evangelism
The mere justification of a distinctive prophetic cause has not been the main purpose of this defense of a pro-Judaic eschatology. To be sure, the repudiation of theological anti-Judaism has been vigorous. Nevertheless the singular intent has been the vindication of the cause of the Jewish people according to the mind of God even as has been portrayed in the whole of Scripture. The perspective upheld here might be broadly identified as premillennial. Even so, if necessary, let such a title perish. But never let perish the biblical indications of God's sovereign grace that will supremely triumph in the salvation of Israel as a nation through the mediation of its Messiah, Jesus, the Son of God, and His consummate reign from Jerusalem. Israel's original election was according to the purest grace, and so will be the climactic salvation of national Israel unto holiness as God's people.
In a sizeable part of contemporary Reformed Christianity, an eschatological perspective on Israel often results in anti-Judaism of varying shades, even if more kindly defined as theological rather than racial, and progressive or fulfilling rather than the replacement variety. In reality, many who confess faith in the doctrines of grace or historic Calvinism have acted both neglectfully and shamefully with regard to their consideration of and association with Jews, the present nation of Israel, and even Jewish Christians. Conversation with those holding to this modern supercessionist eschatology usually reveals that such belief is doctrinally driven. Of course exceptions have been referenced. Nevertheless, they remain only exceptions to the overwhelming, unseemly, abiding general rule. So over the centuries, indications of belief in national Israel's everlasting disenfranchisement have not been difficult to discover. And not surprisingly, in parallel with this has been a dearth of biblical evangelistic outreach to the Jews as God's beloved enemy (Rom 11:28). Further, those of Jewish extraction have found it easy to notice this attitude which, I have been told by Jewish Christians, does not commend Christ.
The Experience of the Church of Scotland
and Jewish Missions
Following the visit of AndrewBonar, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, Alexander Keith, and Alexander Black to Palestine in 1839 under the auspices of the Church of Scotland, a full account of this investigative journey—which was concerned with missionary outreach to the Jews—was published with the title, A Narrative of a Visit to the Holy Land. Of particular significance are the following extracts that indicate the deplorable attitude of Christians toward Jews in Jerusalem at that time:
On another occasion, passing by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the monks mistaking him [a Mr. Nicolayson, a Christian resident in Jerusalem dressed in an eastern manner] for a Jew, rushed out upon him, and pursued him through the streets, into a house where he took refuge, threatening to kill him, unless he kissed a picture of the Virgin, in a New Testament which they held out to him. This he did, and saved his life.
The professing Christians here [in the holy land]—Greeks, Armenians, and Roman Catholics—are even more bitter enemies to Jews than Mahometans; so that in time of danger, a Jew would betake himself to the house of a Turk for refuge, in preference to that of a Christian. How little have these Christians the mind of Christ!10
How shameful this is, not only because of the way this behavior is so antithetical to that of the apostle Paul, but supremely because of the way in which Jesus Christ is unnecessarily blasphemed before His brethren in the flesh. The Narrative goes on to describe that, when the Jews recognized the more genuine loving interest of the delegation from Scotland, there was a contrasting response of desire for cordial fellowship. It also needs to be pointed out that the eschatological doctrine of this delegation, in the main, recognized the ongoing national and territorial status of the Jews at that time, notwithstanding their unbelief. Their eschatology was decidedly not Augustinian.
Yes, for those Christians upholding a Judeo-centric eschatology, the tension that daily confronts them does not presently abate. On the one hand, the Jewish people in general reject Christ and are as carnal as the rest of western society; on the other hand, there is a relentless loving concern for them that Paul so passionately modeled. In other words, for the Christian the modern Jew remains a beloved enemy. No matter how intensely the Christian's testimony to Jesus as the Christ is scorned and vilified, his loving interest in the Israelis and Israel is indefatigable. In this regard, the Jews' greatest friends are evangelical Christians because they will never turn against their elder brother relatives in the flesh. And this ought to be so because such an attitude is in reality derived from the attitude of the God of Israel, who through Paul declared them to be “enemies for your [the Gentiles'] advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of their forefathers” (Rom 11:28).
The Challenge of Benjamin Netanyahu
Concerning present tensions in the Middle East, A Durable Peace by Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999, is essential reading. He provides an erudite and informed explanation of events which the modern media rarely reports. My own conservative perspective resonated with this enlightened understanding of current tensions. But one paragraph caused me considerable distress. Netanyahu wrote,
The final guarantor of the viability of a small nation [such as Israel] in times of turbulence is its capacity to direct its own destiny, something that has eluded the Jewish people during its long centuries of exile. Restoring that capacity is the central task of the Jewish people today.11
One is immediately moved to respond, Why has the stateless Jew endured such a desolate existence around the world for centuries? Surely Netanyahu's declaration, all too true, that the Jews thus far have failed to direct their own destiny leads us to the obvious answer if we consider the root of Judaism. For in the face of overwhelming biblical testimony from the beginning of Israel's history in Abraham, the existence and perpetuity of God's people was revealed to be grounded in divine election by Yahweh, that is, pure grace, not ethnic or national merit (Deut 7:6–8; Amos 3:2). They do not have a self-generated destiny. Hence the suggestion that secular Israel should again attempt to “direct its own destiny” is fraught with fearful prospects (Hos 8:14). It is God who must intervene, as promised, and fulfill His purposes in grace (Ezek 36–37; Hos 3:4–5; Zech 14). Furthermore, Netanyahu refers to the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos, as well as to Joseph, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Rachel, Moses, Joshua, Naomi, David, and Lazarus. Yet no mention is made of the God of Israel, apart from whom these individuals have no significance whatsoever, as all of them would readily agree. Surely the leaders of Muslim nations would never refrain from the mention of Allah in such a situation.
In light of this great void, shall I as a Christian abandon prayerful and active support for the likes of such present leaders of Israel? Such a thought ought to be unthinkable because the God of Abraham has not given up on the Jews, as He did not give up on me, a great sinner redeemed by grace alone. Hence, in our concerns and dealings with both the Dispersion and modern Israel we shall persist in unfailing love as did the God of Hosea for His adulterous people, and as did the father of the prodigal son.
Christian Responsibility toward the Jew
with Encouragement from Horatius Bonar
The present need for awakened Christian interest in Jewish evangelism requires not so much a contemporary methodology as a fervent, passionate spiritual interest in the Jewish people according to biblical, theological and eschatological stimulation. Once such an arousal takes place, the modus operandi will tend to burst forth with suitable variety that focuses on making Jesus the Messiah's redemption known to His ethnic people. While expanding on this principle, we also turn to the stimulation that Horatius Bonar provided when he wrote in 1855 on “The Responsibilities of Christians as Regards the Jews.”12 Today, over one hundred and fifty years later, his insights remain timeless, choice and necessary.
The Arid History of Jewish Evangelism
The Reformation brought spiritual awakening, gospel illumination, and social improvement from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries. But millions of unbelievers beyond Europe were neglected until the commencement of the eighteenth century when a slumbering church awoke to the broader dimensions of its gospel mandate (Mark 16:15; see Luke 14:23). This arousal to missionary outreach resulted in a fruitful spiritual harvest outside Europe through the formation of numerous missionary agencies in Britain and beyond. Notable among these was the Church Missionary Society, the London Missionary Society, and the Baptist Missionary Society. Nevertheless, this zealous evangelistic advance of international proportions passed by the poor abandoned Jew. Serious missionary outreach toward him did not commence until the nineteenth century. Bonar pointed to the analogous plight of the assaulted but neglected Jew on the Jericho road, lovingly cared for by the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37). He described
the poor neglected Jew, torn and bleeding at every pore, trodden down and despised, a proverb and a byword. And who cared for him? …But “God had not rejected his people whom He foreknew” [Rom 11:2]; he still has wondrous thoughts of lingering love toward them, and it became a sight well-pleasing in his eyes when, in the spirit of the Samaritan, the Church directed her steps towards the plundered and wounded traveler, and sought to “pour oil and wine into his bleeding wounds.” Surely those missionary agencies which seek the spiritual and eternal welfare of the scattered and long-injured children of Abraham richly deserve the name of “Good Samaritan Societies;” and surely all Christians who now observe these efforts would do well to give heed to the application which the Great Teacher and Pattern of Love makes of his own beautiful parable, “Go thou and do likewise.” Yes, Christian; if you would be in full sympathy with God, you must not only trust the cross, love holiness, and send the gospel to the heathen; but you must love the Jew, pity and pray for the Jew, and be willing to lay out personal investment and energy so as to send the good tidings that Jesus of Nazareth “came into the world to save sinners” [1 Tim 1:15], to the Jew, to whom he came “preaching peace” [Acts 10:36].13
The Constraint of Jewish Evangelism
Acknowledgment of the biblical mandate for Jewish evangelism is one thing (Rom 1:16; 2:9); the enthusiastic, eager fulfillment of this mandate is quite another. But where do we start in the pursuit of a right biblical attitude in this regard, even as we contemplate the ardent concern of Paul, his “heart's desire and prayer to God concerning...[the Jews'] salvation” (Rom 10:1)? We commence then, as did Paul, with God as the object of his prayer, the God of Abraham, whose glorious attributes are seen, not only in the priority of His Son's ministry toward lost Jews (Matt 10:5–6; 15:24; John 1:11), but also the Father's overall revelation of personal, multi-faceted concern for the nation of Israel.
The Knowledge of God concerning His love for Israel
As we have seen earlier in chapter 10, Romans 9–11, particularly 9:6, is ultimately concerned with the justification of God's covenant faithfulness, preeminently as is evident in His dealings with the Jews. How significant it is that in the whole compass of this Scriptural trilogy concerning God's unrelenting covenant love for Israel, Paul concludes with such a theocentric symphony of praise that is born of God's saving interest in the Gentile, but especially the Jew (Rom 11:33–36). However, on a wider scale this knowledge of God is also made known by means of His dealings with the Jewish people since the call of Abraham and throughout subsequent centuries.
Here God has written out his glorious name. In this Jewish people we see every divine perfection in act and operation. Omnipotence raised them up at first. …Wisdom watched over, led, and guided them unerringly. Faithfulness fulfilled every promise uttered by the lip of Truth. Goodness established them in a noble land, gave them holy laws, divine and instructive institutions, sent among them prophets to teach and priests to minister. Holiness warned, cautioned, and exhorted them, and when they rebelliously spurned the gentle tones of love, how long did Patience bear with them; how often did God return and have mercy on them! When they had sinned “till there was no more remedy” [2 Chr 36:16], when they had consummated the rebellions of fifteen hundred years by that unparalleled deed of blood, the murder of the Son of God, then, after some yet further lingerings and invitations of insulted Mercy, did awful Justice arise, bare his arm for the battle, and strike down the terrible and crushing blows. Now, in what state do we behold them? Even as they have been for the last eighteen hundred years, like a burnt mountain on the plains of Time, scorched and splintered by the lightnings of divine wrath.
Yes! still preserved in all their woe, still unconsumed by all these penal fires! Preserved! And for what? Let a thousand glorious prophecies answer! That burnt mountain shall yet be clothed with lovely foliage; down its sides shall streams of living water gush; and the nation that now witnesses to the truth, justice, and power of God, shall sing till the ends of the earth shall hear and echo back the song, “Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity, and passes over the rebellious act of the remnant of His possession? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in unchanging love” (Mic 7:18). Then shall the Lord be glorified in Israel, and all his attributes displayed in full-orbed glory, when he shall “call her Hephzibah, and her land Beulah” [Isa 62:4]. What a glorious Jehovah is the LORD God of Israel! With what awe, what love, what fear, what hope, should this character, as exhibited towards Israel, inspire us!14
The Obligation of the Christian toward Israel
Surely it is this particular, steadfast, indomitable love of God for national Israel that ought to stir the Christian heart today toward Jewish evangelism. Since “the LORD became zealous for His land and spared His people” (Joel 2:18), then it is incumbent upon the child of God today to be constrained similarly toward the Jewish people. Since God continues to love the nation of Israel with such loyal love that the centuries cannot diminish, we as Christians, claiming to be children of this same God, ought to be spontaneously directed according to our heavenly Father's divine animus, His persistence in fervent concern and unquenchable loving-kindness.
How great, then, are our obligations to a nation, from whose history we learn so much of God, and so much of ourselves! They encourage us to hope in God, they warn us against tempting him. Their very failure is for our profit; “by their stumbling, salvation has come to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:11). We “Gentiles have shared in their spiritual benefits” (Rom 15:27) and have been “grafted in… the rich root of the cultivated olive tree” (Rom 11:17), from which, for a time, they are broken off. Surely we are responsible, as regards the Jew, to a very large amount. Have we felt this? Have we so acted as to show that, like the apostle, we feel that “we are indebted to them”? [Rom 15:27]. Do our prayers on their behalf prove this? Are they not too much forgotten, both in public and private, by many of God's people? We must feel that we are verily guilty concerning our brethren. Israel's past we cannot remedy; their future, as a nation, is with God, and is safe in his omnipotent and faithful hands; but let men speak or think as they will, Israel in the present is with us; God in a measure casts it upon us, and calls upon us to care for their souls, and he will work by the means which he has put in our hands, and will be pleased if these means are used diligently in faith, and with prayer.15
The Exhortation to Jewish Evangelism
For those who deny any covenantal future for the Jews and national Israel, the continuing cry of Bonar in what follows has no deep meaning; it cannot be appreciated from the heart. Spiritual rapport with the unity of his thought here is simply impossible, though sadly such a condition is doctrinally self-inflicted. How can any Christian who claims that the modern Jew is ethnically persona non grata in the mind of God yet genuinely confess his love for the “Jew” when his meaning here is necessarily so obscure, even duplicitous? If someone of an Augustinian persuasion should respond, “But I can enter into the essential gospel exhortation here,” then let him consider why it would be preferable that he be quiet about the Jewish prospect of nullification within an Augustinian legacy, otherwise this integral part of his witness would tend to subtract from the attractiveness of the evangel. It is unlikely that such a proclamation would make the Jew jealous. On the other hand, let such a person ponder why Paul is far more likely to be in full and hearty agreement here with Bonar's impassioned plea!
Israel has been a long time neglected, persecuted, and grievously wronged. Let us go, like Jeremiah, and sit down with them amidst their ruins, and in a sympathetic spirit tell them of the Restorer of Israel—the Almighty Repairer of the great breach—the true Antitype of their own Zerubbabel, who can yet build them up “an holy temple, an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph 2:21–22). While we mourn over their great griefs, their mighty wrongs, and their yet mightier sins, let us gently tell them of “the Man of sorrows,” who is the all-sufficient “consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25). We carry God's own message, prepared by the hand of mercy for the heart of the miserable, and which can, by the blessing of the Holy Spirit, win its way through a mountain of stone and a heart of stubbornly resolute hardness. Go, Christian, to thy wandering and fugitive brother, tell him of Blood “which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24)—Blood which can cleanse even those who have “gone in the way of Cain” (Jude 11). Go, in the spirit of Paul, “with our hearts desire and prayer to God, that Israel may be saved” (Rom 10:1). Go, “praying in the Holy Spirit” (Jude 20); and you will give no heed to those who say that “it is of no use preaching the gospel to the Jew.” It is of use; facts abundantly prove it; God has owned his own word, and is still blessing his servants. “Many of the sons of Israel have been turned to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:16); several of them are now the ministers of Christ to the Gentiles or to their own countrymen; and “how welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things!” …We should pray earnestly for Israel's final restoration, even for her national glory and spiritual salvation. In so doing we pray for the blessedness of the earth, and the life of the world, which God is pleased to conjointly establish. But believing that God has at the present time “a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom 11:5), we should give, pray, and labor, if we can “somehow make [the Jew] jealous and save some of them” (Rom 11:14).16
The Future of Jewish Evangelism
Ultimately our hope is in the God of Israel, and especially the sovereignty of His grace with regard to the salvation of the Jews, both individually and nationally. This is the same sovereign grace in which the modern Gentile Christian readily boasts. All of our human efforts in Jewish evangelism pale before the vision of His certain promises, and it is for this reason that the vision of Romans 11 is so ultimately glorious. With this vista before us, no matter how gloomy the approaching cloud and thunder may appear on the world stage, yet at the same time God is pleased to use the “weak things to shame the strong” so that no one can boast in His presence” (1 Cor 1:27,29). In this regard consider Bonar's closing realism, honesty, and triumphant hope:
Their “future!” Ah! There is a dark cloud resting over the years that are fast hastening on; but beyond, what brightness! what glory! and both prompt us to pray. Prophecy tells us that beyond the fiery trials, “a nation [will] be born in one day” (Isa 66:8), and that nation will be “the perfection of beauty” (Ps 50:2), “joy, praise and glory before all the nations of the earth” (Jer 33:9), “dew from the LORD” (Mic 5:7), “life from the dead” (Rom 11:15); and all of their eventual faith and national glory will be God's answer to the prayers of those who “find pleasure in the [Zion's] stones, and favor its dust” (Ps 102:14).
Compassion for Israel must be of great pleasure to God. …[With] “Beginning in Jerusalem” (Acts 1:8) resounding in our ears, we cannot be indifferent to the spiritual welfare of a people so useful to ourselves, so dear to God, and with whose future blessedness the full salvation of a ruined world is connected. “Oh, that Israel's deliverance would come from Zion!” (Ps 14:7). Soon may the day dawn when Israel, brought through her great tribulation, shall as the priestly nation breathe forth the acceptable prayer, “May God be gracious to us and bless us; look upon us with favor so that Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations. God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him” (Ps 67:1–2, 7).17
From whence then comes this compassionate concern that so fervently drives Bonar and at the same time warmly commends that which he writes? Surely this enthusiasm is inevitably born of a distinct eschatological perspective. Certainly biblical, Pauline missionary interest in the Jews has never blossomed from the roots of theological anti-Judaism, notwithstanding cool, token confessions of interest. Love for the heritage of the Jew— past, present, and future—cannot erupt from a well that is declared to be dry and sealed with the notice of a divine, irreversible embargo. Rather Bonar's indomitable regard for the people of Israel, so passionate, while all too well aware of the present parched status of the Jews, is yet convinced of the gospel principle on a broader scale, “that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6). So God, having begun a good work with the promised seed of Abraham, will certainly complete what He has covenanted to establish. He will not fail. He may have changed a “fruitful land into salty wasteland, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants”; nevertheless, “He [the LORD] turns a desert into a pool of water, dry land into springs of water. He causes the hungry to settle there, and they establish a city where they can live” (Ps 107:34–36). So God has promised Israel,
Say to the faint-hearted: “Be strong; do not fear! Here is your God; vengeance is coming. God's retribution is coming; He will save you.” Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute will sing for joy, for water will gush in the wilderness, and streams in the desert;…and the ransomed of the LORD will return and come to Zion with singing, crowned with unending joy. Joy and gladness will overtake [them], and sorrow and sighing will flee” (Isa 35:4–6,10).
Conclusion
As was stated in the introduction to this volume, in the field of eschatology there are matters of lesser significance that concern the antichrist, the great tribulation, the rapture, etc. But the issue of the place of Israel in the Bible, and especially in relation to the NT, is a transcendently important one. With regard to this vital matter of national Israel's present existence or nonexistence according to divine covenant, history plainly leads us to an unavoidable conclusion: profound ethical and practical consequences are involved here—even issues of life and death. It is for this reason, among other lesser matters, that I have felt compelled not only to make such a vital distinction in the field of what is really important in eschatology, but also to vigorously defend that doctrine which tends to rectify such an appalling anti-Judaic heritage. Here we are not dealing with an eschatological refinement concerning which we can agree to disagree. If the Christian Church in general over the centuries had followed Paul's exhortation in Romans 11:17–24,31, it is not unreasonable to conceive that the tragic treatment of the Jews during the twentieth century that resulted in the ashes of nearly a whole nation might have been replaced with the fruit of a great harvest of Jewish souls saved because they had been lovingly provoked to jealousy (Rom 11:11), to the glory of God (Rom 11:36). With this in mind we are moved to prayerfully sing,
Wake, harp of Zion, wake again,
Upon thine ancient hill,
On Jordan's long deserted plain,
By Kedron's lowly rill.
The hymn shall yet in Zion swell
That sounds Messiahs praise,
And Thy loved name, Immanuel!
As once in ancient days.
For Israel yet shall own her King,
For her salvation waits,
And hill and dale shall sweetly sing
With praise in all her gates.
Hasten, O Lord, these promised days,
When Israel shall rejoice;
And Jew and Gentile join in praise,
With one united voice.
James Edmeston, 1846
In conclusion, we return to a most vital matter in the current debate over the future destiny of national Israel. It is the question of “tone” or “attitude” with regard to the Jewish people. Sadly it needs to be pointed out that much of the literature which continues in the Augustinian eschatological tradition is fatally flawed at this most vital juncture (see chapters 3 and 4). This anti-Judaic genre resounds with an unsavory character that most Jewish Christians and unbelieving Jews will quickly identify with a sense of revulsion. The result is that a basic defect in the whole system is discovered. By contrast, consider the preceding brief article by Horatius Bonar which throbs and breathes with a gospel that generates a loving regard for the Jewish people and that speaks for itself as being essentially Pauline. If this chord does not resonate in the biblical Christian, then without apology it is maintained that the fundamental, doctrinal, eschatological root here is unsound. It is the right theological, eschatological root which produces from the likes of Bonar such a sweet resonance that both the Jewish Christian and the Gentile Christian will delight in and spontaneously, fervently act upon.
1. R. C, Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 152.
2. According to Moo, “these Gentile believers were apparently convinced that they belonged to a new people of God that had simply replaced Israel. … It is the egotism of Gentile Christians who present God's manifold plan as having the salvation of themselves as its focus that Paul wishes to expose and criticize” (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 704–5). Murray similarly viewed Paul as admonishing the Gentiles since a “streak of contempt for the Jew may also be detected” (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965], 2:87).
3. So Barrett, Hodge, Moo, Morris, Murray, and Schreiner.
4. So Bavinck, Berkhof, Hendriksen, and Hoekema, especially according to a Dutch Reformed lineage.
5. For a more detailed consideration of this issue see B. E. Horner, “Evangelism and the Future of Israel,” in a festschrift for Moise Rosen to be published in 2008.
6. See A. G. Fruchtenbaum, “Romans 1:16—To the Jew First,” n.p. [cited July 2007]. Online: http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2006/85/85_01.html.
7. M. H. Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity (ed. J. S. Feinberg; Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1988), 236–37.
9. D. Gruber, The Church and the Jews (Hanover, NH: Elijah Publishing, 1997), 401–2. W. C. Kaiser Jr.'s back cover commendation declares this book to be “thoroughly biblical. I have never seen things stated so courageously and forthrightly. … I think you have a breakthrough. … This is a very, very important book.”
10. A. A. Bonar, A Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews from the Church of Scotland in 1839 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1845), 146–47, 149.
11. B. Netanyahu, A Durable Peace: Israel and its Place Among the Nations (New York: Warner Books, 2000), xxiii.
12. H. Bonar, “The Responsibilities of Christians as Regards the Jews,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (October, 1855), 347–52.