Promises to Israel: We Should Expect Literal Fulfillment

If Israel has been chosen to perform a special role in the divine plan, what promises have been given to Israel that will enable that ancient people to fulfill that role?

The Apostle Paul is clear on the great privileges that God has granted Israel. He wrote in Romans 9:4: “who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.” Paul nowhere intimates that these great privileges have been annulled, forfeited, or cancelled. As a matter of fact the three chapters of which this verse is a part (Rom. 9-11) have as one of their purposes to emphasize that God has not cancelled His promises to Israel or transferred them to some other people! What says Paul in Romans 11:1?: “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.”

Specifically, what are those promises to Israel?

Well, they ultimately are derived from those to “Father Abraham” in Genesis 12:1-3. To sum them up, they are basically the promises of a people, a land and a blessing. The Book of Deuteronomy and the later prophets unite on the affirmation of these promises to Israel. Chapters 28 and 29 of Deuteronomy clearly delineate the dire consequences if Israel disobeys the Lord - there will be drought, exile and suffering—to name only a few of the judgments. But even if the promises of judgment are fulfilled, that does not cancel the promises of Israel’s future blessings—found in Deuteronomy 30. As we will emphasize again in this brief article, to view the promises of Israel’s judgement as having been literally fulfilled while attempting to spiritualize and then transfer the promises of her blessings to the Church involves an inconsistent hermeneutic.

As an example of many such illustrations of this principle, consider just the prophets Hosea and Micah. In Hosea 3:4 there is a promise of judgement on Israel which already has been literally fulfilled: “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.” If that verse has had a literal fulfillment in Israel’s history of the last two thousand years, what about the next verse embodying a promise of blessing for Israel?: “Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.” If Israel was punished literally, they will be blessed literally!

Or consider the dual promises of judgement and blessing in Micah 3:12-4:2:

Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days That the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; And peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

The promise of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was literally fulfilled. Why would anyone then spiritualize the promise of restoration and blessing for Jerusalem and the Temple in the very next verses?

Now, someone may say that although the OT prophets may have stated that, now in the NT the Church is the so-called “New Israel” and the Church really spiritually receives those future promises of blessing to Israel. But this cannot be proved from the NT either. Already we have referred to that great chapter on Israel’s future, Romans 11. Throughout that chapter the word “Israel” refers to the Jewish people. Therefore, when Paul affirms the future blessings for Israel in Rom. 11:26-27, why would he then inject the word with a different meaning? “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.’” Paul actually bases his theology of blessings for a literal Israel on OT prophecies (Isa. 59:20,21 and Jer. 31:33,34).

Why should the plain and natural sense of a text be jettisoned? In Luke 1:31-33 seven promises were given to Mary. Five of them have already literally been fulfilled. Why is someone authorized to say that the remaining two will not also be literally fulfilled? Indeed, Christ shall receive the throne of His father David, and He shall rule over the house of Jacob forever, literally.

Perhaps we need to pay closer attention to the words of a layman who understood the nature of language very well, the poet and novelist Robert Louis Stevenson:

I cannot understand how you theologians and preachers can apply to the Church Scripture promises, which, in their plain meaning apply to God’s chosen people, Israel; and which consequently must be future. The prophetic books are full of teachings which, if they are interpreted literally, would be inspiring, and a magnificent assurance of a great and glorious future; but which, as they are spiritualized, become farcical…as applied to the Church they are a comedy.

Discussion

Wow. Replacement theology at its ugliest. Joshua, you seem to think you can instruct us. Please expound Jeremiah 33:14-26 for me in its context. Then maybe we’ll talk.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

First, I think you are pushing the marriage imagery a bit far. But regardless, I don’t think any of those things follow on what I am saying.

Second, justification in the OC was never by clean laws and sacrifice. As we are told, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Heb 10:4). Justification is always by faith, and it is always based on the sacrifice of Christ. (Imagine the irony of a dispensationalist having to clarify that.)

[Larry]

My reference to Paul here, should have said “Daniel.” Daniel was not speaking of a hardened people, he was speaking of an unending dominion - he was speaking of the church, the new covenant community.

In that case, why would it be hard to believe that Jesus and Daniel were talking about two different things? What is the textual reason (textual, mind you) to think that the unending dominion of the Messiah in Daniel 7 is the church? And what reason is there to think that the church is the New Covenant community, given how the New Covenant defines the community in Jer 31?

These are questions that have to be answered from the text.

No disrespect, but I almost have to laugh … surely you have read these passages?

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah Jeremiah 31:31

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Luke 22:20

And the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah directly!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8:10

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15

Do you really need passages that proclaim the unending dominion of the kingdom the church? We can start with the great commission …

formerly known as Coach C

[Larry]

First, I think you are pushing the marriage imagery a bit far. But regardless, I don’t think any of those things follow on what I am saying.

Second, justification in the OC was never by clean laws and sacrifice. As we are told, the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Heb 10:4). Justification is always by faith, and it is always based on the sacrifice of Christ. (Imagine the irony of a dispensationalist having to clarify that.)

How am I pushing the imagery too far? Are you aware of the sheer volume of verses that portray God’s relationship with His covenant people in this way?

True, it was not true justification, it was passover justification - temporary (Romans 3:25; Galatians 2,3). However, a Jew who did not practice this rudimentary form of passover justification would not be justified. (i.e. a Jew who was not circumcized, was not justified, etc.) So in that sense, it was the means of justification.

So, what will be the basis of justification in this future, earthly kingdom of which you speak? The one were the Jews will be re-ingrafted?

formerly known as Coach C

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places …Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen….For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God…Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

formerly known as Coach C

No disrespect, but I almost have to laugh … surely you have read these passages?

Yes, that was kind of my point. Let’s read the passages and see what they say.

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah Jeremiah 31:31

What does the bolded part mean? The house of Israel and the house of Judah are two political and ethnic entities. The passage gives us a bit more identification when it says that they are the ones God lead out of Egypt by the hand and the ones with whom he made a covenant that they broke. Now, doesn’t that have a clear historical referent in the nation of Israel? Didn’t God tell us exactly who he was talking about?

And the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah directly!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8:10

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15

Yes, if you recall, I mentioned that. And remember that the author of Hebrews (AH) only quotes part of the NC. Why? Because he is only talking about one specific issue in the NC — forgiveness. He is not intending to invoke it all because it would be irrelevant to his point. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though.

Do you really need passages that proclaim the unending dominion of the kingdom the church? We can start with the great commission …

Yes, if we are going to have a biblical theology, then we need passage to tell us things to believe. Otherwise, we are just making it up.

I don’t recall anywhere that the Great Commission identifies the church as the unending dominion of the kingdom. Do you have a line in mind?

How am I pushing the imagery too far? Are you aware of the sheer volume of verses that portray God’s relationship with His covenant people in this way?

Yes, but I would not impose human marriage on the relationship of God with his people.

However, a Jew who did not practice this rudimentary form of passover justification would not be justified. (i.e. a Jew who was not circumcized, was not justified, etc.) So in that sense, it was the means of justification.

The issue was their faith that caused them to offer sacrifice.

So, what will be the basis of justification in this future, earthly kingdom of which you speak? The one were the Jews will be re-ingrafted?

The sacrifice of Christ, as always.

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places …Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen….For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God…Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

This is a great passage because notice how the church is present (presently members of the same body) and the kingdom is future (inheritance to be gained later).

Again, here is where your presuppositions matter. If you think that the church is Israel, then you read it differently than if you don’t. But the issue is simple this: What does the text say? The text does not equate Israel and the church. In fact, it distinguishes them when it talk about the Jews and Gentiles being made into one body. It doesn’t talk about the Gentile becoming Jews. Nor the Jews becoming Gentiles. The church is a whole different thing as evidenced through this passage.

[Larry]

No disrespect, but I almost have to laugh … surely you have read these passages?

Yes, that was kind of my point. Let’s read the passages and see what they say.

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah Jeremiah 31:31

What does the bolded part mean? The house of Israel and the house of Judah are two political and ethnic entities. The passage gives us a bit more identification when it says that they are the ones God lead out of Egypt by the hand and the ones with whom he made a covenant that they broke. Now, doesn’t that have a clear historical referent in the nation of Israel? Didn’t God tell us exactly who he was talking about?

And the writer of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah directly!

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8:10

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9:15

Yes, if you recall, I mentioned that. And remember that the author of Hebrews (AH) only quotes part of the NC. Why? Because he is only talking about one specific issue in the NC — forgiveness. He is not intending to invoke it all because it would be irrelevant to his point. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, though.

Do you really need passages that proclaim the unending dominion of the kingdom the church? We can start with the great commission …

Yes, if we are going to have a biblical theology, then we need passage to tell us things to believe. Otherwise, we are just making it up.

I don’t recall anywhere that the Great Commission identifies the church as the unending dominion of the kingdom. Do you have a line in mind?

“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Eph. 3:21; Colossians 1; Matthew 16… I’m curious, though, where do you find the end of the church? Other than heaven - which I submit is still the church, but be that as it may - how does the church end? Destroyed like Israel?

formerly known as Coach C

“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

But how does that indicate it is the unending dominion of Daniel 7? I think the kingdom of Christ is his rule over all things, not just over the church or over believers. I think you making connections based on theological presuppositions. We all do that, to some degree, to be sure. But I have never found yours convincing. You can’t just quote a line. IMO, you need some argumentation taking into account the whole of Scripture and showing why something is something.

I’m curious, though, where do you find the end of the church?

I don’t think the church ends, per se. I think it is eternal

If this new New Covenant that you speak of has it’s basis in the blood of Christ, how is that not the New Covenant - the church?

[Larry]

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places …Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen….For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God…Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

This is a great passage because notice how the church is present (presently members of the same body) and the kingdom is future (inheritance to be gained later).

Again, here is where your presuppositions matter. If you think that the church is Israel, then you read it differently than if you don’t. But the issue is simple this: What does the text say? The text does not equate Israel and the church. In fact, it distinguishes them when it talk about the Jews and Gentiles being made into one body. It doesn’t talk about the Gentile becoming Jews. Nor the Jews becoming Gentiles. The church is a whole different thing as evidenced through this passage.

Huh. Because Christ and the apostles thought the kingdom was now. Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15, 9:1; Hebrews 1:8, 12:18, 12:28

Colossians 1:13 is probably the best, written in past tense to the church at Colossea: “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

According to your position, someone was given keys that they can’t use until … when? But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. - Matt. 16:19

Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” - Matthew 21:43 - are you saying that the Jews had the kingdom, it was taken away from them and then it will be given back to the Jews?

Do you proclaim the gospel of the kingdom? “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Because the world is going to end after the kingdom is proclaimed … except you seem to think that we have the gospel, then the kingdom, then the world ends…?

Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

I know all of the dispensational explanations and responses to why the kingdom is not the church and frankly, even when I held that position, I didn’t understand it. Also, I understand that at times, the NT speaks explicitly of the kingdom as our future in heaven. These are clear - but one cannot be a part of the future, heavenly kingdom if he is not a member of the present, earthly kingdom (the church) so these two groups are essentially the same.

I will post one final passage and I know that the word “church” does not appear (however, assembly is there and many translations use “church” here) in it, but what else could the writer of Hebrews have in mind? As you read, note the present tenses throughout, also the mention of the “new covenant”, note that his readers were to be greatful for “receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.” To make this passage about something other than the church would be rip it from it’s context which includes numerous references to the church.

I don’t know how anyone can forsee a future end to the church, a future replacement of the church or God’s returning to his “whore of Babylon” after reading Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:18-29 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.

Tell me, what is the “assembly of the firstborn” in this passage? If it is the church, then nearly everything that I have said is true. If it is not the church, then what could it be?

Also, keep in mind that Christ often called kingdom a mystery and there would be some who would understand this mystery and some would never understand this mystery. The mystery of the church was hidden from the view of the OT prophets, at least in it’s final fulfillment, but now it has been fully revealed. (i.e. Eph. 5 where the model for human marriage is Christ’s relationship to His Bride, the church.)

formerly known as Coach C

[Larry]

I’m curious, though, where do you find the end of the church?

I don’t think the church ends, per se. I think it is eternal

I agree! Except you were asking me for passages that prove this … but, what happens when Israel comes back to God?

formerly known as Coach C

I am not surprised by the vigor with which Larry has defended his position, I used to do the same myself. However, all the while, there was all kinds of tension in the text, it didn’t make sense logically or biblically, but I still held on for dear life, even though I was finding more contradictions within the Text than anything else. Since I have jettisioned dispensationalism as my supporting biblical theology, I have found that I grasp Scripture with far more confidence, I can see the movements and how it all fits together. The Bible makes sense in a way that it never did before. I can read Matthew 13 and easily understand how we are to function within the church because of the kingdom instruction there. I don’t have to wonder, Now is this the church? Or is it Isreal? Or is this heaven? Or is the kingdom really the USA? (Btw, do not assume that my bib theo is CT or NCT - those have issues too.)

I have a philosophical question based on my experiences within dispensationalism and now as I have stepped away from that school of thought. It is simply: Why do dispy’s hold on to a system in which it is so easy to poke biblical and logical holes so tightly?

Here are some of my theories:

Fear of letting go of the past - it takes courage to consider a point of view that might be contray to your parents or Bible college.

A reluctance to treat present-day, political Israel as nothing more than another nation on equal footing before God as Spain, the Congo or the USA. That idea undergirds much of the politics of conservatives in America. One who does not consider present-day Israel to be the “special people of God” is looked at like a liberal, a jihadist, a nazi or an anti-semite.

Maybe it is a reluctance to consider the instruction given to the kingdom. Dispensationlism is sometimes used as a way of avoiding accountability to all of the instruction that is given for kingdom living in the Bible. Since under DT, the church is not the kingdom and the kingdom is some future or undefined entity, a person who subscribes to this view does not have to see instruction given to the kingdom as binding on the church. It can be a useful “out” on occasion.

Curious … how can we forsake all for the kingdom or seek the kingdom first if we don’t really know what it is? I mean, even though Jesus died for the church… does he then expect us to make some future Jewish state as our top priority? Is that what Jesus was talking about?

formerly known as Coach C

Joshua:

Is it hard building straw men … ?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

TylerR, what is the kingdom as presently constituted?

formerly known as Coach C