The following post is from Jesse Zaplatynskyj. Jesse is a registered nurse and has a Degree in Theology from Tabor College Adelaide, South Australia.
I’ve often heard Christian Zionists say that the promise in the Old Testament (OT) regarding the Land that was given to Israel is something that is still to be fulfilled (and apparently happening currently). I hear of all the passages they speak of – the Torah (esp Genesis 12) and the thousands of mentions throughout the prophets which speak of a ‘return’ to the land.
But I have to then ask them (and myself) why isn’t there such a big emphasis on this in the New Testament (new covenant)? If this was such a huge part of our belief system as Christians today and the New Testament church then, why didn’t Jesus speak of it with the passion I hear from Christian Zionists? And while Paul spoke about it a bit in Rom 9-11 there isn’t much else mentioned about it? Why is this? I hear a lot about the “kingdom of God” throughout the gospels, and the struggles Paul has with his Jewish friends regarding all sorts of problems regarding how to now understand Jesus as the Messiah everyone’s been expecting – but not a lot about the necessity of ethnic Jews returning to a specific land in order to usher in a new age. Why is this? Every Jew knew that the messiah was to come in and get rid of the Romans and establish an ever-lasting Israel. But for some reason Jesus seemed to predict the end of the Temple (and the end of Israel as a nation) with agreement (eg Matt 21:12-27). What’s up with that?
Let’s briefly look at Romans 9-11 as I’m sure some may not think I’m taking this seriously if I just pass over it so casually. Firstly, Paul is challenging the established idea of what it means to be an Israelite. In Romans 4 we here that Abraham was righteous not because of his nationality “according to the flesh” (v 1) but because he “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (v 2). This was not about circumcision (or the law) (v 9-11a) but “was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised” etc (v 11b). In chapter 9 again he is challenging what it means to be Jewish by looking at Jacob and Esau concluding that “it does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (v 16). The Gospel according to Paul is not about being God’s people through the traditions of Israel anymore but about believing in God. He is challenging the identity of Israel now that Jesus has come! He says “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9: 6). Paul then goes on to discuss how Israel has misunderstood its call (9:30-10:21) but refuses to believe that they have been abandoned and speaks about the engrafted branches (11:1-24). He is one of them, and he speaks with great emotion – he wears his heart on his sleave here. And as such, “all [re-defined] Israel will be saved” (11:25-32).
The problem for Christian Zionists however, is that there is not one mention of the land throughout this section! Furthermore, this section is heavily filled with OT references and not one of them is about returning to the land. Why? Because it’s about righteousness, belief, and being God’s children: “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him” (10:12).
But what about all those OT prophecies? How do we then interpret them? I believe the prophets were talking of an earth where God would be known to all and the land was a symbol for that message. Essentially, they were speaking in terms they understood about something they could not explain. The Land was always given so that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3). The land, along with the rest of the Old Covenant, only did a partial job of the restoration of our hardened hearts. It needed something more. It needed to be more directly connected with God. It needed Jesus (see book of Hebrews).
Jesus said “I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil them” (Matt 5:17). Jesus (Immanuel), as God, came to be with us (humanity) – for all. This is the way the first church understood it. In Acts 2, Peter uses OT passages such as Joel that already started to understand this where God “will pour out his spirit on all people” (Acts 2:14). Other OT prophesies such as Ezek 34 speaks of a true Shepard (compare John 10), Ezek 37 speaks of the dead bones of Israel being made alive by the spirit of God (compare John 3). Jesus has done this. This is the Gospel. This is the new covenant where we do not need a temple to have access to God, but all have direct access to the Father through the life and death of Jesus (see Hebrews again).
As such, why would anyone want to go back to the old way? If Christian Zionists want to be so strong about the Old Covenant calling about the land then what about the other laws of the Torah? Should we also be circumcising our boys, following food laws, and all the other hundreds of laws in the Torah? A quick reading of Galatians’ should clear that question up (answer is an emphatic ‘no’ in case you’re wondering).
As Christians we do have a hope that Jesus will return and bring heaven and earth together in a way that resembles God’s initial plan: the Garden of Eden. The groans of the world (Rom 8) will end and a new order will be established. God will bring a “new Jerusalem” from heaven and heaven and earth will be united (Rev 21). I don’t personally think that that is now happening in Israel at present. Do you?
Jesse Zaplatynskyj
Israel-Palestine 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 17, 2011 at 1:31 am
Marti
Read Gal 3 about who the real children of Abraham are and are heir to the promises God.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 2:03 am
Joel Ken
Cheers. That was real easy to understand. I usually find this stuff a lil tedious, and because of that, I have yet to wrap my head around it all. I think that when it’s history, my brain tends to shuts off more than when it’s the Bible, and that’s where you went well with me.
As a novice in these things, I’m still working it all out.
I’ve heard the classic Dispensational argument (and this is the only part of dispensational theology that seems to make sense to me) that if we take all the curses on ethnic Israel in the OT as literal, then why should we take the promises on ethnic Israel in the OT as spiritual/for the church? Care to comment on that argument? Is it fair? As in, is it true that we actually take all the curses as literal? And, if so, why not the promises?
Because, to me, a promise is a promise, something God doesn’t back away from. We can see that is what good Jews (like the disciples) were waiting for when Jesus came to earth? That was why there was so much confusion amongst them with Jesus as the Messiah, He was doing it all wrong (so, it seemed, to them).
Is it possible that the confusion they got was due to the fact (fact? I’m not this conclusive… Just for argument’s sake) that the kingdom WAS gonna come as promised, but not in the first coming of the Messiah, but the second. And the existence of Israel in today’s world is a massive apologetic witness that God is preserving the nation for the end times, when a remnant will be saved, as his word SEEMS to say.
I think you talked about that last line already with the part on Romans 11 (which was really easy to understand, by the way), so maybe just talk on the other stuff as it relates to that.
So, I said I was a novice, but I’ve obviously thought about it… Just haven’t come to any absolute conclusion. I would like to, though.
If you (or Craig) reply, I will read. But I’m at work so might not reply back straight away, but will do later in the day or night.
J ken
LikeLike
June 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm
zaplation
I will attempt to comment briefly. Not sure exactly what you mean when discussing dispensationalism about curses and promises – especially the curses. Not sure if they should be taken literally either.
Regarding promise: No i don’t think God backed out of this promise either. But the promise regarding the land wasn’t just about the land. It was that in this part of the land, God would create something that would then be a blessing to the whole world. The land is not the end point. Essentially the working out of the life in the torah was on this land. But that was never going to be enough. God was reconciling the world to himself, but the law was only a temporary thing. In the end it is God coming to us in Jesus that was the purpose of the whole thing with Abraham (Rom 4, 9-11, Gal 3). Temporarily (and not completely) God used the land and the kings (reluctantly) such as king David to set up God’s dwelling place amongst the people in the Temple. But in the new covenant it doesn’t mater where you are, and it doesn’t require a temple. It is worldwide. Jesus interpreted these things differently – thats why there was so much confusion. Everyone expected a military messiah who would save them from the Romans (note Peter picking up a sword at Gethsemane) and go back to the good old days of King David. But we see that Jesus was very different (A LOT more could be said there).
In terms of a ‘remnant’ (as per Rom 11) I’m not exactly sure what Paul meant. It is a very Jewish thing to do (all through the OT there is talk of a ‘remnant’). I personally am quite open to the idea that when Jesus returns and heaven and earth unite (such as new jeruselam from heaven in Rev 21) that it could start in Israel. But I don’t think that is a necessary interpretation (Revelations was never a literal account – ya gotta understand it’s genre). I’ll have to keep researching this aspect of Romans. But as Marti (above) rightly points out, Gal 3 sees us all (Jew or Gentile) as now one – and it kinda makes it hard to believe there is another specific end time plan with ethnic israel. I’m always suspicious of those who are so dogmatic about doctrines which are based on the most obscure passages in the Bible (surly it would be so much more clearer if it was that important!!).
Todays Israel is not a religious return to good old Godly Torah following. It is based on a completely secular belief which only used religious aspects to its own advantage. Those christians who think this MUST mean God is bringing in the end times because of this so called ‘miraculous’ return have been waiting 60 years so far (at least) and they don’t look like all turning to Christ any time soon. After 300 years they will be laughed at.
And since God heart (all through the OT passages which speak of warning of exile) is for the orphan, the widow, the alien, the poor, and all those in society who cannot fight for themselves, I find it hard to see the treatment of Palastinians at the hand of Israel at present as being anything like the Israel they were called to be. It must be remembered that though Israel was given the land, it was not for them to do whatever they liked. In Lev 25:23 it says “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” Ethnically cleansing and kicking out a people group to set up a SECULAR so called Israeli region is hardly what was meant in the Torah.
I’m not against Israel. I just want them to be in equal standing with the Palastinians at the very least. I think the Gospel demands it. I don’t think you can really argue with that as a Christian. Reading 2 Cor 5 makes that kind of worldview look silly as a Christian.
Thats what I think
Jesse Zaplatynskyj
LikeLike
June 18, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Joel Ken
Fair enough. That all makes sense to me. Though, to be sure, I’m not a guy who is in favour of anyone (Christian or not) who is not acting in accordance with the Bible. Not in terms of being lawful about it (in terms of salvation), just for the sake of God’s own righteousness to be upheld in this world.
And so, if Israel is acting up (which is what this site is seemingly all about), I wouldn’t be on the side of saying they should get away with that. It seems some Christians think they are still God’s chosen, and that’s where the confusion might be setting in.
They see God’s preservation of the nation as favour, but God’s favour is only for those who are in Christ (who, as you say, is reconciling Himself to the world). And so they react in being on their side because of His preservation, even when Israel is acting contrary to God’s law. And so, to me, I just think that if God really is preserving the nation, He can do it himself, and doesn’t need people sending in their support (in whatever form that is, I assume, money and such).
So, I do agree with you. I was mostly just seeing how it relates to some of the other things the Bible says, and it seems to do so fine. Interestingly, it seems that they are still continuing to act like the OT Jews, who hated the other nations, and (as you pointed out) God was definitely “on their backs” about that. So no Christian should be in support of it, if we truly want to be consistent with the Bible.
No argument there.
J Ken
LikeLike
June 19, 2011 at 1:30 am
zaplation
yep and hence – living under the old covenant still.
But If ya wanna know more about the history of this recent israel-palestine conflict over last 100 years have a look at Craig’s 5 youtube video’s on the left hand side of these posts. First one (I think) is called “what are the main beliefs of christian zionism?’
Later
LikeLike