“The Church is Israel. This does not mean that the Church replaced Israel, nor does it mean that a natural Jew cannot be grafted back into the true Israel. They can, but only by bending a knee to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. God established Abraham and promised to bless his seed and all those who believe like Abraham. God reckons their faith as righteousness. They become children of the promise given to Abraham, the children of God.”
— Greg Bahnsen
—
How did the modern nation-state of Israel get its name? By a process of elimination and an unenthusiastic 7 to 3 vote.
For the full story, go here: https://martinkramer.org/2020/04/27/1948-why-the-name-israel/
In addition to what’s recorded in this article, there were some who wanted to name the new nation after Theodore Herzl, for his role in the Zionist movement.
My guess is that if it had been called Herzl-land, a lot of our modern confusion over Israel could have been avoided.
—
Just as the Jews contemplated at least 5 different names for their newly established homeland in 1948, so in the run up to 1948, at least 6 different locations were contemplated as a potential homeland for the newly forming Jewish state: Ararat City in upstate New York, Uganda, the island of Madagascar, the Kimberley region of Western Australia, Birobidzhan in the Soviet Union, and Suriname in South America. Ultimately, a desire to be in their historic location won out, even though it meant putting the Jews in a tightly constricted place, surrounded by people with whom they were sure to have ethnic and religious tensions.
For more background: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/six-locations-outside-the-middle-east-once-suggested-for-a-jewish-homeland
—
If Jesus is the promised Seed of Abraham, how can those who reject him be part of Abraham’s family?
—
In Romans 11, Paul says first century Israel was hardened to the gospel partially and temporarily – it is a hardening “in part” (11:25) and “until” (11:25). There were Jewish Christians in the first century, obviously since the very first Christians were Jewish, and there Jewish Christian’s today. But they are a minority. In Romans 11, Paul speaks of their future conversion en masse, after the fullness of the Gentiles have come in.
Unbelieving Jews are broken out branches. They are enemies of the gospel. But the gift and calling of God is irrevocable and God will ultimately graft them back in to the covenant tree.
The last shall be first. The first people to come into the old covenant will be the last to come into the new covenant.
To put it another way, the conversion of the Jews will be the capstone of the Great Commission.
Dispensationalists also think Jews will be converted but in a future millennium. Paul says nothing about that. Even if premillennialism is true (and it’s not), Paul says nothing about a millennium in Romans 11. The expected conversion of the Jews will take place in this age, through the same means the church is using to disciple the nation – the preaching of the cross. Paul saw his ministry as contributing to the whole process he describes. Further, dispensationalists treat this Jewish salvation as if it is somehow separate from the church – the core tenant of dispensationalism is that Israel must be kept separate from the church and run on its own track. But the whole force of the passage is that God is assimilating Israel and the Gentiles into one saved people. God is putting back together the fractured human race. God will have one saved people from every nation and family in the end. There is one seed – one corporate people – of Abraham.
—
How extensive is the “all” in Romans 11:26?
At the very least, Israel’s acceptance of the gospel in the future has to be commensurate with their rejection of it in the first century. Does “all” mean every last individual in some future generation? Perhaps. Or it could be more like Jesus’ words, “If I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself.” It will be a great enough number that we can say that finally “Israel was saved.”
—
I do not see how a preterist reading of Romans 11 can mesh with a preterist reading of the Olivet Discourse. How can the same generation of Jews be the generation upon whom comes wrath to the uttermost, the generation upon whom all the righteous blood of the martyrs will be avenged, AND the generation in which “all Israel will be be saved”? I think Paul takes it for granted that in his lifetime, the Jews will remain largely hardened with only a remnant that believes — though he also trusts that his ministry will play a part in contributing to an eventual reversal of that situation that will take place sometime in the future after the fullness of the Gentiles have been brought into the kingdom.
It would be odd for Paul to stress God’s faithfulness to Israel, arguing that the gifts and call are irrevocable, if the gifts and call are going to be revoked in just a few years and the most noteworthy event the Jews in the next decade or so is not going to be a mass conversion to Christ but mass destruction in the war with Rome.
If I read Romans 11 in a preterist way, I think I’d have to give up postmillennialism. It would mean that the “fullness of the Gentiles” came in before 70AD — and in that case the fulfillment of the prophesies of Gentiles nations converting are not nearly as great as postmils have argued. If all the prophecies about Gentiles fullness are fulfilled by 70AD and the Great Commission is essentially complete by 70AD, then the postmil expectation is obviously wrong. The kingdom did not grow that much — and however much it has grown since 70AD, there is nothing more promised than what happened by 70AD. The case for postmil rests on the view that OT promises are much more expansive than anything we have seen in history thus far, and so m,ore kingdom growth is expected. Further, the salvation of Israel after the flesh never rose above a tiny remnant since a huge number of Jews in the first century were slaughtered.
—
Joseph Spurgeon on Romans 11:
“I am a preterist with respect to Revelation. I do believe AD 70 marked the decisive covenantal judgment on unbelieving Israel and the completion of the Old Covenant order.
What is in dispute is Romans 11.
Preterism teaches that AD 70 is the completion of the cutting off. The Old Covenant is finished. The temple is destroyed. Judaism, as a covenantal system, is judged. The branches are broken off.
Romans 11 teaches a partial hardening, not a total one. Paul says the hardening is “in part” and “until.” He looks forward to a future ingrafting of Jews into their own olive tree. He describes it in language weighty enough to call it “life from the dead.”
Romans was written after Pentecost. Thousands of Jews had already come into the church. Acts records conversions. Paul knew all of that. Yet he still speaks of something future. Something beyond the early trickle of Jewish believers.
If you insist that Romans 11 was completely fulfilled before AD 70, you are forced into one of two positions.
Either you simply assert that a large scale ingrafting happened sometime between the writing of Romans and the destruction of the temple, despite the complete absence of historical evidence.
Or you redefine “ingrafting” to mean nothing more than the ordinary, ongoing conversion of a few Jews here and there, which empties Paul’s language of its force and grandeur.
But there is a deeper problem.
If AD 70 is the completion of the outgrafting, then placing the ingrafting before that moment creates a chronological contradiction. Paul presents a sequence: hardening in part, fullness of the Gentiles, then a climactic turning of Israel. You cannot coherently argue that the restoration is completed before the covenantal cutting off reaches its climax. That reverses Paul’s order.
And once you collapse the future ingrafting into the pre-70 period, you are forced to say the fullness of the Gentiles has already come in as well. Now you are only a step away from hyper-preterism. The Great Commission is effectively finished. The major redemptive-historical movements are behind us. The future horizon of the church flattens out.
This is not where historic Reformed theology has stood. The Westminster Larger Catechism explicitly teaches us to pray for “the calling of the Jews” in the Lord’s Prayer. Our confessional standards assume a future mercy toward ethnic Israel. To deny that is not a minor adjustment. It is a departure.
What often drives this reading is not careful exegesis. It is ideology. It is political animus. It is, in some cases, a deep hostility toward Jews that cannot tolerate the idea of a future covenantal mercy shown to them. That is not biblical theology. That is an agenda looking for texts to support it.
I affirm a real cutting off in AD 70. I also affirm what Paul plainly teaches: a future ingrafting of Jews. To deny that is to create a self-contradiction in the timeline of Romans 11, to flatten Paul’s language, and to step outside our confessional heritage.”
This is a good post. Spurgeon is right to point out some of the difficulties with a preterist reading of Romans 11 — and I say that as someone who interprets quite bit of the NT preteristically. There were certainly a handful of Reformed divines before Jim Jordan who interpreted the conversion of Israel in preterist fashion — I think perhaps Cotton Mather and Richard Baxter did, if memory serves — but it’s been a very rare position, and certainly not the teaching of the Westminster Standards. Spurgeon is right to see the sequence — a dance, if you will — between Jew and Gentile in redemptive history. The hardening of the Jews led to the crucifixion of Jesus which led to the salvation of the Gentiles; the fullness of Gentile salvation will lead back to a Jewish conversion to the gospel. The hardening of the Jews is “in part” and “until” — it is partial and temporary for now, but will give way to their conversion in the future, as the capstone of the Great Commission. The last shall be first, and all that.
I’ll add more wrinkle: For postmillennialists, the futurist/preterist debate over Romans 11 should not much matter. The postmil position holds that all nations and families will be blessed with the blessing of Abraham’s seed, who is the Lord Jesus Christ. So a postmil who reads Romans 11 is a preterist fashion still holds to a future conversion of Jews, though he may not believe it is part of a redemptive-historical sequence. The postmil who reads Romans 11 as a futurist holds that the Jews will be converted after the fullness of Gentile nations coming into the kingdom provokes them to covenant jealousy, as those Gentiles experience Deuteronomic blessings.
—
Back in the 1980s, leading Dispensationalist Hal Lindsey accused run-of-the-mill Reformed Christians who held to an amillennial or postmillennial eschatology of anti-Semitism. Those were fun times…
—
Most of the reasons people give in America on the left and right for supporting Israel or the Palestinians are misguided.
For example, leftists default to supporting Palestinians for Marxist social justice reasons. Everything is viewed in light of the oppressor/oppressed paradigm. Since the Israelis have more power, money, and Western support, they are considered the oppressor. The left is blind to the evils of Hamas.
On the other hand, many American evangelicals, because of dispensationalism, give blind and unconditional support to Israel based on a misreading of the Bible. They appeal to Genesis 12:3 to say America should bless the modern nation-state of Israel so we will be blessed, ignoring the fact that the Israeli government is secular and ignoring the way Paul defines the family of Abraham in Romans and Galatians.
Neither the Marxist nor dispensationalist approaches to the Middle East are correct.
—
Jews tried to murder Jesus at least 8 times before they succeeded (which took the aid of the Romans).
Jesus was convicted 2 times in sham trials, with false witnesses, a Jewish court and a Gentile court.
Pilate sought to set Jesus free 3 times and declared him innocent 3 times. Pilate caved in because he feared Jewish rioting and blackmail.
The NT accuses the Jews of killing Jesus in multiple places — Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, Matthew 21:33, Matthew 22:1ff, Matthew 23:32ff, etc. But it’s important to understand what this means and does not mean. It does not mean Jews are worse than other people groups. It does not mean Jews are under some special curse today. When God chose Abraham’s family as his covenant people, he was making them the representatives of the whole human race. They would serve as a priesthood on behalf of the world. They were like a kid called to the front of the classroom to solve a problem on the chalkboard, only to get the answer wrong — but none of the other students could solve the problem either (HT for the illustration: N. T. Wright).
When Jews killed Jesus, they were acting on behalf of all of humanity — analogous to the way Adam’s fall was the fall of all of humanity. When the Jews commited deicide and Messiahiah-cide, they were doing what all of us would have done, had we stood in their place. And, note the Romans really were involved. Pilate objected to crucifying Jesus — bearing witness to the innocence of Jesus — but he still played his part. And as noted above, this fulfills Psalm 2, which presents all of humanity joining together in conspiracy against God’s anointed one. In Romans 1-3, Paul indicts all of humanity in sin, stating that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile when it comes to falling short of God’s glorious plan for humanity.
And so ultimately, it was not Jewish sin that put Jesus on the cross. He died for and because of all of our sin. Jews stumbling over Jesus was God’s plan. Peter says this in Acts 2. Paul reiterates it in Romans 11 — the casting away of Israel (= crucifying their Messiah) brought about the reconciliation of the world.
—
A note on Romans 11:26:
If “all Israel” refers to the sum total of the elect, I think it makes Paul’s statement a tautology and does not resolve the tension he’s been building. The hardening of Israel at the time of Paul’s writing is only partial and it will only be temporary — “in part” and “until” are key.
Given the way Paul has contrasted Jew and Gentile throughout the passage, and given that the whole purpose of Romans 9-11 is to explain how God can be faithful to his covenant promises when his covenant people do not beleive in the Messiah he sent them, I think Romans 11:26 has to be about the destiny of ethnic Israel.
This does not mean the Jew/Gentile divide continues in the same way after 70AD as it existed in the old covenant. The dividing wall of hostility has been broken down. Believing Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. The church is the true Israel; Christians are the true sons of Abraham. There is only one people of God and unbelieving Jews are excluded. They are broken out branches.
But something still lingers. Unbelieving Jews, are, of course, still Jews. They have a genetic/fleshly relationship to Abraham and Jesus. That does not means Jews are “special” or “different.” It does not mean they are saved apart from faith. Paul says they have not been spared. They are broken out branches and enemies of the gospel. They are in the old Adam and cursed in him, just like unbelieving Gentiles.
God has promised to bless every people group — every family and nation (Genesis 12). Every people group will be discipled. The only thing that stands out about the Jews in Romans 11 is that they will be the last people group to be converted en masse and come into the church. It will take the fullness of the Gentiles — Gentile nations being discipled — to provoke the Jews to conversion.
Jewish Christians do not get any promises Gentile Christians do not get. All the promises of God are yes and Amen in Christ, and so all the promises of God belong to all Christians. The two things that stand out about Romans 11 is (a) Jews have not been cast off forever, and so (b) they will join the rest of world in bowing the knee to Jesus. Thus, God will keep his promises in the end.
—
On Romans 11, Jason Staples says “all Israel will be saved” happens as Gentiles are brought in because Israel, the northern tribes, got assimilated into the Gentiles. Israel is saved as Gentiles are saved because Israel became “not my people” when the nation merged into Gentiles people after the exile.
I think this is part of the truth. Ephraim did get assimilated into the nations (Genesis 48:19). At least some Gentiles who come into the kingdom as believers are no doubt genetically related to the ten northern tribes. In their conversion, the “lost” tribes” are found again.
But in Romans 11, Paul does not say Israel got Gentilized, and is saved in that way, as the fullness of the Gentiles come in. Paul actually contrasts Israel with Gentiles – the Gentiles come in first, then Israel. Whereas Staples’ view assimilates Israel into the Gentiles, Paul distinguishes them through the passage. He speaks of a remnant of Jews who have converted to faith in Christ, but also the mass of Jews who have not, who have been hardened and become enemies of the gospel and broken out branches.
Yes, saved Jews and Gentiles will form one body of people (contra Dispensationalism) – but the Israel in view in this part of Paul’s discussion must be ethnic Israel, aka Jews. The “Israel” Paul has in view is hardened partially and temporarily but will be fully and finally saved at some future point when they convert. The Israel Paul has in view is distinct from the Gentiles and so has not been Gentilized; rather what Paul holds out for is the remaining ethnic Israelites (who have not been assimilated into Gentile peoples) getting Christianized. Just as the NT message includes the truth that Gentiles do not have to become Jews in order to become Christians, we should not hold to the view that Jews must become Gentiles (via assimilation after exile) in order to become Christians. Or to put it another way, broken out branches do not have to become wild branches before being grafted in.
Without denying that a grafting and pruning process has always taken place in israel, even under the old covenant, the Israelites he sees being broken out in context are first century Israelites who stumbled over the Messiah once he arrived. So Paul cannot be talking Israelites who were scattered to the four winds in the exile, intermarried with Gentiles and became Gentiles stock, and then got grafted in. His context is the first century and his focus is ethnic — how unbelieving ethnic Israelites relate to believing Gentiles. When Paul warns them to boast not against the broken out branches, he is speaking to Jew/Gentile relations in the first century context. Paul is speaking of an Israel that is hardened at present and promises that hardening will be reversed in the future. The “Israel” in question in Romans 11 is ethnic first century unbelieving Israel. “And so all Israel shall be saved” cannot be reduced to mean that the all those elected to salvation will be saved. That’s a tautology and it does not resolve the tension in the passage. It does not explain why Paul considered this to be a great mystery.
Of course, this reading of Romans 11 means that Staples sharp distinction between “Jews” and “Israel” does not hold up. But I think there are places where the distinction between Jew and Israelite holds up (particularly in terms of the geography of Jesus’ ministry as recorded in the gospels), it is certainly not uniform. The Jews who are not really Jews because they have uncircumcised herats in Romans 2 are the hardened Israelites of Romans 11. When Paul preached to “the Jew first,” that was not members of the southern tribes but all Israelites in the cities into which he went. In Romans 3:2, he says the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, but surely that includes all of Israel since northern tribes had prophets and Scriptures as well. In 3:29 and elsewhere when he contrasts Jews with Gentiles, surely the category “Jews” includes others who were other Israelite tribes. Even in chapter 11, he uses “fellow Jews” before switching over to “Israel.” When Paul says in Romans 9 that he would be willing to be cut off for the sake of his kinsman who are “Israelites” surely he also includes Jews, members of the Southern tribes, since the way he describes them in 9:4-5 obviously applies to Jews just as much (even more so, since Christ descended from the tribe of Judah). Or consider Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 which goes back and forth between “Men of Judea” (= Jews) and “Men of Israel” and “house of Israel” (2:14, 22, 36).
—
More on Romans 11:
Two problems must be dealt with in any exegesis on Romans 11:
If ethnic Israel is going to be saved in the future, what about the ten lost tribes?
What does Paul mean by “all Israel will be saved”?
The “lost” tribes are “found” through Gentile conversion since they became “not my people,” like the Gentiles and we’re assimilated into the Gentile nations (Genesis 48:19).
That’s part of the picture.
But in Romans 11, Paul has unbelieving ethnic Jews in view in the first century and beyond. They are contrasted with both believing Gentiles and the believing remnant of Israel. It is those people who are hardened. They are the broken out branches that must be grafted back in.
Israel is hardened in part and for a time – which implies a future conversion, leading to a fullness of salvation for Israel that matches the fullness of salvation for the Gentiles. When the mass of Israel and the mass of Gentiles are saved in Christ, sharing life in his body, the Great Commission will be complete and the blessing to Abraham that all nations/families will be blessed in his seed will be fulfilled (Galatians 3:8).
I don’t think you can make sense of Romans 11 without being postmillennial.
—
A contradiction of modern Jew-haters: Reading Romans 11 in a preterist fashion, so that ethnic Israel has no promise of being grafted back into the covenant tree, while taking 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 in a non-preterist, timeless fashion so that Jews are always “enemies of the whole human race” upon whom “wrath has come to the uttermost.” You cannot have it both ways — making blessings to for Israel fulfilled by 70AD but special wrath continuing to hang over them.
It seems unlikely to me that Romans 11 should be read in a preterist fashion. Why would Paul make the point that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” if they are indeed going to be revoked in just a few years, in 70AD? And why is there is no historical record of a mass Jewish conversion before 70AD if it happened? Surely it would have left its mark on the historical record. The rest of the NT witness seems to indicate the opposite. Jesus does not mention a major Jewish conversion when he gives all the signs leading up the destruction of the temple in the Olivet Discourse. Hebrews does not mention it even though it seems to have been written to Jews living in and around Jerusalem as 70AD approaches, and unbelieving Jews are pressuring believing Jews to join the defense of the city/temple. Jesus’ parables do not mention a first century Jewish conversion just before 70AD — instead they seem to confirm that the Jews en masse will remain unrepentant and suffer the consequences. See Matthew 21:33ff and 22:1ff — in both of these parables, which are are about the transition from old covenant to new covenant and the judgment about to fall on the Jews, the emphasis is on Jews being cut off and Gentiles being brought in. In neither parable is there any indication of a mass Jewish conversion before the 70AD judgment falls.
On the other hand, the wrath that has come upon Jews “to the uttermost” in 1 Thessalonians 2 does seem to be reference to the conflagration of 70AD. Paul is not making a timeless declaration about the state of the Jews. He is talking about the present condition of that generation of Jews and a judgment that will soon fall on them. Interpreting 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 as a description of Jews in that time period fits well with the teaching of Jesus about that generation of Jews in Matthew 23 and elsewhere. After 70AD, the Jews are under no special covenantal curse; that curse landed upon them in 70AD. Unbelieving Jews today are not under a special covenantal wrath.
The accent throughout the NT is that Jews are being broken out of the covenant for the most part. They have stumbled over the Messiah God sent them. Only a remnant believes in Jesus. The nation is mostly hardened to the gospel. In Romans 11, Paul seems to indicate that the Jews will be grafted back into the covenant tree in a way commensurate with their earlier breaking out. But that remains in the future.
A preterist reading of Romans 11 also requires us to believe that the fullness of the Gentiles came in before 70AD. It would seem to be the death-knell to postmillennialism if all the prophecies about kingdom expansion are fulfilled prior to 70AD. Was the Great Commission sufficiently fulfilled by 70AD? Can all the prophecies about the growth of the kingdom be crammed into a pre-70AD context? What do we do with the millennium of Revelation 20? Is the 1000 year period also crammed into a mini-millennium that ended in 70AD? Reading Romans 11 in a preterist fashion, it seems to me, veers towards hyper-preterism. I realize many orthodox theologians read Romans 11 as a 70AD text, but that just does not seem to square with the rest of the NT or the historical record.
So what is the present status of Jews? Jews who trust Jesus are grafted back into the olive tree. Unbelieving Jews remain broken out branches. They are enemies of the gospel — but beloved enemies. The are in the first Adam and under his curse, along with the rest of unbelieving humanity. The are not uniquely malevolent compared to other unbelievers. God has promised to graft them back in to the covenant tree at some point in the future. When they trust Christ and enter into the church on a large scale, it will be a sign that God’s global salvific purpose is complete — the world has been saved.
—
The old covenant was not a failed experiment. The entire old covenant system bore witness to the coming Christ. Even the failure of old covenant Israel was part of God’s grand design to bring salvation to the world.
—
Having some historic connection to a land in the past does not automatically mean that land belongs to them today. Lands change hands all the time. Think of the native Amerindians, who constantly displaced one another in various territories. No tribe can claim the land just because they possessed it at some point in the distant past. It would be like me going to people who live in my childhood house and telling them the house is mine because I lived there decades ago when I was six years old.
—
If you criticize Islam as a false and dark religion, you’re accused of being an Islamophobic shill for Israel. If you criticize the policies of the nation of Israel or Jewish influence on America, you’re called an anti-Semite.
But what happens if you criticize Islam and Israel?
—
“In his latest book, The Road to Holocaust, Hal Lindsey has labeled anyone who does not agree with him on the issue of eschatology as “unconsciously anti-Semitic.” Lies and slander will accomplish nothing… except book sales.”
— Gary North
—
Christian Zionism tries to make broken out branches bear fruit by sticking them into the soil of Palestine. But they’re still broken out branches.
—
God kept his promise to give the land to Abraham:
Genesis 15:18:
“On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.’”
1 Kings 4:21:
“Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.”
1 Samuel 8:14:
“And the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went.”
Nehemiah 9:8:
“You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.”
—
A few further notes from a discussion of Romans 11 and its implications for the modern nation-state of Israel:
There is nothing special in terms of covenant status for unbelieving Jews or the modern nation of Israel today. They are broken out branches and enemies of the gospel. They will be grafted back in to the church/olive tree but in the meantime they are not a covenanted people.
Tim Gallant and James Jordan went back on forth on Romans 11 years ago. I found Tim convincing in the exchange. I think his essay is the feschschrift book for Jim.
It’s very difficult for me to see how the same generation that was going to be judged for “all the righteous blood shed on earth” can be the same generation in which “all Israel is saved.”
Jesus did not include a big conversion of the Jews in the Oliver’s Discourse nor is it in any of his parables that describe what’s taking place in the covenant transition in Matthew 21-22.
Paul says wrath has come upon that generation of the Jews to the uttermost. How can “all Israel” will be saved be simultaneous with that?
There’s no historical record of a mass Jewish conversion prior to 70AD – just the opposite. The destruction of the temple left it’s mark on history. If there was a conversion of the Jews prior to 70AD commensurate in scope with their rejection of the gospel, surely that would have left it’s mark on the historical record as well.
In Romans 11, Paul might see his ministry contributing to the process he describes, but that doesn’t mean it all has to happen in his day. I beleive my ministry contributes to the fulfillment of the Great Commission — that does not mean I think it will be fulfilled in my generation. I think Paul is looking out beyind 70AD to a future for the Jewish people, his kinsman. It is Jews after the flesh who are in view, beginning in Romans 9:1ff.
If the “fullness of the Gentiles” has already come into the kingdom in prior to 70 AD, I’d have to give up postmillennialism. It would mean postmils have been wrong about the scope of the promises/prophecies about kingdom growth.
We have to do justice to several biblical facts, including:
Unbelieving Jews really were broken out.
They are not in the tree.
They stumbled and fell.
They do not worship the true God.
They will be grafted back in again at some point.
But in the meantime, they are enemies of the gospel.
Historically speaking, they are the people through whom salvation came, even though the bulk of them are not saved.
Salvation is of the Jews, as an historical fact.
The messiah really did come to and through them – so of course they are the messianic people in that sense – Jesus was a Jew, and is still a Jew.
That makes the fact that they are cut off from Jesus all the more tragic.
They possessed an entire typological system that pointed to Jesus and yet still reject him.
Paul lists all the privileges they once enjoyed in Romans 9, and we should acknowledge that history even as we lament the fact that they squandered it all. But that does mean God will never graft them in in a massive way. Paul was willing to go to hell if it would keep his kinsmen from going to hell. Does God love the Jews less that Paul?
It seems to me Jews today are a people, but not a covenanted people. That’s a key distinction.
We know they will be converted in the future (along with all other nations) – but they will apparently come in last of all.
They don’t have to be in some special covenant to say that. They broke the covenant. God does not “owe” them salvation. They hang by the thread of a fleshly connection to Abraham, which is not enough to spare them. But it does mean they are still beloved and so God will eventually turn them back to himself, banishing godlessness from Jacob, even if it takes 1000 generations.
Some might want to say present day unbelieving Jews are covenant breakers, since the bulk of Jews are still broken out branches.
But I’d probably leave covenant language out of it altogether.
The reason this is suddenly an explosive issue is because what you think about the biblical Israel will likely shape your foreign policy towards modern Israel. And that is true in a lot of cases. But as I see it, modern Israel is just another secular nation – and should be treated as such. How America relates to it is a matter or prudence and pragmatism.
At this point, I don’t buy into all the ways Staples distinguishes “Jew” from “Israel.”
But I do think he’s right, based on Gen 49:18, that the 10 mostly lost tribes got assimilated into the Gentiles and get saved in that way.
But that doesn’t account for “all Israel.” What about Judah/Jews?
I think the majority of people who identify as ethnic Jews today are descendants of Abraham. Even if you think the Ashkenzai are not, which is debatable, they are still the minority of ethnic/racial Jews in the world today.
But from a postmil perspective, how much does the futurist/preterist debate over Romans 11 matter?
A postmil believes all people groups will be converted – that would include those who identify as ethnic Jews.
So, amongst postmils, the only thing at stake is whether or not Jews are the last people group converted en masse as the capstone of the Great Commission.
TPC Pastor's Page 