Romans 11:11-24, Israel and Jesus’ Return (2)

In our previous post we expressed the idea that arguments against a place for literal Israel in the future do not really deny Israel that place.  Today let us consider arguments that demand a literal fulfillment of the literal promises to Israel in the OT.

Ø The detailed nature of the OT prophecies demand a literal, not merely spiritual fulfillment.  For example, when you read Ezek. 40-48, a description of a temple and nation that has not yet been seen in history, a temple and nation yet in the future, why is there such detail in measurements and description of various items and locations?  To make a spiritual point and give it to the Church does not require all that detail.  How would those details be fulfilled spiritually?  What makes sense is that Ezekiel is describing something real, an actual temple and nation.

Ø The unconditional and eternal nature of the promises given to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) and David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7) calls for a literal, future fulfillment.  The promise to Abraham did not depend on his righteousness; he only had to receive the promise by faith which he did (Gen. 15:6).  The fulfillment of the covenant was entirely up to God (Gen. 5:7-21).  If Israel forfeits the promise it says something about God, not about Abraham.  Moses understood this and prayed accordingly, calling upon God to be true to His character (Num. 14:11-19).  Also, consider the covenant with David of a king to reign forever on his throne.  How has that promise been fulfilled so far?  It has been literal with the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.  But the fulfillment is not complete and it makes sense that the end of it all will also be literal, with Christ on the throne of David in Zion.

Ø The NT maintains a clear distinction between Israel and the Church.  Consider today’s reading as an example.  Certainly Paul has argued there is one Body today, with Jew and Gentile.  But this does not keep him from speaking of the nation as a continuing and future reality.  God is able to graft them in again (Rom. 11:23).  How can God do that if they have ceased to exist in His plan?  Paul actually speaks in Rom. 11:28 of the actual relationship of the Church and Israel: Israel opposes the Church, and yet both continue to be beloved because of election.  

Ø The NT promises a future to Israel as a nation; this is quite clear in the latter part of Romans 11 (v11,25-27).  It is interesting that Paul, in 11:26-27, quotes from the OT (Isa. 59:10-21; 27:9).  Paul still believes in the literal fulfillment of what Isaiah said.  We would do well to do the same.

We should be very clear: national Israel today is not that saved nation.  But in the plan of God the regathering comes first, then the refining/chastening of Israel by the nations, then the saving of Israel, the judgment of the nations and the exaltation of Christ to His earthly throne.  Israel’s existence today is an argument for, not against, the promise of Christ’s return.