israel ology 3

8/11/2019 Israel Ology 3

1/21

1

ISRAELOLOGY

Part 3 of 6

by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

ISRAEL PRESENT

(continued)

Introduction

This article continues the discussion of Israels present theo-

logical role. Part 1 of Israel Present dealt with the outworking of

Gods Kingdom Program in this age and the relevance of the un-

conditional covenants and the Law of Moses in this

dispensation.1 It concluded by discussing the Churchs relation-

ship to the unconditional Jewish covenants and the purposes of

Gentile salvation. This article considers Israel Present in rela-

tion to the Law and to the Church.

The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses

The Unity of the Law of Moses

Two errors have developed in the minds and teachings of

many Christians that have contributed to the confusion over the

Law of Moses. One is the division of the law into ceremonial,

legal, and moral commandments. Based on this separation many

surmise that believers are free from the ceremonial and legal

commandments, but are still under the moral commandments.The second error is the common belief that the Ten Command-

ments are still valid today while the other 603 commandments

are not. When confronted by a Seventh Day Adventist, the indi-

vidual taking this approach runs into problems concerning the

fourth commandment on keeping the Sabbath. All attempts to

1CTS Journal5 (JulySeptember 1999) contains: Israelology: Israel Present.

Part 1.


2/21

CTS Journal,vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)2

rationalize a Sunday-Sabbath (the first day) result in either direct

contradiction of Scripture or an inconsistent hermeneutic.

It must be understood that the Scriptures view the Mosaic

Law as a unit. When the word Torah, law, refers to the Law of

Moses, it is always singular, although it contains 613 command-

ments. The same is true of the Greek word nomos in the New

Testament. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial,

legal, and moral parts is convenient for studying the different

types of commandments contained within it, but the Scriptures

never divide it in this way. Neither is there any scriptural basis

for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and

making only the ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a sin-

gle unit comprising the Law of Moses.

The principle of the unity of the Law of Moses underliesJames 2:10:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble

in one point, he is become guilty of all.2

The point is clear. A person who breaks even one of the 613

commandments is guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses.

This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit. If it were not,

the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and

not in the whole law. In other words, if an individual breaks a

legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial andmoral laws as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or

ceremonial commandment. To bring the point home, if a person

eats ham, according to the Law of Moses, he is guilty of breaking

the Ten Commandments, although none of the ten says anything

about ham. The law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 com-

mandments is to break them all.

2Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the American Stan-

dard Version (ASV), 1901.


3/21

3

A clear understanding of the Law of Moses and its relation-

ship to the believer (Jewish or Gentile) requires viewing it as the

Scriptures portray it: A singular unity cannot be divided into

parts that have been abolished and parts that remain. Nor, can

certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give

them a different status from other commandments.

The Law of Moses Has Been Rendered Inoperative

The plain teaching of the New Testament is that the death of

Christ rendered the Law of Moses inoperative. In other words,

the law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual.

This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4:

For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to

every one that believeth.

The Greek word for end, telos, can mean either termina-

tion or goal. Here, however, the evidence clearly favors the

meaning of end. For example, Thayer gives the primary

meaning of telosas:

. . . end, i.e. a. termination, the limit at which a thing

ceases to be, . . . in the Scriptures also of a temporal

end; . . . Christ has brought the law to an end.3

Not only does Thayer give termination as the primary meaning

of telos, he also includes Romans 10:4 as belonging to that cate-

gory of usage. Nor is goal listed as a secondary or even tertiary

in priority of usage; it is fourth on the list. Arndt and Gingrich

give the primary meaning of the verbal form as bring to an end,

finish, complete.4 The nominal telos has the primary meaning

3 Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being

Grimms Wilkes Clavis Novi Testamenti, rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1889;

reprint ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 61920.4 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the

New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. and ed. by


4/21


of: end . . . in the sense of termination, cessation.5They also

list Romans 10:4 under this category and list the meaning of

goal as third on the list.

In the final analysis, other Scriptures teach both truths: The

Messiah is the goal of the law, but He is also the termination of

the law. Since Christ is the end of the law, there is no justification

through the law (Galatians 2:16). This, was always true of justifi-

cation, but since the ending of the law, sanctification or

perfection no longer comes through the law (Hebrews 7:19).

Thus, it should be quite evident that the law ended in Christ. It

cannot function in justification or sanctification. It has been ren-

dered inoperative, especially for the believer.

Second, the law was never designed as a permanent

administration but only a temporary one, as is evident inGalatians 3:19:

What then is the law? It was added because of transgres-

sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath

been made.

In context, Paul stated that the Law of Moses was an addition to

the Abrahamic Covenant (3:1518). It was added for the purpose

of making sin very clear so that all will know that they have

fallen short of Gods standard for righteousness. It was a tempo-

rary addition until the seed(Messiah) would come; now that Hehas come, the law is finished. The addition has ceased its func-

tion with the cross.

William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from Walter

Bauers fifth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v.

, 810.5BAGD, s.v. , 810.


5/21

5

Third, Messiah introduces a new priesthood according to

the Order of Melchizedek, not according to the Order of Aaron.

The Mosaic Law provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood,

creating an inseparable connection between the Law of Moses

and the Levitical priesthood. Thus, a new priesthood required a

new law under which it could operate (Hebrews 7:1118). He-

brews 7:1112 argues that the law permitted only one type of

priesthood, the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood could not

bring perfection. As Hebrews 9:1110:18 explains, animal blood

cannot bring perfection; only the Messiahs blood could do that.

The Mosaic Law was the basis for the Levitical priesthood.

Doing away with the Levitical priesthood and replacing it with

the new priesthood of Melchizedek, required a new law. During

the tenure of the Law of Moses, the Aaronic or Levitical priest-

hood alone was valid (Hebrews 7:1317). Was there, in fact, a

change of the law? Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law wasdisannulled. Because it is no longer in effect, the new priest-

hood after the Order of Melchizedek replaced it. If the Mosaic

Law were still in effect, Jesus (a non-Levite) could not function

as a priest. The ending of the Mosaic Law allowed Jesus to be a

priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Fourth, Ephesians 2:1415 indicates that the law was the

middle wall of partition that was now broken down:

For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down

the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his fleshthe enmity, even the law of commandments contained in

ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one

new man, so making peace. . . .

As noted earlier, God made four unconditional eternal covenants

with Israel. God mediates all of His blessings, both material and

spiritual, through these four Jewish covenants. God also had a

fifth covenant which was temporary and conditional. The Mosaic

Covenant contained the Mosaic Law that temporarily served as a


6/21


wall of partitionto keep the Gentiles as Gentiles away from en-

joying Jewish spiritual blessings. If the Mosaic Law were still in

effect, the wall of partition would still keep the Gentiles away,

but the death of Christ broke down the wall of partition. Since the

wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, God has done away with

the Law of Moses. Gentiles as Gentiles, because of faith, can and

do enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings as fellow-partakers of the

promise in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:234:7 provides the fifth line of evidence. This

passage looks upon the law as a pedagogue or a tutor over a mi-

nor to bring him to mature faith in the Messiah (3:24). Having

become a believer, the minor is no longer under this tutor, that is,

the Law of Moses (3:25). This passage clearly teaches that with

Messiahs coming, the law is no longer in effect.

As the sixth line of evidence for the annulment of the Mo-

saic Law, 2 Corinthians 3:211 focuses in on the part of the law

that most people want to retain, the Ten Commandments. Con-

cerning the Law of Moses, verse 7 calls it a ministration of

death. Verse 9 calls the law the ministration of condemnation.

These are negative, but valid, descriptions. Verses 3 and 7 spot-

light the Ten Commandments, the ones that were engraven on

stones. Therefore, the Law of Moses, especially as represented

by the Ten Commandments, is a ministration of death and a

ministration of condemnation. If the Ten Commandments were

still in force today, this would still be true. However, they areno longer in force, for verses 7 and 11 state that the law has

passed away.

The Greek word used is katargeo, which means to render

inoperative. Since the passage focuses on the Ten Command-

ments, the thrust is very clear, they have passed away. In fact, the


7/21

7

superiority of the Law of Christ is that it will never be rendered

inoperative.6

To summarize, the law is a unit comprising 613 command-

ments of which all have been rendered inoperative beyond the

cross of Christ. The law is in the Old Testament and offers a

teaching tool showing Gods standard of righteousness, as well as

mans sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can

illustrate many spiritual truths about God. It can point the unbe-

liever to Christ (Galatians 3:2325). However, it has completely

ceased to function as an authority over the individual and is no

longer the rule of life for believers.

What about the moral law? Covenant Theologians generally

try to retain this aspect of the Law of Moses, thereby arguing that

the Law of Moses is still in effect. Robert Lightner has spelled

out the dispensational view of the moral law:

The moral law of God refers to those eternal principles

that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not

believe the moral law of God terminated at Calvary.

Neither do they believe . . . that the moral law of God and

the Ten Commandments are identical. McQuilkin

verbalized dispensational sentiments when he said, The

moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law; however,

the Mosaic Law, which was added because of

transgressions, included the moral law. It included also the

ceremonial law, civil law, criminal law, sanitary law,

governmental law. But the moral law existed before

Moses and continues after the cross.

To do the things forbidden in the Ten Commandments

did not first become wrong when the Decalogue was

given to Moses and then to the children of Israel at Si-

nai. It had always been sinful to do those things. These

6 Dispensationalism does not insist that the Ten Commandments are still in

force. Thus, it avoids Covenant Theologys exegetical gymnastics to circum-

vent observing the Sabbath according to the way in which the Ten

Commandments actually require.


8/21


basic principles stem from the person of God and are as

eternal as He is.7

The moral law did not begin with Moses and did not termi-

nate with Christ. The moral law is not identical to the Law of

Moses. It preceded the Law of Moses. Adam and Eve broke themoral law long before Moses. Satan broke the moral law even

before Adam. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law as

does the Law of Christ, but it did not originate it.

A favorite objection to the dispensational view of the

Law of Moses is an interpretation of Christs statement in

Matthew 5:1718:

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I

came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto

you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittleshall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be

accomplished.

Although Covenant Theologians often cite this passage, they are

seldom consistent with it.

It is obvious that Jesus spoke of the Law of Moses. Yet no

Covenant Theologian accepts his own thesis, since he must be-

lieve in the abolition (in some form) of many commands of the

Law of Moses, if not most. The commandments concerning

priesthood and sacrifice are only one example: Others can becited (food laws, clothing laws, etc.). Many of the 613 com-

mandments no longer apply as originally written, regardless of

the semantics employed: (supersede, brought to greater ful-

fillment, bringing out its true meaning, et al.), clearly. If

Covenant Theologians limit the Law of Mosesto only the moral

commandments, then their citation of Matthew 5:1718 errs.

7 Robert P. Lightner, A Dispensational Response to Theonomy, Bibliotheca

Sacra143 (JulySeptember 1986): 240.


9/21

9

Verse 19 adds these least commandments, which includes more

than merely the moral commandments. The emphasis of verses

17-18 is on the entire law, all 613 commandments. Verse 19

reads:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least

commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called

least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and

teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of

heaven.

True, Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of

Moses did not end at His coming, or during His life, but upon His

death. He spoke Matthew 5:1719 (including verse 19) while He

was living. As long as He was living He needed to obey the Law

of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded (not as the rabbis

had reinterpreted it).

As Mark 7:19b illustrates, while Christ was living, He also

foreshadowed the abolition of the law: This he said making all

meats clean (ASV).8Can it be any clearer than this that at least

the dietary commandments have been done away? Again, all

Covenant Theologians must admit that many parts of the law no

longer apply in the manner Moses prescribed. Have they been

done away with or not? To constantly claim that the Law of

Moses is still in effect and/or equating it with the Law of Christ,

while ignoring the details of that same law, is logically inconsis-

tent and theologically fallacious.

The Law of Christ

8Editors note: the ASV follows the Critical Text. The Majority Text treats the

verses as a parallel to Matthew 15:17. In this case, Jesus is only speaking of

the digestive system protecting against defilement. Even so, the point stands,

because Acts 10:1115 and 11:59 pronounce meats clean, while Romans

14:13 treats meats as doubtful things. Whether or not Mark 7:19b reads with

the Critical Text, the New Testament abolishes the dietary laws.


10/21


The Law of Moses has been disannulled, so believers are now

under a new law. Galatians 6:2 calls this new law the Law of

Christ; Romans 8:2 refers to it as the Law of the Spirit of Life. This

is a brand-new law, totally distinct from the Law of Moses. The

Law of Christ contains all the individual commandments from

Christ and the Apostles applicable to a New Testament believer.

A simple comparison of details shows that the Law of

Christ is not and cannot be the same as the Law of Moses. Four

observations are crucial. First, many commandments are the

same as those of the Law of Moses. For example, nine of the Ten

Commandments are also in the Law of Christ. Second, many are

different from the Law of Moses. For example, there is no Sab-

bath law now (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16) and no dietary

code (Mark 7:19; Romans 14:20). Third, the Law of Christ inten-

sifies some commandments in the Law of Moses. The Law of

Moses said: love thy neighbor as thyself(Leviticus 19:18). Thismade man the standard. The Law of Christ says: love one an-

other, even as I have loved you (John 15:12). This makes the

Messiah the standard; He loved us enough to die for us. Fourth,

the Law of the Messiah provides a new motivation. The condi-

tional Mosaic Covenant was the basis of the Law of Moses, so

the motivation was: do, in order to be blessed. The unconditional

New Covenant is the basis of the Law of Christ, so the motiva-

tion is: you have been (and are) blessed, therefore, do.

The reason so much confusion exists over the relationship

of the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ is that each containsmany commandments, which are similar to the others. There-

fore, many presume the retention of certain sections of the law.

However, the law was an indivisible entity, so the similarity of

certain commandments cannot imply a partial retention. The Bi-

ble contains a number of legal codes, such as the Edenic,

Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, New, and Kingdom. A new code may

contain some commandments resembling the previous code,

without suggesting that the previous code is still in effect. While

certain commandments of the Adamic Code were also found in


11/21

11

the Edenic Code, it did not mean that the Edenic Code was still

partially in force: It ceased to function with the fall of man.

Likewise, the Law of Christ contains many commandments simi-

lar to the Law of Moses. For example, the Law of Christ includes

nine of the Ten Commandments, but this does not mean that the

Law of Moses is still in force.

Christs death rendered the Law of Moses inoperative, so

we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different

commandments: Under the Law of Moses, pork was forbidden to

eat, but under the Law of Christ, no such prohibition exists.

There are many similar commandments, but they are nonetheless

in two separate systems. Today, if a believer steals, he does not

break the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ.

The Sabbath

The Sabbath was the sign, seal, and token of the MosaicCovenant. As long as that covenant was in effect, the Sabbath

Law was mandatory. Dispensationalism teaches that since the

Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative, then the Sabbath

command no longer applies. Covenant Theologians, with their

hypocritical insistence that the Law of Moses is still in effect,

also insist that the Sabbath law applies. However, they totally

ignore what Moses wrote about Sabbath-keeping even to the

extent of changing its day of observation from Saturday to

Sunday, which the Law of Moses would forbid. They break the

very rule that they claim to obey.9

Israel and the Church

9Many Jewish believers also insist on mandatory Sabbath keeping. Though

they inconsistently base it on the Law of Moses, they at least retain it as the

seventh day of the week. The apologetics for mandatory Sabbath keeping de-

rive almost exclusively from the Old Testament for obvious reasons: The New

Testament commandment has no command for believers in general or Jewish

believers in particular to keep the Sabbath. The New Covenant Scriptures

themselves nowhere support the claim that Sabbath observance is part of the

New Covenant. In fact, if anything, they would teach the opposite.


12/21


The Evidences for the Distinction of Israel and the Church

The first evidence is that the Church began at Pentecost.

The relationship of Spirit-baptism to the Church establishes this.

Colossians 1:18 refers to the Church as the Body of Christ. Ac-

cording to 1 Corinthians 12:13, entrance into this Body is by

Spirit-baptism. Acts 1:5 regards Spirit-baptism as yet future. Acts

11:1516 shows that Spirit-baptism actually began in Acts 2:14,

even though Acts 2 does not explicitly mention baptism. Peter,

while defending his entrance into a Gentiles house in Acts 10 to

preach the gospel, points out that the Gentiles received the same

experience of Spirit-baptism as did the Jews (10:15). Peter states

that the Holy Spirit fell on them[the Gentiles] (Acts 10:4446),

as the Holy Spirit once fell on us[Jewish believers] at the begin-

ning. The beginningfor the Jewish believers was in Acts 2:14.

10

Peters reference to Acts 1:5 in Acts 10:16 shows that Acts 2:14

fulfilled the Acts 1:5 prophecy. Since Spirit-baptism is necessary

to the existence of the Church, and since this particular ministry

of the Holy Spirit only began as of Acts 2, the Church did not

exist before then, but only began in Acts 2. Moreover, there is no

biblical evidence that the Church began either with Adam or

Abraham or that it even existed in the Old Testament. Matthew

16:18s use of the future tense shows it did not exist during

Christs earthly ministry either.

The secondevidence is that three events in the life of theMessiah were prerequisites to establishing the Church. The first

of these was His atoning death: The Church would be built on

Messiahs blood. It is no accident that Jesus began predicting

His coming death (Matthew 16:21) immediately after announc-

ing that He would build a new entity, the Church (Matthew

16:18). The second event was Christs resurrection (Ephesians

10Note Acts 2:10,which clarifies that the many people from various countries

(Acts 2:811) were all Jews or proselytes.


13/21

13

1:2023). The Church is the Body, Christ is the head of the

Church, but He became its head only by virtue of his resurrec-

tion. The third event was His ascension (Ephesians 4:711).

The Church could only become a functioning entity once the

Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts. According to

this passage, the Holy Spirit could not give these spiritual gifts

until after the ascension.

The thirdevidence is the mystery character of the Church. A

mysteryis a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testa-

ment (Ephesians 3:35, 9; Colossians 1:2627). While Scripture

does not call the Church itself a mystery, it so labels a number of

features that are unique to the Church. There are four such fea-

tures: (a) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers

united into one body is a mystery (Ephesians 3:112). (b) The

doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ in you

concept, is a mystery(Colossians 1:2427; 2:1019; 3:4, 11). (c)

The concept of the Church as the Bride of Christ is a mystery(Ephesians 5:2232). (d) The Rapture with its corollary events of

the resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living is

called a mysteryin 1 Corinthians 15:5058. These four mysteries,

each relevant only to the Church, show that the Church itself is a

mysteryand distinct from Israel.

Thefourthevidence is that the Church is called the one new

manin Ephesians 2:15. Paul mentioned three groups in this con-

text (2:113:6): Israel, the Gentiles, and the one new man. He

distinguishes this one new manfrom both Israel and the Gentiles.

It is comprised of believing members from both: that he mightcreate in himself of the two . . .This one new manis identified as

the Church in 2:16 (the body) and 3:6 (same body).

The fifthevidence is that 1 Corinthians 10:32 distinguishes

the same three groups (Jews, Greeks, and the Church) from each

other. Since this contrast comes well after the establishment of

the Church, all three groups coexist simultaneously.

The Use ofIsraelin the New Testament


14/21


The term Israel occurs 73 times in the New Testament

referring each time to national ethnic Israel. It may refer to Jews

in general or believing Jews in particular, but it is always ethnic

Jews. It never refers to the Church.

The Israel of God

Galatians 6:16 is the onlypassage adduced by all Covenant

Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or

that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not

prove any such thing. The passage reads:

And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them,

and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles attempting

to attain assurance of salvation through the law. The ones deceiv-

ing them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to

the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism

before he qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul

states that salvation is by faith, resulting in theone new man. He

also mentions two elements: circumcision and uncircumcision.

This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two groups

already mentioned by these very terms in 2:79.

In verse 16, Paul pronounces a blessing on members of thetwo groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith

alone. The first group is the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile

Christians to whom and of whom he devotes most of the epistle.

The second group is the Israel of God. These are the circumci-

sion, the Jewish believers who, in contrast with the Judaizers,

followed the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone.

Covenant Theologians here ignore the primary meaning of kai

(and) which separates the two groups and instead insist on a sec-

ondary or lesser meaning (even) in order to blur distinctions


15/21

15

within the body of Christ. Thus, the only support of the theory

that that the Church is spiritual Israel (or that Gentile believers

become spiritual Jews) is a secondary meaning of one word, kai.

The secondary meaning hardly applies in this verse containing a

blessing for both Jewish and Gentile believers. This kind of cir-

cular reasoning persists, despite the remarkable absence of

scriptural support.11

Israel Today

The re-establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 has not

only thrown a wrench into amillennial thinking, but it has also

put a chink into much of premillennial thinking. Amazingly,

some Dispensationalists conclude that the present State of Israel

has nothing to do with fulfillment of prophecy. On what

grounds do they so flagrantly dismiss the present State of

Israel? The issue bothering them is that not only do thereturning Jews reject Jesus, but the majority of the returnees are

atheists or agnostics, not Orthodox Jews. Certainly, Israel today

does not fit biblical passages speaking of its return as a

regenerated nation. However, this reasoning fails to see that the

prophets spoke of two international returns. First, Israel will

regather in unbelief in preparation for tribulational judgment. A

second worldwide regathering in faith will then follow in

preparation for the blessings of the messianic age. Once

recognized that the Bible speaks of two distinct regatherings,

the present State of Israel easily fits into prophecy.

One passage clearly dealing with a return in unbelief in

preparation for judgment is Ezekiel 20:3338. This passage draws

a simile between the Exodus and the future return. At the Exodus,

God brought the entire nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt into

the Sinai Peninsula. While in the Wilderness of Sinai, Gods plan

11See S. Lewis Johnson, Paul and the Israel of God: An Exegetical and Es-

chatological Case-Study, in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed.

Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 18196.


16/21


for Israel was to accomplish two things: 1) to give them the Law of

Moses; and 2) for them to build the Tabernacle through which

much of the law could then be observed. Afterwards, they were to

enter the Promised Land. Due to a series of murmurings and rebel-

lions, God finally entered into judgment with His people at Kadesh

Barnea (on the very border of the Promised Land). The judgment

condemned the entire generation (from the age of twenty upward)

to forty years of wandering.

After the forty years in the wilderness a whole new na-

tion,12

a nation born as free men in the wilderness and not as

slaves in Egypt, was able to enter the land under Joshua. Ac-

cording to Ezekiel 20, a similar thing will occur in the future.

God will first regather His scattered people from all over the

world. That this gathering is not in faith, but in unbelief, is seen

from the fact that it is with a mighty hand, and with an out-stretched arm, and with wrath poured out. Verses 33 and 34

repeat this phrase twice. This regathering in unbelief occurs af-

ter God pours wrath on the people. It is no accident that the

birth of the State of Israel was out of the Nazi Holocausts fires.

Once this gathering has fully taken place, God will enter into

judgment with His people: The Tribulation judgments will

purge out the rebels. This will leave a whole new regenerated

nation, which will be able to enter the messianic land of Israel

under King Messiah. This passage clearly speaks of a regather-

ing in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

Another passage, Ezekiel 22:1722, also speaks of a regath-

ering in preparation for judgment. Furthermore, it clearly relates

this regathering in unbelief particularly to Jerusalem. While pri-

marily dealing with the regeneration of Israel, Ezekiel 36:2224,

nevertheless, makes it clear that a regathering takes place before

the regeneration. Isaiah 11:1112 also deals with the same ques-

12 Only two Egyptian-born men, Joshua and Caleb, survived the wilderness

wanderings to enter the land.


17/21

17

tion. It refers to the regathering in faith in preparation for the Mil-

lennial Kingdom as the second international regathering. So,

when did the first one occur? It cannot refer to the Babylonian

return because that was a regional and not an international return

as the text demands. Hence, the first international regathering is

the one that would be in preparation for judgment. It is clear that

this passage speaks of two international regatherings while em-

phasizing the second one. The second regathering will be in faith,

but not the first.

Passages speaking of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-

tion for judgment ought to be understood in relation to other

passages referring to a regathering in faith in preparation for

blessing. Although none of the aforementioned passages have

specifically stated that this regathering in unbelief precedes the

Tribulation period, Zephaniah 2:12 does:

Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O

nation that hath no shame; before the decree bring

forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce

anger of Jehovah come upon you, before the day of

Jehovahs anger come upon you.

The preceding section (Zephaniah 1:1418) describes some

features of a time called the great day of Jehovah, or as other

translations have it, the day of the Lord. This is the most common

Old Testament name for the Tribulation. Zephaniah 2:12 speaks

of an event that occurs before the great day of Jehovahbegins.

Verse 1 commands the nation of Israel to gather together. The

Lords anger against the people shows that this is a gathering in

unbelief. Verse two uses the word beforethree times in reference

to the preceding passage regarding the Tribulation. One of these

uses of before includes the before the day of Jehovah itself.

While other texts speak of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-

tion for judgment, this passage clearly states that this regathering

in unbelief will occur before the Tribulation actually begins. The


18/21


restoration of the Jewish State fulfills prophecies speaking of a

regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

The Remnant of Israel and the Olive Tree

The doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches that a believ-

ing segment of the Jewish people always exists. The New

Testament teaches that the Remnant of Israel today consists of

Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. Although the key

New Testament passage is Romans 911, Pauls summary of his

Israelology, 1 Peter 2:110 is another passage on the Remnant of

Israel that is relevant to Israel Present.

1 Peter 2:110

Peters words in 1:12 indicate that he did not write theepistle to the Church at large, nor to a body of Gentile believers,

but to Jewish believers living outside Israels borders within a

Gentile population. The term Dispersion is a technical Jewish

term for Jews who live outside the land of Israel.13

Furthermore, Peter keeps mentioning that his readers live

among the Gentiles (2:12; 4:3). While many try to make the term

Gentiles mean unbelievers, that is neither its Jewish usage nor

even New Testament usage as a simple concordance search

shows. Peter uses the term Gentilein its normal meaning as non-

Jew as he addresses Jewish believers living among a Gentilepopulation. Expressions such as vain meaning of life handed

down from your fathers (1:18) have clear Jewish overtones dis-

tinguishing the Jewish believers from their past lives under

Rabbinic Judaism. In this section of the epistle, Peter draws a

contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant. His purpose

13All commentators agree that the two other uses, John 7:35 and James 1:1,

refer to the Jews of the Diaspora. No reason for making 1 Peter the exception

exists, since it fits well into Peters calling as the Apostle to the Circumcision

(Galatians 2:78).


19/21

19

is to show that while the non-remnant has failed in its calling, the

remnant has not failed.

To summarize, Peter does not draw a distinction between Is-

rael and the Church or between unbelieving Jews and believing

Gentiles. The distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews

who do not believe. His point is that while Israel as a whole failed,

the believing Remnant of Israel has not failed, and so the Remnant

of Israel fulfills the calling of the nation as a whole. Paul makes the

same point in his theology of Israel in Romans 911.

The Olive Tree

Paul begins by giving the illustration and the principle

(Romans 11:16). The connectingfor,if,or nowprovides the rea-

son for believing in a future national restoration. The illustration

is that of the firstfruit and the root which refer to Abraham, Isaac,Jacob, and the Abrahamic Covenant. They are holy because God

separated and consecrated them for a divine purpose. Israel as a

nation is the lump and the branches. The principle, based on

Numbers 15:1721, is that the holiness or consecration of the

firstfruits and the root passes on to the lump and the branches.

Just as the firstfruits sanctify the whole harvest (the lump), even

some day all Israel will also be sanctified. The Abrahamic Cove-

nant made with the patriarchs is the basis for the expectation of

Israels future national salvation.

The natural branches are the Jews (Israel) and the wildolive branches are the Gentiles (11:17). The Olive Tree in this

passage does not represent Israel or the Church, but it repre-

sents the place of spiritual blessing. The root of this place of

blessing is the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul makes the same

point that he made in Ephesians 2:1116 and 3:56. The Gen-

tiles, by their faith, have now become partakers of Jewish

spiritual blessings. This Olive Tree represents the place of

blessing, and now Gentiles have been grafted into this place of


20/21


blessing and made partakers of its sap, the Jewish spiritual

blessings as contained in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Gentiles are not taker-overs, but rather partakers of

Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul spoke of grafting of wild olive

branches into a good olive tree. Critics of Paul claim that he

misunderstood horticulture, because grafting a wild olive

branch into a good olive tree would be unnatural. That is

exactly Pauls point. Likewise, it is unnatural to graft Gentiles

into this place of blessing originating from the Abrahamic

Covenant. Paul does not regard this as normal; he says that it is

contrary to nature (Romans 11:24). Normally, such a graft

would be unfruitful. The point is that God is doing something

unnatural: He brings Gentiles into the place of blessing based

on the unconditional Jewish covenants.

Next Paul warns (11:1822) that the basis of Gentile blessing

is faith, not merit. If the Gentiles are to remain in the place of

blessing, they must continue in faith. Israels failure should teach

them a lesson. He does not deal with individuals as such (i.e.

individual believers and unbelievers), but with nationalities of

Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were in the place of blessing as a

nationality, but because of their unbelief, they were broken off.

Now Gentiles are to be found in the place of blessing; but if they

fail in faith, they also will be broken off from the place of blessing.

This is not a loss of salvation, but a removal from the place of

blessing. The warning is that the basis of Gentile blessing is faith,not merit. He warns Gentiles against boasting over the natural

branches, for the wild branches are not self-sustained, but are

sustained by the root: the Abrahamic Covenant, a Jewish covenant.

To be continued


21/21

21

Arnold Fruchtenbaum earned a B.A. degree from Cedarville College, a

Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from New York

University. He is the founder of Ariel Ministries in Tustin, CA, a min-

istry to Jewish people around the world; he holds Bible conferences in

most English speaking countries. Arnold is also an adjunct professor at

Chafer Theological Seminary. CTS accepts Dr. Fruchtenbaums bi-annual five-week study tour of Israel for credit. His e-mail address is

[email protected].

israel ology 3

Documents